Category: Goods

  • Through the Looking Glass – Revealing the Untold Story of the History of Glassmaking

    Through the Looking Glass – Revealing the Untold Story of the History of Glassmaking

    Bella Watson // AMH 4110.0M01 – Colonial America, 1607-1763

    Glass has always been a mystery to me. Where does it come from? How is it made? Is it significant? From my research, I have discovered several customers purchased glass items in the 1760-1761 ledger from the Glassford and Henderson store in Colchester, Virginia. This discovery motivated me to dig deeper into the mystery of glass and reveal the unanswered questions.

    An illustration depicting how a Jamestown glassblower might craft his wares. From the National Park Service.

    History behind the Glass: With the opportunity to prosper in the New World, colonists needed to produce profitable goods. After all, the New World was abundant with raw materials needed for glassmaking: sand, wood, and ashes.[1] In England, glass was in high demand; however, the country lacked the appropriate resources to create glass. Although the colonists had the resources, they originally had no talented artisans to make the glass.[2]

    Production in Jamestown: In 1608, the Virginia Company sent Dutch and Polish artisans to Jamestown, Virginia, as craftsmen to create various products, including glass. Within the year, the manufacturing of glass was established. After the “Tryal of Glasse” (samples of glassware that were produced) was sent over to England, the production in Jamestown was halted due to a population decrease.[3] Thanks to a nearby swamp, starving conditions and repeated epidemics created the need for a constant replenishment of new colonists.[4] In 1621, four Italian artisans were among a new shipment of colonists sent to Jamestown. These four men were to restart glass production. This venture was organized by Captain William Norton.[5] He created a well-organized plan that would ensure success in the glassmaking industry, however it did not start out as smoothly as he hoped. The production of glass was halted in 1622 because of bad weather, disease, and conflicts with Native Americans, though efforts would not completely cease until 1624.[6]

    The Process: At Jamestown, glass was produced from silica in sand on the shores of the James River and alkali from limestone and potash.[7] After these materials were gathered, they were cleaned by either washing or extreme heating. The freshly cleaned materials were then liquefied in the furnace, which was fueled by wood from the surrounding area. These furnaces reached up to 2,080 Fahrenheit which enabled the silica and alkali to form into crystals. It was then melted into a molten material ready to be blown into a finished piece.[8]

    Evidence: In the ledger, William Haden purchased “1 pint Glass Decanter” in 1761.[9] A decanter is “a bottle of…cut glass, with a stopper, in which wine is brought to the table, and from which the glasses are filled.”[10] The question that rose from these findings was: Where did this glass come from? Henderson ordered various glass instruments from Glasgow, Scotland, including 2 dozen pint glass decanters, 2 dozen quart glass decanters, and looking glasses.[11] From this, it appears that glass production in Scotland may have been more successful than colonial production.

    On July 2, 1761, William Haden purchased a “pint Glass Decanter” (folio 111D).
    A 1765-1775 glass decanter. Image courtesy of the Winterthur Museum Collections,  1976.0165A, B.

    The Northern Attempt: In 1739, Caspar Wistar, a brass button entrepreneur from Germany, travelled to Pennsylvania and established a glass factory in Alloway, New Jersey. Wistar and his son, Richard, used two furnaces, two flattening ovens, several pottery mills, and a cutting house to operate their factory for forty years.[12] Wistar’s glassmaking venture became the first successful glassmaking factory in America. Besides his massive production of bottles, he also began to produce window glass. In addition to his production of Waldglass (green-yellowish color) style items like bottles, Wistar added the production of a clearer colored glass to his body of work.[13]

    Making Connections: Though Wistar was extremely successful in his brass button making business – it is said to have totaled almost 700 pounds at his death – and though he had success in making window glass and bottles, there were other forms of glass making that he did not venture into.[14] One of these was glass buttons. According to one of the accounts from Colchester, in November, 1761, James Edwards bought a dozen glass buttons along with 2 dozen “mettle” buttons. Purchasing both types of buttons may have meant Mr. Edwards had a higher social standing. The glass buttons were more expensive than the metal ones by half a shilling or six pence.[15]

    James Edwards was among the colonists who purchased buttons of both the glass and “mettle” varieties (folio 019D).

    Much like it is today, glass in the eighteenth century was a versatile material, able to craft a variety of goods. Though some manufactures, such as window glass, were relatively inexpensive to buy, others, such as decanters, drinking vessels, and buttons, seem to be more reflective of a higher social standing.[16] The availability of these goods at the Colchester store in 1760-1761 stands as a testament to the materialism that would shape colonial identity for years to come.

     

    [1] National Park Service, “Jamestown Glasshouse,” Historic Jamestowne: Glasshouse, last modified April 12, 2012, accessed March 23, 2017, https://www.nps.gov/jame/planyourvisit/glasshouse.htm.

    [2] NPS, “Glasshouse.”

    [3] NPS, “Glassmaking at Jamestown,” Historic Jamestowne, last modified February 26, 2015, accessed May 25, 2018, https://www.nps.gov/jame/historyculture/glassmaking-at-jamestown.htm

    [4] Alan Taylor, “Virginia, 1570-1650”, in American Colonies: The Settling of North America (New York: Penguin Books, 2001), 130.

    [5] NPS, “Glassmaking.”

    [6] Ibid.

    [7] Thomas L. Purvis, Colonial America to 1763, Almanacs of American Life (New York: Facts on File, 1999), 107.

    [8] Purvis, Colonial America, 107.

    [9] Alexander Henderson, et. al. Ledger 1760-1761, Colchester, Virginia folio 111 Debit, from the John Glassford and Company Records, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Microfilm Reel 58 (owned by the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association).

    [10] “decanter, n.,” OED Online (Oxford University Press) http://www.oed.com/ezproxy.net.ucf.edu/view/Entry/48019?rskey=upZsGT&result=1&isAdvanced=false, accessed May 25, 2018.

    [11] Alexander Henderson, Charles Hamrick, and Virginia Hamrick, Virginia Merchants: Alexander Henderson, Factor for John Glassford at His Colchester Store, Fairfax County, Virginia, His Letter Book of 1758-1765 (Athens, Ga: Iberian Pub. Co, 1999).

    [12] Purvis, Colonial America, 107.

    [13] Ibid.

    [14] Insa Kummer, “Caspar Wistar established the first successful glass manufacturing business in North America,” Immigrant Entrepreneurship, last modified September 25, 2014, accessed May 25, 2018, https://www.immigrantentrepreneurship.org/entry.php?rec=1.

    [15] Henderson, et. al. Ledger, 1760-1761 folio 19 Debit.

    [16] David Dungworth, “The Value of Historic Window Glass,” The Historic Environment: Policy and Practice 2, No. 1 (June 2011): 41, DOI 10.1179/175675011X12943261434567.

  • Decisive Destruction: Firearms in North America, 1492-1776

    Decisive Destruction: Firearms in North America, 1492-1776

    Edwin Velez // AMH 4110.0M01 – Colonial America, 1607-1763

    Firearms played a pivotal role in the maintenance and defense of the North American colonies. After a slow start, guns became more common in colonial households and would come to play a crucial role in the American Revolutionary War.[1] Guns were first introduced to America by the Spanish in the initial conquest of the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. Superiority in firepower allowed these colonists and conquerors to dominate trade in coastal areas, intimidating Native Americans, whose stone weapons were no match for the awesome firepower of the Spanish arquebuses. However, firearms in general were quite scarce at this point, with most soldiers relying on steel swords or crossbows.[2] When invading Tenochtitlan in 1520, Spanish conquistador Hernan Cortés brought with him 12 gunmen to fight against the Aztecs. During the conquest of the Incas in 1533, Francisco Pizarro brought only three.[3] Their technological superiority would eventually allow the Spanish to dominate and to decimate Aztec, Mayan, and Incan populations.

    Native American tribes, when hunting for food, originally relied on bows and arrows or spears. However, as trade with Europeans increased over time, firearms became more common among coastal tribes, which eventually came to present a threat to the security of European colonists and rival tribes who had limited access to coastal trade networks.[4] Native Americans in northern colonies would typically offer wampum, a craft composed of shell beads, in exchange for firearms and other goods. In southern colonies, they would offer items such as deer skins and other animal pelts.[5]

    After 1607, when the British colony at Jamestown was first established, firearms played a pivotal role in Indian-English conflicts. Like the Spanish, the English used their superior firepower to intimidate and make an example of the Algonquians of Virginia, hoping to command the trade, respect, and fear of neighboring tribes. In turn, the Native Americans in the area learned the value of firearms as a resource and often accepted Jamestown deserters who brought such munitions with them.[6]

    This trade musket could be an example of the firearms that Native Americans traded animal pelts and wampum for in colonial America. From the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Acc. No. 1981-5.

    The first serious battle between Native Americans and English settlers was the Pequot War of 1636, which took place in modern-day Connecticut. In this conflict, the Pequot tribe fought against the English, who were aided by the Narragansett and Mohegan tribes, historical rivals of the Pequot people. A combination of arson and gunfire was utilized to massacre the Pequots.[7]

    The process of manufacturing firearms required specialization in a variety of skills, such as woodworking and blacksmithing. However, there were no gunsmiths in the colonies during the contact period. Firearms were mostly imported, crafted by European gunsmiths and delivered to the American colonies on ships across the Atlantic.[8]

    In October and December of 1760, and again in November of 1761, James Halley Junior purchased various amounts of powder and “shott” from the Colchester store in Virginia, making him a likely candidate of gun ownership (folio 48D).

    Upon inspection of the Glassford and Henderson Colchester store ledger from 1760-61, it is apparent that firearms were a component to life in the Virginia colony in the eighteenth century and ammunition required occasional restocking. Among the many purchases, powder and “shott” are somewhat common, usually measured in pounds and purchased together. Powder was purchased 92 times in 1760-1761, while shot was bought 93 times.[9] These goods usually appeared once per account, though sometimes twice, suggesting that the initial purchase lasted for some time before requiring restocking. For example, James Halley Junior bought powder and shot twice in 1761: March and November.[10] Less common was gunflint, the primary component to lighting the gunpowder necessary to fire the weapons. This good was purchased only 34 times.[11] The purchases were made towards the end of summer and the beginning of autumn, implying that settlers were possibly preparing for the upcoming hunting season. In 1738, the Virginia House of Burgesses passed “An Act, for the better preservation of the breed of Deer; and preventing unlawful Hunting”, which stipulated that bucks could only be hunted from the beginning of August to the beginning of December, and that does and fawns could only be hunted from the beginning of November to the end of December.[12] Though colonists were likely hunting animals other than deer, this law shows that hunting practices were moderated and those who disobeyed were punished.

    A powder horn made around 1758-1760 in the colonies, used to store gunpowder. From the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Acc. No. 2011-5.

    In all cases, actual purchases of firearms in 1760-1761 were virtually absent from the ledgers, suggesting that guns were purchased elsewhere or were already part of a household by that point. However, the frequency of ammunition purchases show the relative importance of firearms in colonial America as hunting tools, a far cry from the purpose of the first firearms brought to the New World.

     

     

    [1] Richard L. Legault, Trends in American Gun Ownership (New York, LFB Scholarly Publications, 2008), 15.

    [2] Alan Taylor, American Colonies: The Settling of North America, Vol. 1 (New York: Penguin Books, 2002), 56.

    [3] M.L. Brown, Firearms in Colonial America: The Impact on History and Technology, 1492-1792 (Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1980), 41.

    [4] Taylor, American Colonies, 98.

    [5] Ibid., 94, 230.

    [6] Ibid., 132-133.

    [7] Ibid., 195.

    [8] Ed Crews, “The Gunsmith’s Shop,” Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, accessed May 30, 2018, http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/autumn00/gunsmith.cfm.

    [9] History Revealed, Inc., Object Index 1760-1761, unpublished.

    [10] Alexander Henderson, et. al. Ledger 1760-1761, Colchester, Virginia folio 48 Debit, from the John Glassford and Company Records, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., Microfilm Reel 58 (owned by the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association).

    [11] History Revealed, Object Index.

    [12] William Waller Hening, The Statutes at Large: Being a Collection of all the Laws of Virginia from the First Session of the Legislature, in the Year 1619 (Richmond, Virginia: Franklin Press – W.W. Gray, Printer, 1819), Vol. 5, Ch. XIV, 60-61, accessed May 30, 2018, http://vagenweb.org/hening/vol05-04.htm.

  • Rum and Its Consumption

    Rum and Its Consumption

    Noelle Robison // AMH 4110.0M01 – Colonial America, 1607-1763

    Alcohol, rum specifically, was consumed regularly and at all times of the day in the British colonies of North America. The Colchester store ledger from 1760-1761 in Fairfax, Virginia, shed light on this observation. Almost every account listed in the folios have entries regarding the purchase of rum. For example, in Valinda Wade’s and William Turner’s accounts, there are several entries with rum purchased by the quart and a few by the gallon.[1] Other folios, such as Benoni Halley’s account, show several gallons purchased in a short period of time.[2] William Scott also purchased many gallons.[3] In summation of the thirteen folios reviewed, a pattern of high rum purchases and consumption was realized. Rum was the alcohol of choice in the colonies largely due to its proximity to the sugar plantations in the Caribbean. It is estimated that the average colonist consumed 3.7 gallons annually.[4]

    In June and July of 1760, Mrs. Valinda Wade purchased multiple gallons of rum from the Colchester store (folio 19D).
    In December of 1760, William Turner purchased 3 and a half gallons of rum from the Colchester store (folio 22D).

    Though widespread, alcohol consumption was often regulated by both legal constraints and social expectations. Anyone wishing to sell alcohol and provide other service to townspeople and travelers alike were required to secure licenses for their establishments. These taverns or inns, otherwise known as ordinaries, were common throughout many of the colonies. Licenses were needed as early as the mid-1600s in some places.[5] In Colchester, many licenses were granted during the town’s short history, though the most important was likely the Colchester Inn, or the Fairfax Arms Tavern, owned by Peter Wagener and managed by Charles Tyler.[6] Under licenses, taverns or ordinaries were often restricted by how long they could be open each day, how much alcohol they could sell, and who they could serve.[7] These legalities were coupled with social expectations. One was expected to control oneself, and this meant no drinking to excess. In the most extreme cases, those in violation of social norms or the law would find themselves publicly humiliated or fined.[8] In these ways, the everyday consumption of alcohol, including rum, was ensured against excess and attempts were made to regulate it for the common good.

    Metal tankards from ca. 1730-1745, possibly like ones used in ordinaries and taverns. From the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Acc. No. 1954-940.
    Stoneware tankards dating from 1740-1780 that could have been similar to those used in colonial ordinaries or taverns. From the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Acc. No. 1973-231.

    Additionally, while the consumption of alcohol was high, so was its opposition. Religious tolerance was common amongst the British colonies. However, some of these religious groups were extreme in their practices against alcohol. They condemned alcohol and many attempted to prohibit the sale and consumption of it. This disdain for alcohol was highlighted in a recent interdisciplinary journal article by Utah Valley University professor, regarding the interactions between Quakers and Native Americans in the mid 1700s. The article states, “Indian and Quaker revivalism intersected through a shared concern for moral purity and regulating alcohol consumption.”[9] This article goes further stating, “For colonists rum generated profit as well as anxieties about its potential disorder.”[10] Meanwhile, sugar plantations in the Caribbean were supplying the foundation for the highly successful rum market. There is no doubt that the rum trade brought wealth to investors and producers. However, this caused concern in towns and religious sanctuaries. This article elaborates on alcohol consumption in the same time period as the Colchester ledgers, providing a broader view and context of the folio pages analyzed.

    While rum was an extremely popular drink and part of the culture surrounding the British colonies, it was also heavily regulated by both laws and norms, as well as deemed intolerable by some religious groups. Sugar as a cash crop was extremely beneficial financially to investors and planters. Its versatility made it so, including its importance in the production of rum. Successful sugar plantations were essential for colonial profit while also encouraging the creation, and in turn, the consumption of rum. Thus, sugar plantations and rum consumption created a complex web of interdependencies among various peoples living in the colonies.

     

    [1] Alexander Henderson, et. al., Ledger 1760-1761, Colchester, Virginia folio 19, 22 Debit, from the John Glassford and Company Records, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., Microfilm Reel 58 (owned by the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association).

    [2] Henderson, et. al. Ledger 1760-1761 folio 23 Debit.

    [3] Ibid., folio 24 Debit.

    [4] Ian Williams, Rum: A Social & Sociable History of the Real Spirit of 1776 (New York: Nation Books, 2005), 166.

    [5] Alice Morse Earle, Stage-Coach and Tavern Days (New York: Macmillan Co, 1900), 2, https://archive.org/details/stagecoachtavern00earluoft.

    [6] Edith Moore Sprouse, Colchester: Colonial Port on the Potomac (Fairfax, Va: Fairfax County Office of Comprehensive Planning, 1975), 61, https://archive.org/details/Colchester_201704.

    [7] Mark Harrison Moore and Dean R. Gerstein, eds., Alcohol and Public Policy: Beyond the Shadow of Prohibition (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1981), 132.

    [8] Moore and Gerstein, Alcohol and Public Policy, 137.

    [9] Michael Goode, “Dangerous Spirits,” Early American Studies, An Interdisciplinary Journal 14, no. 2, 260.

    [10] Goode, “Dangerous Spirits,” 262.

  • Joseph Jackson: The Man of Many Stitches

    Joseph Jackson: The Man of Many Stitches

    Christopher José // AMH 4110.0M01 – Colonial America, 1607-1763

    To find answers from the past, historians search endlessly through documents of all types, even store ledgers. These answers result in the researcher being able to glimpse into the past and learn from it. In the end, we better understand the culture and methods of those who came before us. This blog will explore one client of the Glassford & Henderson Colchester Store in 1760-1761, Joseph Jackson’s purchases and his method for buying, along with the mystery that surrounded this man’s profession.

    Jackson seemed to be quite an enigma when my initial research began. His purchases were what I presumed very similar to that of a tailor. I discovered his purchases often consisted of a mix of items such as pins, thread, and “duffils.”[1] These items drew me into exploring what this man truly intended to do with these objects.

    Joseph Jackson purchased materials necessary for making clothing during the cold month of December (folio 117D).

    Now, it was no surprise that needles and threads could be used by a tailor, but duffil, or duffle, was a foreign fabric type with which I was not previously familiar. I researched the word and discovered what it was. I found duffle’s origin derives from the name of a Belgian town that crafted the fabric. It is a heavy, wool fabric that was first manufactured during the seventeenth century.[2] With this in mind, it led me to think about the use of the material.

    A coat made of broadcloth, a heavy wool not unlike duffle. Joseph Jackson could have made a coat similar to this. From the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Acc. No. 1954-1041.

    Since Jackson bought the heavy fabric in December, it is possible he could have used the material to make a coat for himself or for another person to keep warm during the winter. The purchasing of duffle was not exclusive to one kind of trade and therefore did not provide conclusive proof of his profession. Moreover, these items could also have been purchased for another person, even a family member. The fact remained that if Jackson was not a tailor, then what (or who) were these purchases specifically for?

    I realized that it was imperative to continue my investigation of Jackson’s purchases to discover the truth behind his identity. As I continued my analysis of Jackson’s account, I attempted to compare documents with another customer that I stumbled across. This individual, like Jackson, acquired similar items. This person was John McIntosh who was more likely to be a tailor based on how he paid his accounts – in the creation and repairs of clothing for Alexander Henderson (the Colchester store manager) and those enslaved by the store.[3]

    John McIntosh also purchased materials for clothing, creating a link between his account and Jackson’s (folio 34D).

    Through McIntosh, I saw some similar purchases: needles and duffle. Knowing that McIntosh purchased his materials at the same store that Jackson did made me wonder if there were any connections. Given the similarity in purchases, perhaps Jackson was a tailor not yet employed, or perhaps he was an apprentice for a tailor and associated with McIntosh on some level. Yet, it was not enough evidence to surmise Jackson’s profession and it continued to be unknown to me. Whatever profession Jackson pursued was not clearly identified by his purchases alone and would take additional research to learn.

    John McIntosh paid his balance at the Colchester store in 1760-1761 by making various items of clothing. Clearly, he was some sort of tailor (folio 34C).
    Compare how Joseph Jackson paid his account with McIntosh (above). By paying with tobacco, and not with a service such as tailoring, it becomes evident that Jackson followed some other profession (folio 117C).

    By looking at Jackson’s payments to the Colchester store, it became clear he was not a tailor at all.[4] He may have been connected to Marmaduke Beckwith (a landholder in the western part of Fairfax County) as Jackson’s credits came from selling tobacco notes originally belonging to Beckwith. Was Jackson a tenant of or farm manager for Beckwith? Although I couldn’t confirm what Jackson’s profession may have been by looking at his purchases, by continuing to look at Jackson’s accounts in full, I learned I was wrong in my initial interpretation of him as a tailor based on his fabric purchases and that sometimes it is hard work being a historian!

     

    [1] Alexander Henderson, et. al. Ledger 1760-1761, Colchester, Virginia folio 117 Debit, from the John Glassford and Company Records, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., Microfilm Reel 58 (owned by the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association).

    [2] “Duffle coat,” Encyclopedia of Clothing and Fashion, accessed March 23, 2017, http://angelasancartier.net/duffle-coat.

    [3] Henderson, et. al. Ledger 1760-1761, folio 34 Debit.

    [4] Ibid., folio 117 Credit.

  • Nice Threads

    Nice Threads

    Jordi Pelayo // AMH 4110.0M01 – Colonial America, 1607-1763

    Clothing is a status symbol. If you have the nicest pants on the block, chances are they were expensive, and you bought them to show off. The clothing people buy tells us about who they are and for what purpose the clothing is intended. Cotton is undoubtedly one of the most well-known fabrics for clothing, and throughout history it has been used in a variety of ways. Cotton was used in sails, towels, fishing nets, and bookbinding in addition to clothing.[1] Using the accounts from the John Glassford and Company store in Colchester, Virginia, from 1760-1761, as well as conducting my own research, I have been able to uncover some information about what the fabrics of the time said about the people who wore them.

    Henry Taylor purchased both muslin and printed cotton at the Colchester store in September of 1760 (folio 090D).
    The portrait of Elizabeth Buckner Smith, painted ca. 1745-49. The sheer material at her neck is muslin. From the Colonial Williamsburg Collections, Acc. No. 1951-577,A&C.

    In the eighteenth century, cotton came in many forms, each with its own distinct functions. Muslin was a form of cotton that was made in India. Although it could be manufactured into varying degrees of softness, it was well known for being fine.[2] The most popular use for muslin—a fabric similar to gauze—was as a dress material. The people who bought muslin came from a higher tier of society, and were either women or purchasing it for women. At the Colchester store, I found an example of this in the account of Henry Taylor when he bought some women’s gloves and muslin, possibly for his wife.[3] Portraits of wealthy women show them dressed in muslin attire.[4]

    Another specific kind of cotton was known as printed cotton. This fabric was often decorated with floral designs and was used for multiple purposes, such as home décor and quilts in addition to clothing. In the early eighteenth century, both England and France had placed bans on printed cotton for domestic production because it quickly became a competitor for imported silks, but by mid-century these bans had been lifted and printed cotton became more widespread on the continent. The American colonies, however, had always had a large market for this kind of cotton.[5] At the Colchester store, I found that mostly men bought printed cotton. William Turner bought two yards, Leonard Dozer six yards, and Henry Taylor one and a half yards.[6]

    A 1765-1775 woman’s printed cotton gown, featuring the popular floral patterns of the time. From the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Acc. No. 1954-67,1.

    However, a few women also purchased this fabric, such as Elizabeth Pierce and Elizabeth Fallen, who bought one and a half yards and seven yards, respectively.[7] Each customer at the Colchester store who bought this particular kind of cotton paid a range of prices, from as little as 1 shilling 1 pence for half a yard to as much as 1 pound 15 shillings for 14 yards, with variations in between even for similar amounts.[8] Using a sample of purchases of printed cotton and comparing them to the few instances of muslin being purchased, it is clear that printed cotton was slightly more affordable than muslin. For example, one and half a yards of the former sold for 7 shillings 1½ pence, whereas the same amount of muslin went for 10 shillings.[9]

    Each of these specific types of cotton was worth more than the parent fabric. The purchases of both muslin and printed cotton show that customers at the Colchester store were searching for visible ways to express their wealth, or even to give the impression they had more wealth than was the reality. Just like today, appearances mattered.

     

     

    [1] Julian Roche, The International Cotton Trade (Cambridge, England: Woodhead Publishing Ltd., 1994), 4-5.

    [2] Roche, International Cotton Trade.

    [3] Alexander Henderson, et. al. Ledger 1760-1761, Colchester, Virginia folio 90 Debit, from the John Glassford and Company Records, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., Microfilm Reel 58 (owned by the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association).

    [4] James Gillray, Advantages of Wearing Muslin Dresses!, February 15, 1802. British Cartoon Prints Collection, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.

    [5] Melinda Watt, “Textile Production in Europe: Printed, 1600-1800,” in Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History (New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000-), accessed May 18, 2018, http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/txt_p.htm.

    [6] Henderson, et. al. Ledger 1760-1761 folio 20, 49, 90 Debit.

    [7] Ibid., folio 42, 122 Debit.

    [8] Ibid., folio 8, 20, 22, 23, 24, 29, 38, 42, 48, 49, 52, 68, 79, 90, 122, 131, 141, 147, 150, 153 Debit.

    [9] Ibid., 11 Credit, 122 Debit.

  • Osnaburg: A Sign of Wealth?

    Osnaburg: A Sign of Wealth?

    Jason Bernstein // AMH 4110.0M01 – Colonial America, 1607-1763

    Whenever we look back on the colonial period of American history, we always look to the relationships amongst the Native Americans, the colonial economy, and the events leading up to the American Revolution. But there are several aspects that go under the radar, such as diet, climate, and family life. One aspect of family life is how the family dressed themselves. And that’s where recognizing one of the period’s  mainstay fabrics come in. Osnaburg, a common fabric during the 1600 and 1700s, found its way into the colonies through trade imports where it was utilized in many forms. I will focus on the creation of this fabric, its uses, and its representation of colonial wealth during the eighteenth century.

    Osnaburg originated in Germany before being exported to England and later, her colonies. Woven from flax and hemp, it naturally looked brown due to weavers not bleaching it during its fabrication.[1] Eventually, Scotland began weaving this cloth to compete with other markets, and saw much  exportation to the colonies.[2]

    Osnaburg, a rough-textured cloth, was also very durable. As such, it was used for food sacks, and other assorted bags to transfer objects. However, its primary use was in clothing, particularly for slaves on plantations.[3] As an example in 1705, the Virginian government consolidated the different laws regarding slaves and indentured servants. Among them, one law stated that slaves had to be clothed, with no  other clarifications or restrictions about the clothes, “That all masters and owners of servants, shall find and provide for their servants wholesome and competent diet, clothing, and lodging…”[4] This led many slave owners to provision their enslaved with clothing that was readily available, as well as both time and cost effective. In addition to its availability and affordability, osnaburg fabric for enslaved clothing was favored for its simple construction and hardiness.[5]

    James Edwards’s account showing repeated purchases of osnaburg at the Colchester store in 1760-1761 (folio 19D).

    The amounts of osnaburg fabric purchased depended on the wealth of the consumer, and that can give us an idea of its intended use. For example, let’s examine the ledger account for James Edwards, a customer of Glassford and Henderson’s store in Colchester, Virginia, from 1760-1761. Over eleven months, he purchased thirty-one yards of osnaburg, with the cost of each purchase averaging one shilling per yard; he also purchased fourteen yards of the best osnaburg available for a total of sixteen shillings and four pence.[6]

    Another modern representation of an osnaburg work shirt. Image from Jas Townsend and Son, Inc.

    A modern recreation of what an osnaburg shirt might have looked like. Image from Jas Townsend and Son, Inc.

    What could these amounts of osnaburg been used for? We can create an idea, by looking at the rest of his purchases. Metal and glass buttons, thread, nails, and pins point to clothing fabrication.[7] Five and a half yards of the fabric would make two pairs of men’s pants, while two and a half yards would make one woman’s petticoat. Osnaburg could also have been used to make work shirts. (Other fabrics, such as cotton, shirting, and linsey would have been used to make shirts as well, along with dresses and slips.)[8] The osnaburg could also have been used as a bag for nails (you wouldn’t want a flimsy bag holding them). We know that osnaburg was inexpensive and capable of withstanding harsh and prolonged working conditions.[9] From the amount Edwards bought over the span of one year and the amount of tobacco Edwards paid for goods (two hogsheads totaling over 2000 pounds of tobacco), it’s possible that he was a slave-owner.[10] The purchases he made and how much he bought reflect his wealth, which we can understand through the purchase of a simple fabric.

    As we look back on osnaburg—a pretty simple fabric that has survived into the modern age, although made with more modern methods—shows how much the past affects us today. The creation, use, and purchasing of this cloth have given us a small insight into the wealth, culture, and production methods of the 18th century.

     

    [1] Katherine Egner Gruber, “Slave Clothing and Adornment in Virginia,” Encyclopedia Virginia, last modified February 4, 2016, accessed April 12, 2017,
    http://www.EncyclopediaVirginia.org/Slave_Clothing_and_Adornment_in_Virginia.

    [2] Alastair Durie, “Imitation in Scottish Eighteenth-Century Textiles: The Drive to Establish the Manufacture of Osnaburg Linen,” Journal of Design History 6, no. 2 (January 1993): 71.

    [3] Gruber, “Slave Clothing.”

    [4] William Waller Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large; Being a Collection of All the Laws of Virginia from the First Session of the Legislature, in the Year 1619 (Philadelphia: R. & W. & G. Bartow, 1823), 3:448, accessed April 10, 2018, http://vagenweb.org/hening/vol03-25.htm.

    [5] Gruber, “Slave Clothing.”

    [6] Alexander Henderson, et. al. Ledger 1760-1761, Colchester, Virginia folio 19 Debit, from the John Glassford and Company Records, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., Microfilm Reel 58 (owned by the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association).

    [7] Henderson, et. al. Ledger 1760-1761 folio 19 Debit.

    [8] Michael Wayne, “Slavery,” in Death of an Overseer: Reopening a Murder Investigation from the Plantation South (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 81, eBook Collection EBSCOhost, accessed April 12, 2018.

    [9] Gruber, “Slave Clothing.”

    [10] Henderson, et. al. Ledger 1760-1761 folio 19 Debit.

  • Sugar, Consumerism, and the Parallels between American and English Consumerism

    Sugar, Consumerism, and the Parallels between American and English Consumerism

    John Lancaster // AMH 4110.0M01 – Colonial America, 1607-1763

    Though largely grown in the West Indies, sugar became an important good for both colonial Americans and British subjects across the Atlantic. Though Virginians like Alexander Henderson—who owned a general store in Colchester—understood their climate was unsuitable for growing sugar at the same rates the West Indies could, they increasingly enjoyed the sweet addition to their diets much like the English.[1] The British writer David Hume even reflected this idea when, in 1762, he wrote, “America has sent us many good things, Gold, Silver, Sugar, Tobacco…” His words suggest a beneficial relationship between America and its mother country—a relationship heavily built around the profitable product of sugar.[2] Sugar proved to be  significantly important to the British, as evidenced by Hume placing it on the same list as gold, silver, and tobacco.

    From the Encyclopedia of Diderot and d’Alembert, Agriculture and rural economy – Sugar plantation and refining Plate II: Sugar Plantation, http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.did2222.0001.344.

    The West Indies first began profiting from the production of sugar in the 1640s, but it proved to be strenuous, difficult work which had to be done quickly so the sugarcane would not spoil.[3] The need for strength and speed in sugarcane production led to the introduction of slaves to the islands, whose population rose dramatically to outnumber the white population by 1660. Because of the increase in both the slave and white populations, sugar production skyrocketed through the second half of the seventeenth century so profoundly that the English West Indies produced an estimated 25,000 tons of sugar in 1700—more than the Portuguese and Dutch combined.[4] The increase in sugar production coincided with a decrease in price and with rising standards of living.[5] Because of this affordability, people of varying economic statuses could afford to buy sugar, both in the colonies and in England. The newfound accessibility to sugar had profound impacts on both British and American diets.

    A 1765 tea set with a sugar bowl (top right), which might be similar to what was used in Virginia during the time William Branaugh lived there. From the Colonial Williamsburg Collections, Acc. No. 2005-202,3.

    In 1761, for example, two pounds of sugar sold at Alexander Henderson’s store in Colchester, Virginia, for only one shilling six pence. By comparison, one quart of rum may have cost as little as one shilling three pence. This affordability allowed William Bronaugh, a frequent patron to Henderson’s store, to buy over fifteen pounds of sugar between late January and early April 1761.[6] While affordable, the bulk of sugar bought in such a short amount of time hints at the massive amounts of the sweet substance sent to both the mainland colonies and Britain through the eighteenth century. Before sugarcane grown in the West Indies could be sold to the mainland colonists, it needed to be sent to England for refinement.[7] This additional step further created bonds between the growing consumerist attitudes on either side of the Atlantic, as both places were closely linked within the processes of refinement, shipping, and importation of sugar.

    Ledger page showing the prices and quantities of sugar bought by William Bronaugh (folio 45D).

    Politically, the passage of the Sugar Act in 1764, in which the British government levied a tax on imported sugar to the colonies, proved to have a profound impact on the colonists. Though the tax would contribute to the growing resentment the colonists felt toward England throughout the middle of the eighteenth century, the decision to tax sugar proved to be an important one in regard to the parallels between English and American consumerism. The British were aware of how much money they could raise by taxing such a popular and accessible good; similarly, the American colonists quickly discovered that the tax greatly affected them, as the popularity and accessibility of sugar meant many colonists bought the product and paid the taxes.[8] These trends, happening around the same time that Henderson was operating his store in Colchester, and seen in the purchases of William Bronaugh, all culminate to form a distinct parallel between American and English consumerism in early colonial history.

     

    [1] Smithsonian National Museum of American History, “Living in the Atlantic World, 1450-1800: New Tastes, New Trades,” On the Water online exhibition, accessed November 1, 2017, http://americanhistory.si.edu/onthewater/exhibition/1_3.html.

    [2] David Hume to Benjamin Franklin, May 10, 1762, in The Benjamin Franklin Papers, ed. The Packard Humanities Institute, http://franklinpapers.org/franklin/framedVolumes.jsp?vol=10&page=080a.

    [3] Alan Taylor, American Colonies: The Settling of North America (New York: Penguin Books, 2001), 208.

    [4] Taylor, American Colonies, 210.

    [5] Jonathan Hersh and Hans-Joachim Voth, “Sweet Diversity: Colonial Goods and the Rise of European Living Standards after 1492,” July 4, 2009, 8-9, accessed November 1, 2017,
    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1443730.

    [6] Alexander Henderson, et. al. Ledger 1760-1761, Colchester, Virginia folio 45 Debit, from the John Glassford and Company Records, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., Microfilm Reel 58 (owned by the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association).

    [7] Taylor, American Colonies, 208.

    [8] “Sugar Act,” Sugar Act of 1764, https://www.landofthebrave.info/sugar-act.htm.

  • Facebook of the Eighteenth Century

    Facebook of the Eighteenth Century

    Joel McCrickard // AMH 4110.0M01 – Colonial America, 1607-1763

    Among the many items bought and sold at the Colchester store (1760-1761) in Fairfax County, Virginia, was a rather timeless piece, an almanac.[1] Almanacs were yearly books that kept records of the special events happening each year, of statistical or important information, and of weather patterns. For this reason, an almanac from 1760 would prove to be extremely enlightening to certain aspects of colonial American life. Each colony had its own almanac tailored to its specific region and communities. Virginia’s almanac written in 1760 for the year 1761 was put together by Theophilus Grew, and printed and sold by William Hunter.[2] Not much is known about the writer, but we do know some about Hunter.

    William Hunter lived in Williamsburg, Virginia, was the official printer for the colony of Virginia, and published the Virginia Gazette—a popular newspaper. He was also a deputy British postmaster for all the North American colonies. In an effort to rebuild the postal system of the colonies, Hunter worked with the famous founding father Benjamin Franklin, Pennsylvania’s postmaster. Soon after Hunter printed the almanac for 1761, he died after being  sick with fever for many years.[3] The more I read the almanac and its contents, the more it seemed like the Facebook wall of the colonial period.

    An almanac page showing weather patterns of September. Theophilus Grew, The Virginia Almanack for the Year of Our Lord God 1761, 13.

    Although the weather was a good chunk of the first half of the almanac, there were plenty of small pockets of information riddled within each page and even full paragraphs on a wide array of topics from food and drink, to analogies, and even a poetic verse on how the writer wanted his wife to be like an almanac and change yearly. On the second page of the almanac, it gave a depiction of the anatomy of the human body in relation to the zodiac signs – the same signs still used today and shared on social media platforms like Facebook. Much of the important dates in the almanac revolved around religious holidays and holy days, but there were a few dates that stuck out as odd. In January, it reminded its readers that on the 30th of that month in 1649, King Charles was beheaded. In April, it showed that they had an April Fool’s day, just like today. Another similarity to Facebook was that each of the month’s pages started with a short poem or proverb like memes often shared by those whom find them to their liking. In September, one of the poems was: “The happiest man that ever breath’d on earth, with all the glories of estate and  birth, had yet some anxious care to make him know, no grandeur was above the reach of woe.”[4]

    After all information regarding weather for the year was included, the author went into statistical information for the local courts of Virginia and how far the towns in the colony were from each other, not only in Virginia but also other colonial centers. Advertisements were another important aspect of almanacs. Just like in newspapers and Facebook feeds, businesses were promoted to the public, from jewelers to book binders. Almanacs also included the “life-hacks” of the time and recipes for food items and drinks. The almanac discussed what types of clothing to wear when traveling and what accessories to bring to be prepared for any  weather. Another life-hack involved adding shavings of green hickory wood to your common beer to make it taste better than fine ale, all while costing virtually nothing. The articles continued with titles like, “Methods for preserving the virtues of lemons and oranges for years” and “LIQUOR made from Indian Corn.”[5] These types of titles suggest that people, just like today on Facebook, were looking for simple tips and tricks to improve life and how-to guides. While  back then, they did not have the same avenues to share information like we do today, the almanac proved to be a fascinating and diverse publication to be used in a variety of ways: to inform, to explain, or to entertain.

    Major Peter Wagener’s account (folio 59D) shows the purchase of an Almanack on December 16, 1761; it was the only almanac purchased at the Colchester store from 1760-1761.

     

    [1] Alexander Henderson, et. al. Ledger 1760-1761, Colchester, Virginia folio 59 Debit, from the John Glassford and Company Records, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., Microfilm Reel 58 (owned by the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association).

    [2] Theophilus Grew, The Virginia Almanack for the Year of our Lord God 1761 (Williamsburg, [Va.]: Printed and sold by William Hunter, 1760), 1, http://opac.newsbank.com/select/evans/8610.

    [3] David Rawson, “William Hunter (d. 1761),” Encyclopedia Virginia, accessed March 23, 2017,
    https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Hunter_William_d_1761#start_entry.

    [4] Grew, The Virginia Almanack for the Year of our Lord God 1761, 13.

    [5] Ibid., 25-26.

  • Put It in a Hogshead

    Put It in a Hogshead

    Jeremy M. Bell // AMH 4110.0M01 – Colonial America, 1607-1763

    If you had a hogshead, what would you do with it? Would you drink out of your hogshead? How about pack it full of tobacco to save for later? Would you pack it full of sugar maybe? Well, if you were living in colonial America you certainly might do any of the above.

    A hogshead is a unit of measurement used more commonly in colonial times than today. And why is that? The easy answer is that the average person today does very little with barrels. In colonial times, when you entered a store one of the first things to be noticed was the number of barrels  present. Barrels were the shipping containers of their time. For ease of transport, storage, and sealable freshness, barrels were the colonial Tupperware. So, what constitutes a hogshead, and where does the term come from?

    Barrels came in various sizes. A hogshead held approximately 1000 pounds of tobacco (or 64 gallons of liquid). Photo credit: Distillerytrail.com

    In 1423, the British Parliament passed the first act to standardize barrels and their measurements.[1] A tun was set at 252 gallons. Each designation of volume would then be cut in half. So, a pipe barrel would be measured as 126 gallons, or half of a tun. Following suit, a hogshead would measure in at 64 gallons and a standard barrel at 32 gallons.[2] There were exceptions to the halving rule, and more barrel sizes, but these were the main units of measure. Dry goods, such as tobacco, sugar, or salted fish, would be packed into the barrels until the net weight matched that of the same barrel full of water, to help standardize weight measurements.[3]

    The etymology of the term hogshead was clarified by Walter William Skeat of Cambridge in 1896. The term ‘hogshead’ was traditionally believed to be derived from hog’s hide, a possible material for containers to hold wine. Skeat argued that this simply wasn’t so. Tracing the term through the Dutch, Swedish, and Danish languages, Skeat argued that in all other languages, the first part of hogshead refers to an ox, not a hog. He concluded that hogshead was a corruption of the Swedish word oxhuvud meaning both the head of an ox and a barrel.[4]

    A depiction of hogshead barrels on a map of colonial Virginia from 1751. Image courtesy of the Library of Congress, Geography and Maps Division, LCCN 74693166.

    A hogshead barrel would have been a common sight in colonial American stores like that of eighteenth-century shopkeeper Alexander Henderson, factor for John Glassford, at the Colchester store in Virginia. John Glassford was one of the most prominent Scottish tobacco lords until his death in 1783.[5] The Glassford Company was the second highest shipper of hogsheads of tobacco to Great Britain in 1774  importing 4,506 hogsheads.[6]

    It was through the transcription of the 1760/1761 Colchester ledger that I first came across hogsheads. One of the ways in which customers could receive credit was through the selling of tobacco contained in a hogshead. Tobacco was the most common form of payment in the store.

    Joseph Power’s credit account at the Colchester store, where he paid his debt with hogsheads of tobacco (folio 059C).

    Abbreviated in the ledger as Hhd or Hhds, a hogshead is still used in the wine and whiskey markets mainly for maturing alcohol.[7] While less common today, this unit of measure and the container it refers to was an element of everyday life in colonial times. From the common mercantile store to large plantations, a hogshead barrel was an essential element of life before and after its standardization by the British Parliament in 1423.

     

    [1] United States, Department of State, “Report upon Weights and Measures,” John Quincy Adams, Senate 119 and House 109 of 16th Congress 2nd Session, Boston Public Library (Washington: Printed by Gales & Seaton, 1821), 27, https://archive.org/details/reportuponweights1821unit.

    [2] Department of State, “Report,” 27.

    [3] Ibid., 26.

    [4] William Walter Skeat, A Student’s Pastime: Being a Select Series of Articles Reprinted from “Notes and Queries” (London, England: Clarendon press, 1996), 33.

    [5] John Francis Hackett, John Glassford and Company Records: A Finding Aid to the Collection in the Library of Congress (Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, 2000), 4.

    [6] James H. Soltow, The Economic Role of Williamsburg (Williamsburg: University Press of Virginia, Charlottesvile, 1965), 47, Colonial Williamsburg Digital Library,
    http://research.history.org/DigitalLibrary/view/index.cfm?doc=ResearchReports\RR0066.xml&highlight=.

    [7] “Casks (barrels, hogsheads, butts),.” WhiskyInvestDirect, accessed April 20, 2017,
    https://www.whiskyinvestdirect.com/about-whisky/scotch-whisky-casks-and-barrels.

  • Colonial America’s Complicated Economy

    Colonial America’s Complicated Economy

    Kayla Davis // AMH 4110.0M01 – Colonial America, 1607-1763

    When reading about colonial life in the British colonies during the mid-eighteenth century, it is easy to think of their consumer habits as idyllic or self-reliant, as we often reference the homespun movement preceding the American Revolution.[1] Beginning in 1765, after the implementation of the Townshend Acts, this movement encouraged colonists to stop buying manufactured goods from Britain and instead produce them themselves.[2] However, as sources and account books reveal, the decades leading up to the imposition of the Townshend Acts prove the economy of the colonies cannot be relegated to the same image as that of the colonies during the Revolution as it was a little more complicated. The 1760-1761 account book from John Glassford and Alexander Henderson’s Colchester store in Virginia and varied scholarly research uncovered that the economy of colonial America was a complicated mix of imports and home-manufactured goods.

    The middle of the eighteenth century saw an increase in the size of flocks of sheep and a cultural movement towards rejection of luxury cloths for simpler wools and flax of American production; this coincided with a thriving economy in the colonies.[3] The accounts of the Colchester store in Virginia suggest commercial trade for textiles. Joseph Power bought yards of strong durable textiles and other materials which indicate he (or someone in his household) was making clothing. On October, 31, 1760, he purchased one and a half yards of cotton, nine yards of kersey, two yards of white linen, one ounce of thread, and two dozen buttons. Additionally, Power bought other fabrics such as best pleiding, checked holland, fine check, and yards of various other kinds of fabric. Fine check and checked holland cost the most, while the fabrics of osnaburg and roles were the least expensive.[4] These purchases of various fabrics—as well as the materials needed to turn fabric into clothing, such as buttons and thread—indicate that Power was buying supplies with the intent to manufacture clothes.

    Joseph Power’s account in the 1760-1761 Glassford and Henderson ledger, showing his purchases of fabrics and the materials to make clothes (folio 059D).

    At the same time, one cannot conclude that there were no luxury goods consumed during this time either; in Virginia, the account book shows us that patrons of the Colchester store did buy luxury and manufactured goods. In 1760, Joseph Power also bought a scarlet cloak, and a silk handkerchief, which would have been imported luxury goods.[5] In 1760, John Berry, an inspector at the Occoquan tobacco warehouse, purchased a silk sun cap with lace, as well as two different kinds of shoes: a pair of women’s calf pumps and a pair of Calamanco shoes.[6] In the same year, John Barkley purchased a fine beaver hat.[7] The purchase of goods like the cloak, the beaver hat, and the shoes indicates that there was an economy for manufactured goods. However, even more interesting is the purchase of silk items like the handkerchief and the cap, which indicate a  market for luxury imported items.

    John Barry purchased several luxury items from Henderson’s store in 1760-1761 (folio 046D).
    John Barkley bought a beaver hat from Henderson’s store in August 1761 (folio 046D).
    Miss Mary Flint Spofford Wedding Shoes, English, c. 1765 Historic Deerfield; photo by Penny Leveritt, Acc. No. HD 2004.26. These shoes were made of calamanco, linen, and leather.

    What is important is the realization that the American colonies were complex, and often present to us a different picture than the quite generalized image we are given in textbooks. When shown wonderful sources such as the accounts of the Glassford and Henderson Colchester store, we see that the American colonies were a diverse and complicated group of communities with many different stories to tell.

     

    [1] Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, The Age of Homespun: Objects and Stories in the Creation of an American Myth (New York: Vintage Books, 2001), 177-183, accessed April 17, 2018.

    [2] Michael Zakim, “Sartorial Ideologies: From Homespun to Ready-Made,” American Historical Review, 106, no. 5 (2001): 1554.

    [3] Zakim, “Sartorial Ideologies,” 1557.

    [4] Alexander Henderson, et. al. Ledger 1760-1761, Colchester, Virginia folio 59 Debit, from the John Glassford and Company Records, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., Microfilm Reel 58 (owned by the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association).

    [5] Henderson, et. al., Ledger 1760-1761 folio 59 Debit.

    [6] Ibid., folio 46 Debit.

    [7] Ibid.

  • They Were Wearing What? The unusual names and materials used to make clothes in colonial America

    They Were Wearing What? The unusual names and materials used to make clothes in colonial America

    Joseph Lolli // AMH 4110.0M01 – Colonial America, 1607-1763

    When looking at any documents from the past, you must understand that the words used in their time may mean something completely different than they mean today. Depending on how far back you go, you will also have to become patient with simple things like spelling because there may not be a standardized way of writing a word, and it can be spelled many different ways by the same person, even in the same sentence. While transcribing the Colchester, Virginia store ledger (1760-1761), many entries stumped me in terms of context, until I noticed a pattern in items purchased concerning fabric goods.

    Richard Henderson bought two types of shalloon at the Colchester store from 1760-1761 (folio 042D)

    Traditional, well-known fabrics like denim, jean, linen, muslin, satin, silk, and velvet were used. Items that caused confusion due to mixed definitions were alamode, bearskin, drill, holland, and shalloon.[1] Alamode is today used to refer to ice cream with pie, though its origin is the French saying a la mode meaning “in the fashion of.” To the craftsman of the eighteenth century, it was a lightweight silk fabric used for scarves and hoods.[2] Bearskin was not literally referred to as the skin of a bear, but instead it was a thick, woolen cloth often provided to slaves as outerwear.[3] Drill is not an electronic power tool used in construction; drill in the accounts was a strong, twilled cotton often used for summer clothing.[4] Ask most people what holland is and they will tell you it is a country. Ask the shopkeeper in Colchester, and you will be supplied with a linen fabric which got its name from where it was made.[5] Something like shalloon would sound foreign to the average American, though it was a very common, cheap, wool cloth used for lining clothing and pockets.[6]

    Mrs. Elizabeth Fallen purchased “striped holland” in January 1761 at the Colchester store (folio 042D).
    Black alamode woman’s hat, ca. 1770-1780—Colonial Williamsburg Foundation., Acc. No. 1993-335.

    If you take a good look through the Glassford and Henderson ledger from the mid-eighteenth century, you’ll find that the usual fabrics from today and the more unusually titled fabrics explained here were bought in similar volumes and similar frequency. When you find something shocking, strange, or at odds with your modern perspective during research of an era past, fear not. There is likely a very simple explanation when you look into the context and add a little more digging into your research.

     

     

     

    [1] Alexander Henderson, et. al. Ledger 1760-1761, Colchester, Virginia folio 52, 59, 158 Debit, from the John Glassford and Company Records, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., Microfilm Reel 58 (owned by the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association).

    [2] Dictionary.com, “Alamode,” accessed March 23, 2017, http://www.dictionary.com/browse/alamode.

    [3] Gaye Wilson, “Slave Clothing,” Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello, accessed March 23, 2017, https://www.monticello.org/site/plantation-and-slavery/slave-clothing.

    [4] Dictionary.com, “Drill,” accessed March 23, 2017, http://www.dictionary.com/browse/drill.

    [5] Linda Baumgarten, “Looking at Eighteenth-Century Clothing,” Colonial Williamsburg Online Resources, accessed March 23, 2017, http://www.history.org/history/clothing/intro/clothing.cfm.

    [6] Peter Earle, Making of the English Middle Class: Business, Society, and Family Life in London (London: Methuen, 1991), 288.

  • Down the Silk Route We Go

    Down the Silk Route We Go

    Sarah Green // AMH 4110.0M01 – Colonial America, 1607-1763

    For most, silks are a fabric associated with the finer things. Silk is a rich, luxury fabric by today’s standards but what about in eighteenth-century America? Silk was as favored back then as it is now.

    While examining ledger pages from the Glassford and Henderson Colchester store (1760-1761) in Fairfax County, Virginia, silk is mentioned more than once. People bought silk in many different forms.[1] Silk garters, for example, were used to hold up stockings and to prevent them from rolling down. As garters were essentially the eighteenth-century version of suspenders, both men and women used them.

    Alexander Henderson’s account showing several purchases of silk in various different forms (Folio 8 Debit).

    Cultivated for thousands of years, silk commonly came from China, Italy, and France. The English wanted to rival the French and Italians in the production of silk, but the damp and cold English climate was not agreeable with its production. In 1603, King James sent silkworm eggs and mulberry seeds to America.[2] However, silk was produced inconsistently until the middle of the 1700s and by then, the American colonies were far better at producing cash crop like tobacco.

    Woman’s dress of lustring (taffeta) silk that was originally crafted in the 1750s and remade in the 1770s, courtesy of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Acc. No. 1975-340,2.

    Trading, for the American colonies, was rather constricted and controlled by the English crown limiting access to open trading. When it came to trading with America, goods had to pass through England as part of the Navigation Act of 1651.[3] The act put more control on the British handlings of domestic goods, placing a restraint on colonial trading and decreasing demand for imported goods; the Act of 1651 also stated that goods were required to be carried in British vessels.[4] While homespun fabrics produced in the colonies were an alternative to buying imported fabrics and textiles, silk remained a popular purchased fabric in America even with the importation restrictions.

    Man’s coat possibly of lustring (silk taffeta), courtesy of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Acc. No. 1970-155.

    Because silk is a lightweight and breathable fabric, it provides comfort to its wearers during the hot summer months in Virginia. Wealthy white women liked to keep cool as much as possible, so they chose to dress in a silken fabric called lustring.[5] Silk was worn in many forms, year round, and not just by women, but by men too. Fabrics made of silk for men’s clothing were often a mix of fibers such as with wool to create alapeen or hairbine which was made with worsted.

    While more accessible today than in the eighteenth century, silk was a statement of wealth back then, a way of feeling important as well as being functional. There were many forms to buy silk that added to fashion as well as function. Silk is a timeless fabric that has been sought after for not just for a hundred years, but thousands, and is still popular today.

     

     

    [1] Alexander Henderson, et. al. Ledger 1760-1761, Colchester, Virginia folio 8 Debit, from the John Glassford and Company Records, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., Microfilm Reel 58 (owned by the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association).

    [2] David Landry, “History of Silk,” Mansfield Historical Society, accessed April 19, 2017, http://www.mansfieldct-history.org/history-of-silk-production/.

    [3] Carmen Miner Smith,”Navigation Acts (1651, 1660),” Encyclopedia of North Carolina, accessed April 18, 2017, http://www.ncpedia.org/navigation-acts-1651-1660.

    [4] Smith, “Navigation Acts.”

    [5] Linda Baumgarten, “Looking at Eighteenth-Century Clothing,” Colonial Williamsburg, accessed April 14, 2017,
    https://www.history.org/history/clothing/intro/clothing.cfm.

  • Measure for Measure: Units of Measure in the Eighteenth Century

    Measure for Measure: Units of Measure in the Eighteenth Century

    Katie Miesner // AMH 4110.0M01 – Colonial America, 1607-1763

    The eighteenth century was truly a time of cultural melding in the colonies. People from various parts of Europe with aspirations for a better life came to Virginia, largely because of its flourishing economy. For immigrants, Virginia offered refuge from religious persecution, poverty, and social oppression. Shopkeeper Alexander Henderson operating the John Glassford & Company store in Colchester, Virginia,  was an example of a colonist who came to America seeking more opportunities.

    When analyzing Henderson’s shop ledger for 1760-1761, I was initially thrown off by the various units of measurements found in the accounts.[1] Certain units such as inches, yards, and pounds sounded familiar while other words such as ells, fathoms, and hundredweights required a fast search into the project’s glossary for clarification. I soon learned that a hundredweight (abbreviated cwt) is a unit of weight, a fathom is a measurement of length described as outstretched arms, and an ell was also used for length, typically in Scotland and England, gauged by the length of a forearm.[2] I began pondering how Henderson was able to keep track of all of these different units of measurement. In order to be successful in his line of work, he must have learned to be patient and adaptive to numerous cultures  and find ways to get around language and social barriers that come with dealing with lots of people from various backgrounds. To succeed in business, he must have had to do a lot of improvising in terms of consolidating fair trade prices to reflect the various units of measurement depending on the item sold. The more I pondered these scenarios, the more I realized that the various units of measurement are synonymous with the colonists themselves.

    A customer at the Colchester store purchased ells of roles and best osnaburg, two types of fabric (folio 131D).
    Another customer purchased rope by the fathom at the Colchester store (folio 131D).

    The United States Customary Unit system’s origin is similar to the British Imperial system. Both systems trace their roots back to Roman and Anglo-Saxon units of measure.[3] As I reviewed the accounts, I found that the most common type of length measurements used in the ledger were inches, yards, and fathoms. What’s interesting about these types of measurements is that they are all units based on anatomy and dimensions of the human body. According to Russ Rowlett, a professor from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, “the inch represents the width of the thumb, [and] in many languages the word for inch is also the word for thumb.”[4]

    Da Vinci’s Vitruvian Man poses as an example of various anatomy-based measurements: light blue for fathom, dark blue for yard or half-fathom, and purple for ell. Original image from LeonardoDaVinci.net.

    The foot is often thought of as being the length of a human foot, and the fathom as previously stated is a person’s wingspan. The yard can also be interpreted as being the total distance from the end of the middle finger of an outstretched hand to the nose, or half of a fathom.

    What this says about the eighteenth century is that because of the lack of similar backgrounds and common education, units of measurement that relied on anatomy were easier to use than those dependent on math, numbers, or previous knowledge. This idea predates the eighteenth century, but was revisited as a means to find commonality to overcome language barriers.

    Although there wasn’t an official decree in terms of a unit of measurement in the United States until the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 by President Ford, a need for a practical system of measurements was certainly a priority for shopkeepers such as Alexander Henderson in eighteenth-century colonial Virginia.[5] The adaption of colonial shopkeepers to numerous cultures as seen in the ledger proves that, while everyone has different origins,  money and goods are a universal necessity.

     

    [1] Alexander Henderson, et. al. Ledger 1760-1761, Colchester, Virginia folio 131 Debit, from the John Glassford and Company Records, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., Microfilm Reel 58 (owned by the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association).

    [2] History Revealed, Inc., Glassford and Henderson Transcription Glossary, unpublished.

    [3] Russ Rowlett, Dr, How Many? A Dictionary of Units of Measurement (New York, NY: University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, 1999).

    [4] Rowlett, How Many?.

    [5] “Metric Conversion Act of 1975,” US-Metric Association, accessed March 23, 2017, http://www.us-metric.org/metric-conversion-act-of-1975/.

  • A Man and His Clothes

    A Man and His Clothes

    Amanda Eversz // AMH 4110.0M01—Colonial America, 1607-1763

    We can gain some insight into the economic priorities of those living in colonial Virginia from an account ledger from John Glassford and Alexander Henderson’s Colchester store in Fairfax County dating back to 1760-1761 which contained an accounting record for the overseer, Jeremiah Thomas, of Colonel Thomas Lee’s farm.[1] At first glance, these purchases seem to be a part of the typical shopping experience with a customer buying clothing materials and household goods. It is not until after further research that we can uncover more specific usage and purpose in Thomas’ purchases of these goods. This account gives a record of the items purchased by Thomas and may shed light on the societal purpose for some of his choices.

    Jeremiah Thomas’ account in the Glassford and Henderson ledgers, showing the variety of his purchases (Folio 51D).

    Thomas’ transactions show that various textiles were purchased with supplies such as buttons, thread, and lace with the likelihood of making clothes. The materials Thomas purchased imply he was a man concerned with his appearance and status within society. He purchased coat straps, silk handkerchiefs, and combs—things intended to keep up his appearance of wealth, even as an overseer of another man’s land. Appearances played a vital role in colonial Virginian society. This was especially the case because colonists often tried to emulate the current fashions and trends of England.[2] Mr. Thomas’s largest line items were for women’s shoes, stockings, blue wool, and an assortment of buttons. He spends significantly less on home goods like nails, salt, and sugar. Clearly, if one were trying to make it in society, one needed to make a serious commitment to budgeting for his wardrobe.

    Rendering of a 1750s tailor shop from London. These shops would have been extremely important for the upkeep of one’s appearance. – © Trustees of the British Museum. G, 12.111.

    There is another aspect of Virginian life that is revealed by the textiles purchased by Jeremiah Thomas: climate. In order to pursue wealth through agriculture, Virginia colonists were willing to go through extreme temperatures throughout the year. Mr. Thomas’s purchases reflect these extremes of hot and cold. He purchased expensive cotton for its breathability in warm climates. He also purchased dufill, which is a heavy wool, frequently used in making heavy coats.[3] It is worth noting that even while Jeremiah Thomas was being practical when purchasing cotton and dufill fabrics, he purchased the “best Cotton” and a rather expensive “Blue Dufill.”[4] It seems as though his public presentation still maintained priority no matter the weather.

    A wool and silk coat, ca. 1755-1765, made in England. Colonists often copied fashions of the homeland. Images courtesy of the Brooklyn Museum Costume Collection at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Gift of the Brooklyn Museum, 2009; H. Randolph Lever Fund, 1968. 2009.300.916a, b.

    Reading a ledger at first seems like a meaningless glimpse into someone’s finances. However, we can gain a deeper understanding of who Jeremiah Thomas was. He was clearly a man that chose to spend a large portion of his spending money on fashion and appearance. This  shows that he pursued a social life in front of other colonists. This familiar aspect of staying up to date with the newest European trends is common to both eighteenth-century Virginia and twenty-first-century America.

     

     

    [1] Alexander Henderson, et. al. Ledger 1760-1761, Colchester, Virginia folio 51 Debit, from the John Glassford and Company Records, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., Microfilm Reel 58 (owned by the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association).

    [2] Linda Baumgarten, “Looking at Eighteenth-Century Clothing,” Colonial Williamsburg, accessed May 3, 2018, http://www.history.org/history/clothing/intro/clothing.cfm?showSite=mobile-regular.

    [3] Oxford English Dictionary, “duffel, n. and adj,” OED Online, accessed May 3, 2018,
    http://www.oed.com.ezproxy.net.ucf.edu/view/Entry58272?redirectedFrom=duffel#eid.

    [4] Henderson, et. al. Ledger 1760-1761 folio 51 Debit.

  • Straight from the Horse’s Mouth

    Straight from the Horse’s Mouth

    Jennifer Markowitz // AMH 4110.0M01– Colonial America, 1607-1763

    Examples of 18th century snaffle bridles. From the Encyclopedia of Diderot and d’Alembert, Natural Gait Plate XXVI: Riding, Various Instruments Used to Train Horses, Continued,
    http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.did2222.0001.564

    Bridles, a device still used on horses today, played a huge role even in colonial times. Horses were the fastest source of land transportation during colonial times, which meant that bridles were extremely important to help control and direct the horse. Essentially, everyone who owned a horse had to have a bridle, so it was a uniting factor and a common good to identify in the accounts of the Glassford and Henderson Colchester store (1760-1761) in Fairfax County, Virginia. One type of bridle sold was a snaffle bridle, which is a bridle with a bit “consisting of two bars joined at the center, as by a joint.”[1] Typically, a snaffle bridle is a more gentle and general bridle, able to be used on all types of horses.

    Another item sold was a man’s saddle and bridle, rather than a bridle alone. Similarly, a woman’s saddle and bridle were also for sale; like the men’s saddle and bridle, it was simply sold as a set rather than separately.

    One really interesting factor was seeing who purchased the bridles.  James Hardage Lane bought both a man’s saddle with curb bridle (October 2, 1760) and a woman’s saddle, including a slip cover of blue cloth and a bridle (May 19, 1761). Purchasing a woman’s saddle shows that he likely had a woman as part of his household who rode horses – perhaps a wife, a sister, or a daughter.[2]

    James Hardage Lane bought both a man’s and a woman’s saddle from the Colchester store in 1760-1761 (folio 020D).

    One other factor I noticed in the accounts, which I found very interesting, was the fact that the bridles were often purchased by men.[3] Even bridles that were intended to be used by women and sold with women’s saddles were sold primarily to men. Sadly, no account showed a pattern regarding the occupations of the men, but it can be assumed that the men buying saddles had some wealth as they owned a horse.

    Overall, the bridle was an interesting item that we can use to look at the people who purchased it. The snaffle bridle was the most common to be sold, although it was common to sell it with a saddle as well.

    [1] American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, “Snaffle Bridle,” accessed March 23, 2017, https://www.thefreedictionary.com/snaffle+bridle.

    [2] Alexander Henderson, et. al. Ledger 1760-1761, Colchester, Virginia folio 20 Debit, from the John Glassford and Company Records, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., Microfilm Reel 58 (owned by the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association).

    [3] Henderson, et. al. Ledger 1760-1761, folio 20, 22, 23, 40, 41, 46, 48, 51, 90, 111, 116, 129, 147, 148, 156 Debit.

  • Horsing Around: The Cost of Horse Ownership in 1760 Virginia

    Horsing Around: The Cost of Horse Ownership in 1760 Virginia

    Rhiannon O’Neil // AMH 4110.0M01 – Colonial America, 1607-1763

    Throughout much of their domesticated history, horses have been considered expensive animals to own. Many societies considered the animal as a mark of status.[1] That was true even in British colonial America. Not native to the American continent, horses were introduced by Europeans who ventured across the ocean. In the early years of the colonies, horses were a visible manifestation of wealth, but by the first half of the 1700s, they had become commonplace and most people owned at least one horse.[2] By the 1760s, horses were likely a normal sight across the countryside. Based on the 1760-1761 ledger for the Glassford and Henderson store ledger for Colchester, Virginia, the number of people purchasing various pieces of horse tack attests to the size of the local equine population. However, even with a large number of the population owning horses, feeding and working them continued to be an expensive venture.

    Bay quarter horse, a common type of horse in Virginia. From kcbarquarterhorses.com.

    Shoes, feed, saddles, bridles, curry combs: all of these things made at least a handful of appearances in Alexander Henderson’s 1760-1761 account ledger, bought by 30 different individuals over some 161 pages of transactions.[3] Henderson himself was the caretaker of at least four different horses: a gray, a black, a roan, and a bay.[4] He spent £70 on the horses themselves and an additional £18 on feed for them from October 1760 to December 1761 alone.[5] He paid for shoeing the horses on a regular basis, usually every two to three months. The shoes protected the horses’ hooves from painful stones. In addition, Henderson also paid for horse feed—mostly hay and oats, but none of the other account holders seem to have paid for feed through the Colchester store.[6] Perhaps this was because they all either worked on or owned land where their horses could freely graze.

    Land was important, because land meant wealth, which meant you would be better able to care for at least one horse, sometimes more. Though the most common equine item bought from Henderson’s store was the snaffle bridle, the most expensive was the “Womans Saddle with Slip Cover of Blue Cloth” at £8.[7] (Buying a bridle at the same time added another 10 shillings to the cost.) When compared with the next most expensive item—the men’s saddles at about one to two pounds—it becomes apparent that the women’s saddles were one of two things: a luxury good, or simply more costly to make. Given the time period and the social views on horses at the time, the latter seems more likely. This becomes even more evident when reviewing James Hardage Lane’s account as he purchased both a men’s and a woman’s saddle in the space of five months.[8]

    Saddles sold to James Hardage Lane at the Glassford and Henderson Colchester Store (folio 20).

    As mentioned above, snaffle bridles were the most common good purchased in regard to horses. Snaffle bridles differed from other bridles, such as the half-curb, because of the type of bit used. Bits are metal pieces that go into a horse’s mouth and rest between the front cropping teeth and the back grinding teeth.

    Fig. 4 is an example of an 18th century snaffle bit. Fig. 7 is a curry comb. From the Encyclopedia of Diderot and d’Alembert, Natural Gait Plate XXVII: Riding, Parts of the Saddle, Continued, and Stable Equipment,
    http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.did2222.0001.564

    Snaffle bits in particular are very easy on a horse’s sensitive mouth, and even today are the most common bits used by equestrians.[9] Because of their high occurrence in the pages, it is easier to detect a price pattern. Of the 16 snaffle bridles purchased, six of them sold for 3 shillings 9 pence, three of them for 4 shillings 6 pence, and the rest ranged from 4 shillings 3 pence to 1 shilling 10 pence in price.[10] The frequency of these purchases further shows the widespread ownership of horses.

    Another important factor in keeping horses is that they need to be groomed. Grooming is done using a certain kind of brush called a curry comb. Though there are only three incidences of curry combs being bought from Henderson’s store, all for 3 shillings 6 pence, Henderson ordered “1 doz. Curry Combs & brushes” on three separate occasions from 1759-1760 from his employer.[11] This is another example of how many people must have owned horses, despite their cost, because Henderson likely would not have ordered more than he had thought he could sell.

    Overall, horses were expensive to keep in the eighteenth century, much as they always have been. Though the account pages do not list many occurrences of horse feed, the other expenses add up. While horses were likely used for work, such as to plow fields and transport goods to market, most of the evidence shows that people rode their horses, whether for business, pleasure, or sport. Indeed, aside from one’s own two feet, horses were the main form of transportation of the time. It makes sense that people would invest such a large amount of money in their transportation—not unlike today with our cars.

     

    [1] Ross MacPhee and Sandra Olsen, “Wealth and Status” and related subsections, AMNH, accessed April 19, 2017, http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/horse/how-we-shaped-horses-how-horses-shaped-us/wealth-and-status.

    [2] Mary R. M Goodwin, Wheeled Carriages in Eighteenth-Century Virginia (Williamsburg, Va.: Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Library, 1959), http://research.history.org/DigitalLibrary/View/index.cfm?doc=ResearchReports%5CRR0181.xml#p1.

    [3] Alexander Henderson, et. al. Ledger 1760-1761, Colchester, Virginia folio 4 Debit and Credit, 20, 22, 23, 25, 40, 41, 43, 44, 46, 48, 51, 61, 67, 88, 90, 111, 116, 129, 131, 136, 141, 147, 148, 156, 161 Debit from the John Glassford and Company Records, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., Microfilm Reel 58 (owned by the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association).

    [4] Henderson, et. al. Ledger 1760-1761 folio 4 Debit and Credit.

    [5] Edith Moore Sprouse, “Commercial Activities,” in Colchester: Port on the Potomac, (Fairfax, Va: Fairfax County Office of Comprehensive Planning, 1975), 45.

    [6] Henderson, et. al. Ledger 1760-1761 folio 4 Debit and Credit.

    [7] Ibid., folio 141 Debit.

    [8] Ibid., folio 20 Debit.

    [9] Katherine Blocksdorf, “How Snaffle Bits Work – Horse Equipment,” The Spruce, accessed March 23, 2017, https://www.thespruce.com/how-snaffle-bits-work-1886099.

    [10] Henderson, et. al. Ledger 1760-1761 folio 22, 23, 40, 41, 46, 48, 51, 90, 111, 116, 129, 147, 148, 156 Debit.

    [11] Ibid., folio 51, 61, 67 Debit; Charles Hamrick and Virginia Hamrick, Virginia Merchants: Alexander Henderson, Factor of John Glassford at his Colchester Store, Fairfax County, Virginia, His Letter Book of 1758-1765, (Athens, Georgia: Iberian Publishing Co, 1999), 13.

  • Growing Money

    Growing Money

    Brandon Plumlee // AMH 4110.0M01 – Colonial America, 1607-1763

    Nowadays, we say that money doesn’t grow on trees. In colonial Virginia it didn’t grow on trees either, but it did grow on gold-green shrubs. As can be seen in the Glassford and Henderson accounts, clients to the Colchester store (1760-1761) overwhelmingly used tobacco to purchase
    their goods and services, far more so than cash. In fact, it has been estimated that by the time of the American Revolution, a full two-thirds of the population of the Tidewater and Piedmont regions of Virginia grew tobacco, even after a move to grow more wheat.[1] The people of colonial Virginia, both in the Tidewater and Piedmont regions, were literally growing their own money. So pervasive was the use of tobacco as currency that one observer in 1740 stated that “they have not the least occasion for paper money.”[2]

    A depiction of the enslaved preparing a hogshead of tobacco. From The New York Public Library, UUID: fb320ec0-c600-012f-ed2b-58d385a7bc34.

    Today we pay for goods and services with cash, but don’t really pay any attention to how exactly that cash is minted or printed. So, how did they grow their money? First things first, it was a very labor intensive process requiring many workers, usually enslaved, at very specific times throughout the growing season. The first step was to germinate the plants in small seedbeds until the plants were big and strong enough to transplant into the fields. Before the tobacco plants could be planted, field hands had to build earthen mounds about a foot or two high and approximately three to four feet apart. This task was the most time consuming and labor intensive since the mounds often required being rebuilt several times throughout the season. After ensuring that the seedlings wouldn’t be choked by weeds, the growing plants would have to be “primed,” meaning the lowest hanging leaves were removed to improve overall tobacco quality. Tobacco had to be constantly monitored for pests and disease, as it is highly susceptible; field hands went out daily to check for tobacco worms.[3]

    Assuming the tobacco survived all of these growing challenges, the harvesting season usually occurred in late summer during the dog-days of August and September. The problem was that each individual plant would be ready at a different time, meaning hands had to go out to the fields many times and gather up all the plants ready for harvest. However, if they waited too long, an early frost might kill whatever plants were left in the field. After the plant was cut, it was taken to a barn or similar place and  hung up to be “cured.” In the very early days, the farmers would simply leave the tobacco on the ground and cover it with hay or straw, but they quickly learned that hanging the leaves was far more effective. The process of curing took about a month to complete, assuming that it was done properly and mold didn’t damage any of the tobacco. It was then “prized,” or put into large casks called hogsheads. A hogshead’s weight varied slightly but was officially 1000 pounds of tobacco.[4] It is at this point that the tobacco would have been inspected and a tobacco note issued. This note would have been given to Henderson, or one of his employees, for store credit.

    Benoni Halley’s credit account, which he used to pay his debts with four hogsheads of tobacco (folio 023C).

    These hogsheads of tobacco were what were used as currency in just about any store in the colonial Chesapeake region. The credit pages of Glassford and Henderson’s ledgers abound with information on the various weights of the hogsheads. For example, a customer of the Colchester store, Benoni Halley, paid the store a total of 4 hogsheads for purchases in the store – that’s roughly 2 tons of tobacco![5] Henderson gave him a little over £22 sterling worth of credit.[6] To put this into perspective, the annual income of American colonists was £15.6, which means that Mr. Halley would have been able to live quite comfortably off of his tobacco for that year.[7] With his credit, Mr. Halley was able to buy goods ranging from cloth to rum to gunpowder.[8] It is safe to say that people throughout the colonial Chesapeake were growing their own money.

    Benoni Halley used his four hogsheads of tobacco to purchase various goods, such as different fabrics, alcohol, and gunpowder, as well as items such as women’s shoes, combs, and bridles (folio 023D).

     

    [1] Drew A. Swanson, A Golden Weed: Tobacco and Environment in the Piedmont South (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014), 20.

    [2] William Keith, “A Discourse on the Medium of Commerce,” in Collection of Papers and Other Tracts, Written Ocasionally on Various Subjects: To Which Is Prefixed,
    by Way of Preface, an Essay on the Nature of a Publick Spirit     (London: Printed by and for J. Mechell, 1740), 209,
    http://galenet.galegroup.com.ezproxy.net.ucf.edu/servlet/Sabin?dd=0&locID=orla57816&d1-
    SABCP01767900&srchtp=b&c=19&df=f&d2=1&docNum=CY3802082052&b0=tobacco+planting&h2=1&vrsn=1.0&b
    1=0X&db=Title+Page&d6=1&ste=10&stp=DateAscend&d4=0.33&n=10&d5=d6.

    [3] “Tobacco: Colonial Cultivation Methods,” National Park Service Historic Jamestown, last modified unknown, accessed March 20, 2017, https://www.nps.gov/jame/learn/historyculture/tobacco-colonial-cultivation-methods.htm.

    [4] National Park Service, “Tobacco: Colonial Cultivation Methods.”

    [5] Alexander Henderson, et. al. Ledger 1760-1761, Colchester, Virginia folio 23 Credit, from the John Glassford and Company Records, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington D.C., Microfilm Reel 58 (owned by the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association).

    [6] Henderson, et. al. Ledger 1760-1761 folio 23 Credit.

    [7] Peter H. Lindert and Jeffery G. Williamson, “American Colonial Incomes, 1650-1774,” Economic History Review 69, no. 1 (2014): 57.

    [8] Henderson, et. al. Ledger 1760-1761 folio 23 Debit.

  • Benjamin Hawkins: Rum and the Consumer Revolution

    Benjamin Hawkins: Rum and the Consumer Revolution

    Griffin Bixler // AMH 4110.0M01 – Colonial America, 1607-1763

    In the mid-eighteenth century, several stores in Fairfax County, Virginia, were owned by two men, John Glassford and Alexander Henderson. Their store ledgers contain vast amounts of information about their customers, their credit, and the goods they bought. One interesting case within the ledger for the Colchester store (1760-1761) was Benjamin Hawkins, who purchased rum frequently from October 13, 1760, to June 8, 1761.[1] His purchases were a product of the changing economic environment that occurred around this period.

    For colonists in the Chesapeake, alcohol was an important part of life. Colonists consumed alcohol at every meal, during church, at social gatherings, and on numerous other occasions.[2] Early in the eighteenth century, colonists acquired alcohol through producing it at their household or buying it from planters and taverns.[3] By the mid-eighteenth century, the colonial economy expanded as a result of its connection to Britain and the rest of its empire.[4] Goods, such as alcohol, became cheaper and diverse. Colonists could purchase new variants of alcohol that were impossible or hard to create in the colonies.

    One of these was rum. A great source of rum came from Scottish traders.[5] Previously, Scottish traders could not operate in the colonies because Britain limited colonial trade through the Navigation Acts of 1663.[6] The Navigation Acts forced colonists, among other things, to export profitable goods, such as tobacco and sugar, only to Britain.[7] In 1707, England and Scotland united, allowing Scottish traders to sell their goods in the colonies. In fact, this uniting provided John Glassford, who was Scottish, to become so successful in the Chesapeake through his numerous stores. Rum became increasingly popular with the lower classes with many of the lower classes enjoying rum for its fortitude in the hot Chesapeake climate and its cheap price. Rum, along with other alcohols, also lessened servants’ dependence on planters for drink.[8]

    As mentioned earlier, the majority of Hawkins’ purchases were rum. His account shows that he purchased rum every couple of days through the month of November 1760. Hawkins mostly purchased rum one quart at a time, but there was an exception on November 4, 1760. On that day, Hawkins purchased a gallon of rum. The gallon of rum, according to the credit side of the account, was paid for in cash, although not in its entirety as the rum cost 6 shillings and Hawkins only provided the store 5. Hawkins returned the next day and purchased only “1/4 [one quart] Rum.”[9]

    Benjamin Hawkins’s purchases at the Colchester store, 1760-1761, folio 43D. Alcohol purchases are underlined.

    In all, he purchased seven gallons and two quarts of rum between October 13, 1760, and March 13, 1761. In addition to rum, Hawkins purchased brandy on several occasions (January 10, January 17, and February 5, 1761), a bridle (October 13, 1760), silk stockings (April 15, 1761), and a tin canister (June 8, 1761). The tin canister was the last purchase he made at the Colchester store in 1761.[10]

    An example of what might have been a rum bottle, made by Richard Wistar between 1745-55. Image from the Corning Museum of Glass, Acc. No. 86.4.196.

    An interesting element that came up during research was Hawkins’s involvement in several court cases. It seems that Hawkins legally quarreled with a man named Hugh Guttray. Hawkins was a defendant in an injunction case in opposition to Guttray.[11] An injunction is a court order that a person is either allowed or not allowed to do something. He was also involved as a plaintiff in a chancery suit.[12] A chancery suit entails a matter of equity, such as a dispute over land or individual status.[13] These court cases occurred after the period when Hawkins purchased his rum from Glassford and Henderson’s store, but were the disputes a reason for Hawkins’s drinking? It is difficult to tell whether his drinking was exacerbated by the court cases. After a hiatus in his account, it resumed in January 1765. Now living in Augusta, Virginia, Hawkins had to pay court fees to Prince William County (adjacent to Fairfax County). On the credit side, it showed that the payment was moved “By Ballance to Liber F,” which meant Hawkins accrued the fees as a debt. Hawkins did not buy alcohol during this period.[14]

    Benjamin Hawkins’ constant purchase of rum illustrates the changes that occurred in the colonial economy. Rum, and other accessible goods, became affordable to the colonists. His constant purchases of rum would have been inconceivable several decades earlier. The colonial economy was going through a “consumer revolution,” which facilitated the purchase of diverse goods at cheaper prices.[15]

     

    [1] Alexander Henderson, et. al. Ledger 1760-1761, Colchester, Virginia folio 43 Debit, from the John Glassford and
    Company Records,     Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., Microfilm Reel 58 (owned by the
    Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association).

    [2] Sarah H. Meacham, Early America: History, Context, Culture : Every Home a Distillery : Alcohol, Gender, and
    Technology in the Colonial Chesapeake,     (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 2009), 6.

    [3] Meacham, Every Home, 82.

    [4] Alan Taylor, American Colonies: The Settling of North America, (New York: Penguin Books, 2001), 310.

    [5] Meacham, Every Home, 85.

    [6] Taylor, American Colonies, 258.

    [7] Ibid., 306.

    [8] Meacham, Every Home, 82-87.

    [9] Henderson, et. al. Ledger 1760-1761, folio 43 Debit.

    [10] Ibid.

    [11] Fairfax Court Order Book 1756, page 572, March 18, 1761, Fairfax Circuit Court Historic Records Center,
    Fairfax, Va.

    [12] Fairfax Court Order Book 1756, page 596, June 16, 1761, Fairfax Circuit Court Historic Records Center, Fairfax,
    Va.

    [13] Fairfax County, Virginia, “Historic Records Finding Aids,” accessed April 19, 2017, http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/courts/circuit/historical-records-finding-aids.htm

    [14] Alexander Henderson, et. al. Ledger 1765, Colchester, Virginia folio 38 Debit, from the John Glassford and
    Company Records,     Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., Microfilm Reel 59 (owned by the
    Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association).

    [15] Taylor, American Colonies, 310.

  • Paper Currency – Not a Modern Idea

    Paper Currency – Not a Modern Idea

    Robyn Doran // AMH 4110.0M01 – Colonial America, 1607-1763

    When one thinks of the world of the eighteenth century, especially related to trade and commerce, one may think of small stores with raw goods, the sale of tobacco, or gold and silver coins being scooped up by a store merchant. What one might not consider when first recalling such a time is other types of currency that circulated throughout the British colonies during the 1700s. British sterling (pounds, shillings, and pence) were, of course, prominent in the colonies but they were not the only type of currency available. Spanish pistoles, silver dollars, commodity goods, and currency from individual colonies were also distributed throughout the British colonies during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

    In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Britain’s American colonies were thriving. However, that did not mean that there was a surplus of British sterling for them to use. When Britain founded the colonies in North America, the economic belief of mercantilism produced the idea that the colonies were there to create a surplus of goods for the mother country, not to drain the precious metal from the homeland.[1] While the British system of monetary units—such as pound, shilling, and pence—continued in the North American colonies, there was a deficit of British sterling in any of the colonies.[2] Because of this deficit, the colonies turned to other types of monetary units to use for payment.

    One type of money the colonies used was foreign coins. Some examples were Spanish pistoles and silver dollars. Most of these coins were imported from the Spanish colonies of Mexico and Peru.[3] Their worth compared to British sterling fluctuated quite a bit throughout the colonies and over time. However, just like several other types of colonial currency (such as the individual paper currency of each colony) they remained less valuable than British sterling.[4] Unfortunately, the age-old problem endured. There were not enough precious metals to go around. This was due to the philosophy of mercantilism—the belief that a country should accumulate and hold as much money (precious metal) as possible.[5] As a result of this philosophy, precious metals were not as readily available in colonies belonging to any country.[6]

    Another way colonists traded with each other was commodity goods. These were items such as tobacco or various animal skins that could be used within the colonies as currency.[7] Due to the unwieldy nature of commodity goods, the colonies devised another form of exchange: paper currency uniquely created by each colony.

    The first paper currency printed in the colonies was in December 1690. The Massachusetts Bay Colony needed to pay for military expenses from King William’s War but did not have the money to do so. Finding this to be successful, Massachusetts created legislation that would be the start of paper currency in that colony.[8] Other colonies followed suit throughout the eighteenth century, with Virginia being one of the last and most reluctant to do so in 1755.[9] The primary reason Virginia started printing money is because of the economic demands of the French and Indian War.[10] This type of exchange became prominent in all economies of the British colonies, although this locally printed paper currency was still considered less valuable than British sterling. In 1748, Virginia’s local currency had an exchange rate with British sterling of 10 to 1.[11] Here, you can see an image of a Virginian 5 pound James River Bank currency note issued in 1773.[12]

    An example of Virginia currency from 1773. Image courtesy of the American Revolution Museum at Yorktown.

    As the paper currency of the colonies became more widespread, it started showing up in store ledgers. The Colchester store in Virginia belonging to John Glassford and managed by Alexander Henderson was one such store where paper currency became very prominent. Merchandise was sold to customers in both Virginia currency and British sterling; customers paid for their merchandise with both forms of money, as well as commodity goods like tobacco. Below, a folio from the Colchester ledger (1760-1761) shows a client paying for all his purchases from November 1760 to March 1761 in Virginia paper currency.[13] British sterling was not included in any of his transactions. While there are many purchases in the ledger that were made in British sterling, it is obvious from this image that local currency was important to trade.

    Customer paying with cash at the Colchester store November 1760-March 1761 (folio 043C).

    Printed currency was an important form of payment in the British colonies. It kept trade thriving without the need of coins and allowed colonies to pay their debts and stay afloat. Of course, the colonies’ ability to create new money whenever needed was dangerous as it led to inflation, especially in times of war.[14] However, the benefits outweighed the risks as the colonies found a way to overcome the deficit of precious metals in North America. Paper currency became vital to the survival of America until the British colonies became the United States.

     

     

    [1] Louis Jordan, “The Value of Money in Colonial America,” Colonial Currency, last edited February 1, 1998,
    accessed March 21, 2017, https://coins.nd.edu/ColCurrency/CurrencyIntros/IntroValue.html.

    [2] Jordan, “Value of Money in Colonial America.”

    [3] Ibid.

    [4] Ron Michener, “Money in the American Colonies,” EH.net Encyclopedia, last modified January 13, 2011, accessed March 23, 2017, https://eh.net/encyclopedia/money-in-the-american-colonies/.

    [5] Encyclopedia Britannica Online, “Mercantilism,” accessed April 18, 2017, https://www.britannica.com/topic/mercantilism.

    [6] Encyclopedia Britannica Online, “Mercantilism.”

    [7] Jordan, “Value of Money in Colonial America.”

    [8] Louis Jordan, “The First Printed Currency – 1690,” Colonial Currency, last edited February 1, 1998, accessed March 23, 2017, https://coins.nd.edu/ColCurrency/CurrencyIntros/IntroEarliest.html.

    [9] Thomas E. Davidson, “Colonial Paper Money,” American Revolution Museum at Yorktown Galleries, accessed April 20, 2017, https://www.historyisfun.org/exhibitions/collections-and-exhibitions/yorktown-victory-center-
    galleries/colonial-paper-money/.

    [10] Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture, “Paper Money in Colonial Virginia,” The William and Mary Quarterly 20, no. 4 (April 1912): 228.

    [11] Omohundro Institute, “Paper Money in Colonial Virginia,” 252.

    [12] Davidson, “Colonial Paper Money.”

    [13] Alexander Henderson, et. al. Ledger 1760-1761, Colchester, Virginia folio 43 Credit, from the John Glassford and Company Records, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., Microfilm Reel 58 (owned by the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association).

    [14] Roger W. Weiss, “The Issue of Paper Money in the American Colonies, 1720-1774,” Journal of Economic History 30, no. 4 (December 1970): 772.

  • Tobacco: The Most Versatile Cash Crop

    Tobacco: The Most Versatile Cash Crop

    Joseph Swiderski // AMH 4110.0M01—Colonial America, 1607-1763

    In colonial America, tobacco was one of the most influential crops in cultivation. Colonies like Virginia profited heavily from its agricultural success. The successful cultivation of tobacco began when John Rolfe planted South American tobacco seeds called Nicotiana tobacum in 1612. From there, “tobacco production spread from the Tidewater area to the Blue Ridge Mountains, especially dominating the agriculture of the Chesapeake region.”[1] It became such a huge commodity that the Virginia House of Burgesses made it a requirement for tobacco to be inspected, and directed the construction of warehouses and port towns where tobacco would be brought by planters.[2] As tobacco became more valuable, its uses expanded from smoking to use as currency. It was used for just about anything: purchasing indentured servants and slaves to cultivate the crop, paying taxes, or purchasing manufactured goods and items from the local store.[3]

    Tobacco plants hung to dry. Image courtesy of VirginiaPlaces.org under CC3.0.

    What really caught my attention was something much more interesting than the tobacco itself. While transcribing ledgers from the Colchester store accounts (1760-1761) of John Glassford and Alexander Henderson, I noticed that not all of the people paying their accounts were doing so with their own tobacco, but tobacco from other people. This intrigued me because obviously people that grew tobacco could use it as currency, but how did a random man use someone else’s tobacco as a form of currency to pay their account? The answer was that tobacco itself became a source of social currency as well as money. It became a way of paying off your accounts and a way of paying others, who then purchased items at the store using someone else’s tobacco as payment.

    A payment by Daniel Laughlin to his account at the Colchester store (1760-1761) using a crop note from Joseph Stephens (folio 045C).

    The picture above is an example of account credits from the Colchester store (1760-1761) of Glassford and Henderson. This account belonged to a man named Daniel Laughlin. On  July 31, 1761, Laughlin credited a crop note for 1 hogshead (a barrel) of tobacco from the Pohick warehouse to pay for his account.[4] He used tobacco as payment so that he could purchase items from the store. What I found interesting was the interesting mark indicating the tobacco’s “ownership” or tobacco mark: a capitalized I, a superscripted S, and a capitalized A. It reads ISA, which was a tobacco mark that represented not Daniel Laughlin but Joseph Stephens. Tobacco marks most frequently matched the initials of the owner (in this case it would be DL which was identified as Laughlin’s mark in 1759).[5] This ledger shows that Daniel Laughlin credited the Colchester store 1 hogshead of Joseph Stephens’ tobacco; in September, 1761, Stephens paid his account with an additional hogshead of tobacco.[6]

    A 1751 map cartouche depicting the inspection and shipping of tobacco hogsheads. From the Library of Congress, Geography and Map Division, LCCN 74693166.

    I found no immediate relationship between these men in the ledger other than that Laughlin used Stephens’ tobacco to buy goods that he needed. As a local landowner, Stephens may have hired Laughlin for some service and paid him in tobacco. Regardless, Laughlin profited by nine pounds, 19 shillings on the transaction enabling him to purchase many different fabrics from the Colchester store: cotton, bearskin, osnaburg, roles, linen, striped Holland, German serge, shalloon, sheeting, ferrit, check, and buckram.[7]

    Purchases made by Daniel Laughlin at the Colchester store from 1760-1761 (folio 045D).

    Through my research I learned a lot about what eighteenth century life was like. Tobacco opened up a new world of possibilities for American colonists, and it widened the range of its uses as time passed. People not only used their own tobacco as currency, but they used that of others as well. They exchanged tobacco for goods or paid other people with the crop, who then used it as currency in the local economy for whatever they needed. Although I do not know the specific relationship between these two men, they were  connected through tobacco. Tobacco brought them together in a way that was beyond currency. It went from being a cash crop to a social crop. It brought individuals, families,  and communities together. In my opinion, tobacco was not only the most valuable crop monetarily, but also culturally. Tobacco became its own culture and that is what had an effect on me while doing my research. I was inspired by how this leafy green and relatively ugly looking plant took over the colonial economy and also impacted people’s lives.

    Growing tobacco plants. Image under CC0.

     

    [1] Emily Jones Salmon and John Salmon, “Tobacco in Colonial Virginia,” Encyclopedia Virginia, accessed March 23, 2017, https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Tobacco_in_Colonial_Virginia.

    [2] William Waller Hening, ed., The Statues at Large; Being a Collection of All the Laws of Virginia from the First Session of the Legislature in the Year 1619 (Richmond: Franklin Press, 1820), Vol. 4, Ch. III, 247-271, accessed May 21, 2018,
    http://vagenweb.org/hening/vol04-13.htm.

    [3] Salmon and Salmon, “Tobacco in Colonial Virginia.”

    [4] Alexander Henderson, et. al. Ledger 1760-1761, Colchester, Virginia folio 45 Credit, from the John Glassford and Company Records, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., Microfilm Reel 58 (owned by the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association).

    [5] Beth Anderson Mitchell, “Colonial Virginia Business Records as a Genealogical Resource,” National Genealogical Society Quarterly 62, no. 4 (December 1974): 261.

    [6] Henderson, et. al. Ledger 1760-1761, folio 88 Credit.

    [7] Ibid., folio 45 Debit.

  • Turlington’s Balsam of Life: Colonial American Snake Oil?

    Turlington’s Balsam of Life: Colonial American Snake Oil?

    Andrew Abbott // AMH 4110.0M01 – Colonial America, 1607-1763

    It is 1761 in Fairfax County, Virginia. You feel a pain in your abdomen that will not go away. What can you do to make the pain go away? You can go see a physician to get your ailment diagnosed and treated, if you can afford it. Alternatively, you can save money by treating your condition with Turlington’s Balsam of Life.

    Turlington’s Balsam was a medicine created by Robert Turlington, who obtained a patent from King George II in 1744. The medicine, Turlington claimed, would successfully treat a wide variety of illnesses, including “kidney and bladder stones, colic, and inward weakness.”[1]  In a time before both significant medical advancement and regulations on medicine, patent medicines such as Turlington’s Balsam of Life were able to make claims that seem ridiculous or deceptive by modern standards, and the average colonial American was willing to believe in such claims. As the holder of the patent, Robert Turlington had the exclusive right to manufacture his product and sell it where he wanted, including the Colchester store of John Glassford and Alexander Henderson in Fairfax County, Virginia.

    Turlington’s Balsam purchased by the enslaved Negro Jack at the Colchester store in September 1761 (folio 114D).

    From 1760-­1761, there are at least thirteen recorded instances of customers purchasing Turlington’s Balsam of Life at the Glassford and Henderson store in Colchester, with the price  ranging from four shillings and four pence to eight shillings and eight pence.[2]  This price range seems to indicate either the arrival of a new shipment from Glasgow or multiple sizes of the product for sale: there were three references to the bottle being “large.”[3] By making his product in different sizes, Robert Turlington was able to sell his product to a larger number of people, especially those who could not afford to be treated by a physician.

    A drawing of both sides of Turlington’s unique pear-shaped bottle. Image by Robert Turlington, 1755.

    One problem with patent medicines, especially in 18th-century America, was the marketing of a different concoction under the same name as the patented product. Turlington’s Balsam of Life suffered this fate, which led to a decrease in sales. By 1754, the problem with counterfeit  medicines led Turlington to come up with a clever way to ensure the consumers that they were getting his product: a pear­shaped bottle.[4] Turlington applied the same innovative spirit he used in creating his medicine in order to protect his intellectual property, which led to one of the more unique mass­produced glass containers of colonial America. In addition to the innovative bottle shape, Turlington also issued statements warning of the potential for counterfeit versions of his product, encouraging his customers to “…be extremely careful and particular, to examine unto each Bottle that he buys, that he may not be imposed upon by any pretended or false Balsam, which may be of the greatest Prejudice to the Health and Constitution of the unhappy Patient, instead of a perfect Cure.”[5]

    Much like today, colonial Americans sought cost-effective ways to treat physical ailments without having to take time out of their day to visit a physician. Products such as Turlington’s Balsam of Life allowed them to do just that. Though they did not have access to the vast amount of readily ­available information as we do, colonial Americans knew enough about their bodies to be able to treat many physical problems without consulting a medical professional, but possibly with the assistance of “Every Man his own Doctor: OR The Poor Planter’s Physician” first published in the colonies in 1734. Detractors of Turlington may have referred to him as the creator of an ineffective medical panacea, familiarly known as “snake oil,” but the popularity of Turlington’s Balsam of Life suggests that there were some positive results from its use.

    Turlington's Balsam of Life Infographic

     

    [1] George B. Griffenhagen and James Harvey Young, “Old English Patent Medicines in America,” Pharmacy in History 34, no. 4 (1992): 204, accessed March 22, 2017, www.jstor.org/stable/41111487.

    [2] Alexander Henderson, et. al. Ledger 1760-1761, Colchester, Virginia folios 12, 22, 24, 30, 60, 68, 77, 78, 79, 114 133 Debit and 12 Credit, from the John Glassford and Company records, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., Microfilm Reel 58 (owned by the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association).

    [3] Alexander Henderson, et. al., Ledger 1760-1761, folio 22, 24, and 133 Debit.

    [4] Griffenhagen and Young, “Patent Medicines,” 211.

    [5] Robert Turlington, “[No Headline],” The New-York Mercury, 22 September 1760. Readex: America’s Historical Newspapers, accessed November 14, 2017

  • Momentos Mori: The Materials of Mourning

    Momentos Mori: The Materials of Mourning

    Casey Wolf // AMH 4110.0M01 – Colonial America, 1607-1763

    On 22 November 1761, death had come to the Gunston Hall Plantation in Fairfax County, Virginia. The deceased was Sempha Rosa Enfield Mason Dinwiddie Bronaugh—mother to Captain William Bronaugh and the daughter of George Mason II.[1] Prior to marrying Jeremiah Bronaugh, she was the widow of John Dinwiddie—a successful merchant on the Rappahannock River and brother of Robert Dinwiddie, Virginia’s lieutenant governor from 1751 to 1758.[2] In the days following her death, Captain William Bronaugh visited Alexander Henderson at his Colchester store to purchase items to begin the process of burial and mourning: bombasine, black buckles, crape, alamode, fine shalloon, black satin ribbon, linen, worsted ferret, black stockings, black thread, handkerchiefs, sheeting, and ties.[3] Much as in life, the purchase and display of material goods would proclaim the wealth and status of the well-born, well-bred, and well-connected Sempha Rose. So, how were material goods used to part with the dearly departed?

    On the 24th and 28th of November, Captain William Bronaugh purchased items to bury his mother and to mourn her passing (folio 159D).

    Unlike death, the practices and processes of confronting it in eighteenth-century colonial America are not certain. Partially informed by fashions and traditions from England, funeral and mourning customs were shaped by local factors as well. As a result, customs varied significantly throughout colonial America.[4] These variations reflected aspects of the colonists who participated in them.

    For the dead

    In the eighteenth century, the deceased were not often buried in their clothes as clothing was both laborious to make and a significant expenditure. Clothing in colonial America was often passed down to and altered for younger generations of a family. Instead, most people were buried in shrouds. Shrouds were robes split down the back with ribbons or strings at the openings for the hands and the feet, essentially enclosing the deceased within the shroud. The quality of the shroud and the material of which it was made depended on the wealth of the deceased.[5] Sempha Rose’s shroud was most likely constructed with the sheeting and tied with the twists that Bronaugh purchased. Rough cheap fabrics were used when burying the poor while higher quality fabrics—embellished with ruffles or pleats—were used to inter the wealthier. For those who needed to be buried promptly or who did not have a family to attend to their burial, winding sheets—usually of osnaburg—were wound around the body before it was placed into the grave.[6]

    For the living

    Interpreters wearing eighteenth-century mourning dress. Image courtesy of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

    Many colonists wore specific outfits to outwardly express their feelings of grief and mourning. Although varied, mourning clothes were plain, usually consisting of dull material without embellishment.[7] Trimmed with white linen or black crape, dresses were made of bombasine—a  blend of wool and silk—with either button or black ribbon closures.[8] On the head, hoods, veils, caps, or any combination of the three were made of and embellished with crape and silk.[9] Accessories included handkerchiefs or fans.[10]

    For men, mourning suits were made of woollen material most likely broad cloth, shalloon, or a combination of the two—with crape wrapped around the band of the hat.[11] Depending on the wealth of the family, servants would also receive mourning clothes—although of lesser quality and often only a few pieces. Bronaugh’s order of materials already dyed black are a statement of his wealth. The wealthy could afford to have a set of clothes made specifically for mourning purposes while the poor dyed their everyday wear to serve as mourning clothes.[12]

    As the development of Atlantic trade facilitated easier means of exchange between Europe and the colonies, colonists began to use displays of material goods to project declarations of wealth traditionally limited to the wealthy.[13] Mourning materials made available to increasingly wealthier colonists allowed them to participate in traditions previously reserved for European aristocracy.[14]

     

     

    [1] Michele Lee, “Simpha Rosa Ann Field Mason,” George Mason’s Gunston Hall, last updated May 18, 2011, accessed March 23, 2017, http://www.gunstonhall.org/library/masonweb/p1.htm#i8.

    [2] Pamela C. Copeland and Richard K. McNaster, The Five George Masons: Patriots and Planters of Virginia and Maryland (Fairfax County, VA: George Mason University Press, 2016), chap. 2.

    [3] Alexander Henderson, et. al. Ledger 1760-1761, Colchester, Virginia folio 159 Debit, from the John Glassford and Company Records, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., Microfilm Reel 58 (owned by the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association); History Revealed, Inc. Glassford and Henderson glossary.

    [4] Kelly Arehart, interview by Harmony Hunter, “The Business of Death,” Past & Present (MP3 broadcast), Colonial Williamsburg, uploaded March 30, 2015, accessed March 23, 2017,
    http://podcast.history.org/2015/03/30/the-business-of-death/.

    [5] Arehart and Hunter, “The Business of Death.”

    [6] Ibid.

    [7] Kirstin Olsen, Daily Life in 18th-century England (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing, 1999), 108.

    [8] Linda Baumgarten, What Clothes Reveal: The Language of Clothing in Colonial and Federal America, the Colonial Williamsburg Collection (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002), 177-78;
    Lou Taylor, Mourning Dress: A Costume and Social History (New York, NY: Routledge, 1983), 78.

    [9] Baumgarten, What Clothes Reveal, 177; Taylor, Mourning Dress, 78, 81-2.

    [10] Baumgarten, What Clothes Reveal, 180; Taylor, Mourning Dress, 82.

    [11] Taylor, Mourning Dress, 78-9.

    [12] Olsen, Daily Life, 108.

    [13] Lorena S. Walsh, “Urban Amenities and Rural Sufficiency: Living Standards and Consumer Behavior in the Colonial Chesapeake, 1643-1777,” The Journal of Economic History 43, no. 1 (March 1983): 117.

    [14] Taylor, Mourning Dress, 78.

  • Hitting the Nail on the Head: The importance of cast iron nails in the colonial economy

    Hitting the Nail on the Head: The importance of cast iron nails in the colonial economy

    Caroline Cook // AMH 4112.001 – The Atlantic World, 1400-1900

    Before currency was regulated in America, purchasing items on debit and credit was a common practice. This not only eliminated currency conversion between colonies, but would also spread out different types of goods within different areas. Many items fluctuated in popularity and could be seasonal, but tools were necessary in any capacity throughout colonial America. The nail was an invaluable tool within the colonial economy that would be traded consistently, helping build the blossoming country’s foundation.[1]

    Nails are used primarily for one obvious reason: to build. This means to expand and create new buildings, nails had to be forged of a material that was not only durable, but also easy to find. Most nails were made of cast iron by blacksmiths. Though these cast iron nails were produced and sold by the dozen, nails weren’t cheap.  Blacksmiths still had to forge nails individually, since the colonies were not prevented from creating large scale operations due to Britain’s protective trade law. Great Britain had factories and workers that could produce standardized nails quickly and efficiently. This means that nails were typically imported from England into the colonies, bringing more product in at a more affordable rate.[2]

    Nails being made at the blacksmith shop at Colonial Williamsburg in Williamsburg, Virginia.
    Image courtesy of the Colonial Williamsburg Journal.

    Though not all nails were created equally, blacksmiths would typically produce a nail specific to their own style. Back in England, different blacksmiths would produce different size nails, depending on their client’s needs. [3]  For example, some smiths would make their nails more malleable for coffin nails. Other smiths would use different forging techniques for decorative nails. Different ways of producing different nails transferred over into the Americas, showing in the recovery of excavated sites. American nails were usually more crudely fashioned, with less refined edges due to the tools with which they were produced.[4]

    At the Glassford & Henderson Colchester Store from 1760-1761, nails were usually sold by the hundred. In the Ready Money account in 1761, as many as 1500 nails were purchased at a time with the count varying from as few as 50 nails to as many as 1500.  There were as many as 33 purchases of nails in that year with cash.[5] Though this may seem like a small amount, nails as a whole were too expensive to buy in really large quantities with cash – 1500 8 pennyweight nails costed 13 shillings and 6 pence. The people purchasing these nails may have needed them for small projects.

    Nails purchased at the Glassford and Henderson Colchester store in August 1761 (folio 12).

    Nails are one of the most commonly found artifacts at historic sites.[6] But how important were they to a colonial economy? It seems that nails were an import that show up time and again, being unearthed frequently in archaeological digs. A small piece of economic prosperity, nails would be produced in the Americas at an increasing rate over the next hundred years.

    Infographic on Nails

    [1] Gregory LeFever. “Forged and Cut Iron Nails.” Early American Life. June 2008. Pp. 60-69. Accessed November 6, 2016. http://www.gregorylefever.com/pdfs/Early Nails 2.pdf.

    [2] Ibid.; Kenneth Schwarz. “The Nail Market During the Colonial Period.” Making History. 2011. Accessed November 8, 2016. http://makinghistorynow.com/2011/06/the-nail-market-during-the-colonial-period/.

    [3] Edward J. Lenik. “A Study of Cast Iron Nails.” Historical Archaeology 11 (1977): 45-47. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25615315.

    [4] LeFever, “Forged and Cut Iron Nails,” 65.

    [5] Alexander Henderson, et. al.  Ledger 1760-1761, Colchester, Virginia folio 11-13 Debit/Credit, from the John Glassford and Company Records, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., Microfilm Reel 58 (owned by the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association).

    [6] Tom Wells. “Nail Chronology: The Use of Technologically Derived Features.” Historical Archaeology 32, no. 2 (1998): 78-99. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25616605.

  • Button, Button, Who’s Got the Button?

    Button, Button, Who’s Got the Button?

    Aaron Chapman // AMH 4112.001 – The Atlantic World, 1400-1900

    The button. In the eighteenth century, buttons were an essential part of some articles of clothing, though not the same ones we might see today. On women’s clothing, buttons were an unlikely sight.[1] Primarily, you would expect to find buttons prominently featured on a man’s coat, waistcoat, and on his sleeves.

    Waistcoat with buttons from “A Colonial Gentlemen’s Clothing: A Glossary of Terms” on www.history.org.

    In particular, the waistcoat was a consistent article that featured buttons, which were at times closely spaced in order to display quite a number of them at once for the purpose of style.[2] The initial layer, consisted of a long shirt which would not itself be buttoned but rather worn loose or perhaps tied or cinched if necessary. In public, the waistcoat was worn over this shirt as part of a cultural understanding of what constituted being fully dressed.[3] Buttons would also be present on the longer coat, the outermost layer of clothing, which reached to the knee and was an essential piece of fashion for many.[4]

    In the Glassford and Henderson’s Colchester ledger for 1760-1761 in the Ready Money accounts, buttons showed up consistently, with usually two or three purchases a month, though there were a couple months where they didn’t show up at all. It is hardly surprising given that buttons were the sort of thing you may need at any point in the year, rather than an item that was seasonally motivated. With a few exceptions – such as sleeve buttons, which were sold in pairs – buttons were listed as sold by the dozen or, less often, the half-dozen. This suggests that not only were they an item that could be needed at any time, but they were an item on which one would likely “stock up” in preparation for the sewing of new clothing and in anticipation of needing replacements, rather than one which would be purchased only at the time of need.[5]

    Buttons sold in the Ready Money account at Glassford and Henderson’s Colchester store (folio 13).

    For the most part, the ledger lists the buttons sold without any further description. There are a few instances of gilt, “mettle,” or glass button transactions listed, and occasionally it is indicated that the buttons are either “large” or “small,” but by and large, buttons are called simply that and nothing more. It is therefore difficult to say for sure exactly what material type of buttons were typically sold, though wood or bone are perhaps reasonable guesses if the few instances of “mettle” listed indicate that metal was a minority in button material and not the norm.[6]

    Button identified archaeologically at George Washington’s Mount Vernon. Image courtesy of the Mount Vernon’s Midden Project.

    The cost of buttons was small, the average was about one shilling for a dozen buttons, as long as they weren’t of a special material like gilt. The cost could vary wildly from transaction to transaction. In the Ready Money transactions for September 1761, for instance, three transactions adjacent to each other in the ledger list prices of 2 shillings 3 pence for a dozen buttons, then 1 shilling for a dozen buttons, and finally 1 shilling and 6 pence for two dozen buttons. This is a pretty significant swing in price within a short space of time. Perhaps some buyers were more adept at bargaining with Henderson than others or the purchase price variation represented different types of buttons?[7]

    The button. Something most people hardly think about, yet it’s an essential component of many garments, both today and in the past. For the colonial Englishman, it could be both a statement of fashion and a functional means to hold a coat or waistcoat closed. Fortunately for us, it was also something that needed to be replaced often enough that we are blessed with the opportunity to see a glimpse of its purchase.

    Infographic on Buttons

    [1] “Men’s Clothing from the 1770’s” Dress-up Activity, Memorial Hall Museum Online, accessed November 10, 2016, http://memorialhall.mass.edu/activities/dressup/1770_man.html

    [2] Ibid.

    [3] “A Colonial Gentlemen’s Clothing: A Glossary of Terms,” Colonial Williamsburg history.org, accessed November 10, 2016, http://www.history.org/history/clothing/men/mglossary.cfm

    [4] Ibid.

    [5] Alexander Henderson, et. al.  Ledger 1760-1761, Colchester, Virginia folio 10-13 Debit/Credit, from the John Glassford and Company Records, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., Microfilm Reel 58 (owned by the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association).

    [6] Henderson, et. al.  Ledger 1760-1761, Colchester, Virginia Folio 10 Credit, 11 Debit, 12 Debit, 13 Debit/Credit.

    [7] Henderson, et. al.  Ledger 1760-1761, Colchester, Virginia Folio 13 Debit.

  • Brandy in the 1760s

    Brandy in the 1760s

    Austin Browning // AMH 4112.001 – The Atlantic World, 1400-1900

    As many may already know, water wasn’t always clean or fit for human consumption in colonial America which required another source for beverages: alcohol.  By the 1750s, rum became a large import to the colonies as the primary beverage of choice.[1]  We saw this consumption of rum exemplified well in the Ready Money transactions from 1760-1761 at Glassford and Henderson’s Colchester store.

    Brandy was also purchased, but may have been used in a somewhat different manner than rum. Looking at the Ready Money account, it was not purchased until December.[2] This suggests to me that brandy consumption was saved for the holiday season. Sales extend through March with two additional pints purchased in May. It was possible that brandy was not in supply year round due to it only appearing in the Ready Money accounts primarily from December through March.  Additionally, it is worth noting the brandy was likely made locally and not imported.[3]

    Brandy purchased at the Glassford and Henderson Colchester store from the Ready Money account in December 1760 and January 1761 (folio 11).
    Brandy would have been served in specialized bowls that could be passed around the table (or room). Image courtesy of the collections of The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation (Acc. No. 2016-59).

    A striking observation was the relatively small amounts of brandy purchased as compared to rum. While rum was often purchased by the gallon, brandy was usually bought in smaller amounts, usually in one or two pints. This purchasing trend shows that massive amounts of brandy were not being consumed in one sitting, and adds credence to my theory that brandy was saved for special occasions and holidays rather than as a daily drink.

    Purchasing brandy would have been done by almost anyone looking to celebrate special occasions, especially in the winter months.  I think primarily the sale of brandy in Colchester, Virginia, showed an affinity for decadence and celebration. I imagine the average Virginian grew tired of rum which was consumed in massive amounts throughout the rest of the year.  Brandy may have been a good change of pace and provide a good tasting alcoholic beverage for the entire family to enjoy.

     

     

    Infographic on Brandy

     

    [1] David C. Klingaman. “The Development of Coast-wise Trade of Virginia in the Late Colonial Period.” Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, vol. 77, no. 1, part 1 (January 1969), pp. 26-45.

    [2] Alexander Henderson, et. al.  Ledger 1760-1761, Colchester, Virginia folio 10 Credit, from the John Glassford and Company Records, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., Microfilm Reel 58 (owned by the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association).

    [3] Sarah Hand Meacham. “‘They Will Be Adjudged by Their Drink, What Kinde of Housewives They Are’: Gender, Technology, and Household Cidering in England and the Chesapeake, 1690 to 1760.”  The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. 111, No. 2 (2003), pp. 117-150.

     

  • Linen, The Body Fiber

    Linen, The Body Fiber

    Matthew Gray // AMH 4112.001 – The Atlantic World, 1400-1900

    Linen shirt and Haversack. From the personal collection of Matthew Gray.

    Imagine you wake up one day in colonial America, with no idea why you are there or how you got there. What is the first thing you need to do? Get some clothes so that you fit in and not draw people’s unwanted attention. You would not want to be mistaken for some sort of witch or warlock in this time period. So, how would you do it? Walk down to the local general store and buy yourself a pair of pants, a shirt and some shoes? Good luck finding them already made. You’re most likely going to have to make your own clothing or find someone to make them for you. In order to make your clothing, you will need to buy material such as linen from a store like Glassford and Henderson’s Colchester store in Virginia.[1]

    Linen is a type of fabric woven from the plant fibers of flax. This plant is grown in wet climates and requires nutrient rich soil to grow.  The plant produces a two to three foot stalk that is allowed to rot and then thrashed in order to obtain the long thin fibers used to spin into thread to make the clothing.[2] This process is very time consuming and requires a lot of skilled and unskilled labor to produce.[3] Fine linen is tightly woven and feels comfortable on a person’s skin, which costs more money than coarser linen that would itch and irritate the wearer.[4]

    A factor in determining the price for linen was whether it was shipped to the colony or made in the colony.  The price for linen would also be affected if it was imported from a country other than Britain, because Britain maintained a strict monopoly on manufactured trade in the colonies.  In order for a foreign good to enter the system, it had to pay extra taxes directly to England on top of other fees in order to legally get the product into the American market.[5]

    Examples of “Linnen” purchased by Peter Carter in April 1761, recorded in the Colchester store of Glassford and Henderson (folio 62).

    The price for linen at the Colchester store varied depending on the length sold, as well as the type.  Linen was described as Princess, Russian, Irish, fine, red, white, as well as with no additional description.  Its price varied from one shilling and one pence for only ¼ yard (with no additional descriptor) to 8 ½ yards sold for thirty-five shillings and three pence for fine linen.[6]

    Example of “princess Linnen” recorded in James Doyle’s account on 26 October 1760 in the Colchester store of Glassford and Henderson (folio 48).

    Linen could be considered a mainstay item in colonial times given its high number of purchases recorded in the Glassford & Henderson ledger and as most clothing was made from it.[7] A lot of people made their own clothing using it, as well as many other fabric-based items such as sails, bed sheets, tents, covers, jackets, haversacks and many other items.  Linen would last for many years and wore well through a lot of hard usage.

     

    [1] Alexander Henderson, et. al.  Ledger 1760-1761, Colchester, Virginia folio 10-13 Debit/Credit, from the John Glassford and Company Records, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., Microfilm Reel 58 (owned by the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association).

    [2] National Park Services. Historic Jamestown: Flax Production in the Seventeenth Century. https://www.nps.gov/jame/learn/historyculture/flax-production-in-the-seventeenth-century.htm (accessed November 9, 2016).

    [3] Ibid.

    [4] Ibid.

    [5] Thomas Benjamin.  The Atlantic World:  Europeans, Africans, Indians, and their Shared History, 1400-1900.  Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 2009.

    [6] Henderson, et. al. Folio 61 Debit, Folio 10 Credit.

    [7] Richard Lyman Bushman “Markets and Composite Farms in Early America.” The William and Mary Quarterly, vol. 55, no. 3, 1998, pp. 351–374. www.jstor.org/stable/2674528; Henderson et.al.

  • Sophistication in Colonial America: Combs

    Sophistication in Colonial America: Combs

    Jason FitzGerald // AMH 4112.001 – The Atlantic World, 1400-1900

    The concept of colonial America being a rural environment when compared to a richly expanding British empire probably sticks in most people’s minds when discussing the finer things of life and items made with elaborate materials.  The comb, a very common instrument, holds little value today and is often taken for granted. Some new perspectives have been highlighted when comparing and contrasting certain items in use during the eighteenth century with the help of the Glassford and Henderson Colchester store 1760-1761 ledger located in the Library of Congress collections.

    Examples of Comb purchases in the January 1761 Ready Money Pages of the Colchester store of Glassford and Henderson (folio 11).

    There were many different uses for combs in the eighteenth century.  Combs were used for grooming horses, for separating wool fibers, and for bug infestations as well as for decoration and fashion.[1]  A letter by Mann Page to John Norton mentions currycombs, often used for brushing down horses, in a list of items purchased with tobacco.[2] Another use for combs was in the process of making thread from wool.[3] Different combs with different teeth configurations, which determined the thickness and texture of the threads, were employed for such tasks.[4]  And finally, the dreaded infestation of lice apparently was at the top of the list for fine-toothed combs, which families today may appreciate the frustrations of the ever-elusive hair mite.  What then, might you ask could entice a scholar to examine types of combs purchased from Glassford and Henderson?

    Wooden comb used for dressing a woman’s hair. Image courtesy of The 18th-Century Material Culture Center.

    The quality in which combs were made may very well have identified a need for higher quality items not available in what many may have been considered a dank and dirty back water.  From October 1760 through December 1761, less than 45 combs were purchased with ready money.[5]  Now, it wasn’t because there was a lack of population in need of combs, the inability to fashion a comb in colonial America, or the lack of biting mites.  The combs purchased in the ledger, which were made of ivory, horn, or nondescript materials, very well could have represented an item of status sought by higher society.  And the fact that these individuals possessed coined money could also have represented the ability to afford lavish items.

    The combs purchased in the Glassford & Henderson ledger ranged anywhere from three pence to one shilling and eight pence with the most expensive combs being described as ivory.  A further examination into other eighteenth century ledgers could potential lead to similar trends.

    Examples of Ivory Combs recorded in the April 1760 Ready Money Pages of the Colchester store of Glassford and Henderson (folio 11).

    One thing for certain is that the want or need for extravagant items existed in eighteenth century Virginia. An individual living in the twenty-first century can easily identify with a Rolex or a Michael Kors handbag, conceivably an item equivalent to that of an eighteenth-century ivory comb.  Perhaps a rural environment when compared to a richly expanding empire was not so rural after all.

    Infographic on Combs

    [1] Karen Clancy, “At the Spinning Wheel,” interviewed by Harmony Hunter, accessed November 9, 2016, http://podcast.history.org/2012/11/12/at-the-spinning-wheel/;  David Robinson, “The Bugs that Bugged the Colonists,” accessed November 9, 2016, http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/autumn07/bugs.

    [2] “A Page in the Life: Episode Six, Patsy Grenville’s Day,” Colonial Williamsburg, accessed November 9, 2016, http://www.history.org/history/teaching/dayinthelife/pdf/ADITL_Episode6.pdf; Hunter, “At the Spinning Wheel.”

    [3] Clancy, “At the Spinning Wheel.”

    [4] Clancy, “At the Spinning Wheel.”

    [5] Alexander Henderson, et. al.  Ledger 1760-1761, Colchester, Virginia folio 10 Debit, 11-13 Debit/Credit, from the John Glassford and Company Records, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., Microfilm Reel 58 (owned by the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association).

  • Stay Salty America

    Stay Salty America

    Canon Jones // AMH 4112.001 – The Atlantic World, 1400-1900

    You never hear salt talked about like other spices used in the 18th century. You never hear some high-class socialite talking in his diary about the shipment of salt he got from some exotic place and how expensive it was. No, you do not hear salt given the credit it respects or deserves. But, I bet you could go anywhere in 18th-century America and find that everyone used salt. This magnificent spice was not just used for cooking or seasoning but had many uses, including as a preservative – let’s see cinnamon or rosemary do that. That’s why you see people buy salt by the barrel or bushel in the Glassford and Henderson Colchester store ledger for 1760-1761.

    Examples of Salt purchases in the April 1761 Ready Money Pages of the Colchester store of Glassford and Henderson (folio 11).

    According to the Ready Money accounts, between October 1760 and December 1761, salt was bought every month.[1] The reason so much salt was ordered and sold was because it was a god send for preserving food. The 18th century did not have the modern refrigeration that we have now, so they had to get creative with how to keep meats and other foods edible longer. Salt helps stabilize the food keeping it fresh for a longer time, especially in the spring and summer.[2] Much of the salt was purchased more in the warmer months because meat goes bad faster when it’s hot, unlike in the cold when you could keep it chilled with the cooler temperatures and that’s how it stayed fresh. The month of October in 1761 there was one bushel of salt bought compared to April of 1761 there were thirteen bushels sold which was the beginning of the hotter months[3].

    Now, the salt you see when you open your spice cabinet or look on the counter was not exactly the salt that the 18th century knew.  Your Morton’s salt is baby salt compared to this salt. When customers bought salt, it was more like today’s rock salt, salt that was gravel-sized. If you wanted more dainty crushed up salt for cooking, you had to do it yourself.  It could be done with a cloth and a mortar and pestle.

    Rock salt could be grounded into a finer salt with a mortar and pestle. Image from http://images.wisegeek.com/rock-salt.jpg (Accessed 1 December 2016).

    By the turn of the 19th century, salt no longer needed to be imported from Europe as “salt was produced between 1790 and 1860, in Louisiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Indiana and Missouri by boiling brine in salt furnaces,” since no salt mines had yet been discovered.[4] They did not need to be dependent on getting their salt from Europe, mining it themselves or boiling it was much easier.  Regardless of how we got the salt in the 18th century, one of the most common things in the world is (and was) one of the most important. Just remember to stay salty America.

    Infographic on Salt

    [1] Alexander Henderson, et. al.  Ledger 1760-1761, Colchester, Virginia folio 10-13 Debit/Credit, from the John Glassford and Company Records, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., Microfilm Reel 58 (owned by the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association).

    [2] Mickey Parish. “How Do Salt and Sugar Prevent Microbial Spoilage?” Scientific American. 2006. Accessed December 05, 2016. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-do-salt-and-sugar-pre/.

    [3] Henderson, et. al.  Folio 10 Debit, 11 Credit.

    [4] “History of Salt,” History of Salt | SaltWorks®. Accessed November 07, 2016, https://www.seasalt.com/salt-101/history-of-salt.

     

  • Salt Sold at Glassford and Henderson’s Colchester Store (1760)

    Salt Sold at Glassford and Henderson’s Colchester Store (1760)

    Ayla Lupien // AMH 4112.001 – The Atlantic World, 1400-1900

    By looking back on the ledgers written by Alexander Henderson, a merchant for a store in Colchester, Virginia, in the 1700s, we can learn a lot about the way people lived, the necessities that they purchased, and luxuries that only the wealthy could afford.[1] We can see how people from this time lived, simply from their purchases, as well as find out the names of people living during that era and what kinds of jobs they may have had. Many of the items sold also tell their own story.

    Coarse rock salt could be grounded into a fine table salt with a mortar and pestle. Image from http://thepaleodiet.com/tag/salt/. (Accessed 1 December 2016).

    The item I chose to research was salt, a household good used by many during the 1760s; it was purchased regularly at Glassford and Henderson’s store according to the 1760-1761 ledger. A bushel of salt is approximately 64 pints of salt. The salt was in larger chunks that would have to be broken up by the people who purchased it, unlike the fine-grained table salt we use today.[2] The average day-to-day person regularly purchased bushels of salt, but looking at the other accounts, it is clear to see that the salt is most regularly purchased in the fall and spring months by both men, as well as women, such as Elizabeth Fallen who was a seamstress working for the store and being paid in merchandise, like salt.[3]

    Salt was a necessity in the lives of nearly everyone living at the time because it was one of the easiest ways to help preserve food. Based on the Ready Money accounts from the Colchester store, there does not seem to be much price variation regarding the salt purchased, however it was purchased in different quantities from half of a bushel up to as much as 5 bushels.  Bushels of salt were purchased on 66 separate occasions throughout the year of 1760-1761. The most common months to buy salt were October 1760 (six purchases), December 1760 (nine purchases), January 1761 (eight purchases), March 1761 (six purchases), and April 1761 (fourteen purchases). March and April purchases line up with when the fisheries began operating again as the fish migrated upstream, which means that the people were likely buying the salt to preserve fish for eating later in the year.  In April, we begin to see a spike in the purchases of salt, some buying as much as three bushels at once. In addition, in fall and early winter, harvests were coming in and preservation processes were happening to make sure food was kept through the winter.[4]  Hogs were also slaughtered at the end of fall or early winter, and would be preserved with salt for use throughout the coming year.

    Examples of Salt purchases in the December 1760 Ready Money Pages of the Colchester store of Glassford and Henderson (folio 10).

    We also see a price hike in the cost of salt as the demand increased. Rather than being 2 shillings and 6 pence, bushels of salt in the spring months cost 3 full shillings. This was likely due to the demand for salt by nearly everyone visiting the store. Because it was purchased during the late fall and spring months, it is widely believed that the salt was predominantly used for preserving foods such as fish and other meats.[5]

    Salted smelt. Image from http://rakuten.com.

    By studying the purchases of the people who visited Glassford and Henderson’s Colchester store, we can develop a better understanding of their habits and way of life, which in turn can help us unlock various mysteries of our history.

    Infographic on Salt

    [1] Alexander Henderson, et. al.  Ledger 1760-1761, Colchester, Virginia, from the John Glassford and Company Records, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., Microfilm Reel 58 (owned by the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association).

    [2] “History of Salt,” History of Salt | SaltWorks®. Accessed November 8, 2016, https://www.seasalt.com/salt-101/history-of-salt.

    [3] Henderson, et. al. Folio 42.

    [4] Rumble, Victoria. “Early American Food and Drink.” Colonial America: The Simple Life. August 2009. Accessed November 09, 2016. http://colonial-american-life.blogspot.com/2009/08/early-american-food-and drink.html

    [5] Mickey Parish. “How Do Salt and Sugar Prevent Microbial Spoilage?” Scientific American. 2006. Accessed December 05, 2016. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-do-salt-and-sugar-pre/

  • Black Powder and Hot Lead: A brief history of colonial munitions in mercantile and imports

    Black Powder and Hot Lead: A brief history of colonial munitions in mercantile and imports

    Christain Ragar // AMH 4112.001 – The Atlantic World, 1400-1900

    The commodities of gunpowder and shot (lead ammunition) were not only common staples in eighteenth-century American households. These two items were versatile and pragmatic. Gunpowder and shot were certainly used to place food on the table; however, they also were significant for personal protection in an untamed wilderness and, later, in building a new nation. To further understand these necessities, primary and secondary sources have been consulted to materialize these items, to explore who was purchasing them, their purchasing status as a household staple, and the manufacturing and importation process that led to their arrival in the New World.

    Black powder and measure, similar to how the powder sold at the Glassford & Henderson store would appear. Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons, Lord Mountbatten.

    Gunpowder and shot were imported to the English colonies directly from Great Britain. In the early years of colonization, it was both more cost and time effective to import these items from already established manufactory hubs across the Atlantic than constructing new plants locally.[1]  Physically, gunpowder appears to be the shavings of a metallic substance, dark in color and flaky to the touch. Shot (ammunition) conversely, came in the form of round lead balls that varied in size due to the variance of musket caliber or gauges (the diameter of the bore of the rifle). By the latter end of the 1700s, the British Empire had established a quasi-standardization of musket balls due to their dependence on the Brown Bess musket (.71 caliber).[2]  Shipments of gunpowder were transported across the Atlantic in large barrels only to be divvied and distributed amongst consumers. The personal transportation of gunpowder for consumption came in the version of a smaller more convenient container. The use of powder horns was common place in the 18th century.[3]  These horns would be the hollowed horn of an animal and filled with gunpowder with a plug to enclose the powder and a small opening at the opposite end to feed powder to the matchlock of the rifle.

    Upon studying the mercantile ledger from Glassford and Henderson’s Colchester store’s Ready Money account for 1760-1761, this is perhaps the most enlightening resource in uncovering the enigmas of gunpowder and shot. In those accounts, the ledger specified a vague sense of the cost of the ammunition and the volumes of purchases for cash. For example, the Ready Money account entry for the month of September, 1761, has five purchases of powder and shot together, and one purchase each of powder or shot. Based on this sample, powder appears to be valued at about two shillings and six pence per pound, while shot was less expensive at only 6 pence per pound.  The most common purchase was for ½ pound of powder to every 2 pounds of shot. [4]  This example presupposes that the commodity of gunpowder and shot was relatively affordable to a citizen of the New World that might have arrived as a homesteader, trapper, or entrepreneur. It becomes obvious to the reader that these items were used in daily life and from the frequency of the purchases which implies various applications and steady use.

    Examples of “Shott” and “Powder” which were purchased together as well as separately recorded in the September 1761 Ready Money Pages of the Colchester store of Glassford and Henderson (folio 13).

    Infographic on Shot

    [1] Jimmy, Dick, “The Gunpowder Shortage” Journal of the American Revolution, https://allthingsliberty.com/2013/09/the-gunpowder-shortage/.September 9, 2013, accessed November 10, 2016,

    [2] “The Price of Freedom: Brown Bess Musket,” accessed November 10, 2016, http://amhistory.si.edu/militaryhistory/collection/object.asp?ID=88.

    [3] National Park Service. “15th – 18th Century Powder Horns and Flasks,” Valley Forge National Park, accessed December 1, 2016, https://www.nps.gov/vafo/learn/historyculture/upload/PowderHorns-with-arrowhead.pdf.

    [4] Alexander Henderson, et. al.  Ledger 1760-1761, Colchester, Virginia folio 13 Debit, from the John Glassford and Company Records, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., Microfilm Reel 58 (owned by the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association)