Category: Goods

A Mile in the Shoes of the Atlantic World: Calamanco Shoes

Danielle Roper // AMH 4112.001 – The Atlantic World, 1400-1900

Calamanco shoes were a women’s shoe in the 18^th century that were often purchased and worn by members of the upper class. Calamanco is a glossy woolen cloth that is checkered on one side. Lower class women’s shoes would be made of a more durable leather, whereas upper class women’s shoes were made of materials like silk, satin, or calamanco. They were less sturdy than those shoes made of leather and would not be able to withstand a significant amount of rigorous activity. This would make sense given that upper class women would be more likely to afford servants to do their house work for them. Women of the lower class needed shoes that could withstand the many household chores they had to accomplish.^[1]

Women’s 18th Century Calamanco Shoes. Image from 18th-Century Notebook.

Shoe sizing in the eighteenth century was less precise and consistent so many of the wealthy would send sketches of their feet to special order their shoes.^[2] Buckles were often purchased alongside these Calamanco shoes and would be used as a symbol of one’s status and wealth.^[3] This can be seen in the ready money accounts of Glassford and Henderson’s Colchester store (1760-1761), when Mrs. Jean Turley purchased one pair of Calamanco shoes along with two pairs of buckles, ribbon, and stays.^[4] These purchases could possibly reflect that Mrs. Turley was planning to attend some sort of social event, perhaps a ball. Looking through the shoe purchases in the Ready Money accounts, Calamanco shoes were rarely bought with cash, only being purchased four times.^[5] However, regular women’s shoes were purchased twenty-two times. Mrs. Turley paid only four shillings and four pence for her pair of Calamanco shoes; however, the price in the Ready Money accounts was nearly double that at seven shillings and six pence (with one pair being as much as eight shillings). A ‘woman’s shoe’ in the Ready Money account was valued around five shillings and six shillings. Rather than indicating the luxurious nature of the calamanco shoe, this trend may demonstrate the fact that shoes were simply just generally expensive during colonial times, especially when paid for with cash.

On May 2, 1761, Mrs. Jean Turley purchased “1 Pr. Callamanco Shoes” from Glassford and Henderson’s Colchester, Virginia store. (folio 131).

Infographic on Calamanco Shoes

^[1] Linda Baumgarten. Eighteenth-Century Clothing at Williamsburg. (Williamsburg, Va: Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 1986).; Giorgio Riello and Peter McNeil. “Walking the Streets of London and Paris: Shoes in the Enlightenment” in Shoes: a History from Sandals to Sneakers. Edited by Peter McNeil and Giorgio Riello. (Oxford ; New York :Berg, 2006).

^[2] Ibid.

^[3] Ibid.

^[4] 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).

^[5] Henderson, et. al., Folio 10-13 Debit/Credit.

December 11, 2016
Rum in Colonial America

Michael Szary // AMH 4112.001 – The Atlantic World, 1400-1900

Throughout written human history, all of mankind can relate with one another on one thing: getting drunk. Rum in 18^th-century colonial America was, without a doubt, one of the most bought and sold consumable good in the Glassford and Henderson Colchester store per the Ready Money accounts from 1760 – 1761.^[1] The delectable good was not only a social lubricant, but it was also used for many things during the time such as daily refreshment, as a clean drinking source, and as a medicine for the sick.

Exterior of a Distillery, on Weatherell’s Estate, Antigua (from William Clark’s Ten Views in the Island of Antigua, in Which are Represented the Process of Sugar Making, 1823). Image courtesy of SlaveryImages.org, compiled by Jerome Handler and Michael Tuite.

Rum was not only imported, but also distilled in the colonies. being traded between colonies, but also exported to the rest of the Atlantic world.^[2] The sugar based drink was not only prevalent in the British American colonies, but also the rest of the Atlantic World. This was a result of other alcoholic beverages such as beer and cider which “didn’t last as long, took up too much space to transport, and raw materials were readily available to make rum in high volumes.”^[3] Not to mention the alcohol content was higher and rum would keep longer than beer and cider.^[4] Furthermore, rum was cheap! However, American colonial rum was cheaper than Caribbean rum, mostly because Caribbean rum was more refined and smoother.^{^[5]}

The Glassford and Henderson Ready Money account for October 1760 indicated large volumes of rum being sold, from gallons to pints, with 80 transactions throughout the month. Price varied only slightly with most quarts being sold for one shilling and six pence. There was only a few rum transactions that might hint at the difference between American and Caribbean made rum – transactions for only a pint at nearly one shilling and for one and a half quarts valued at two shillings and six pence, both nearly double the normal cost.^[6] So being an inexpensive commodity, almost everyone could afford it, and having the option between premium Caribbean rum and cheaper American rum, the quantities at which people could buy the rum was endless.

A sample of rum purchases from October 1760 in the Glassford and Henderson Colchester store ledger (folio 10).

In colonial America, alcohol was widely considered as a medical application as well as a pleasurable good, and also contributed to their mental state, kept them warm and even made them stronger.^[7] Rum was thought to cure many of the illnesses that were common including pregnant women giving birth who were given rum as a means of anesthetic. Rum was used a source of something safe to drink, as dirty water would cause illness; the practice of drinking alcohol originally came over from Europe where polluted water supplies were widespread.^[8]

In conclusion, rum was a social lubricant, economic powerhouse, medical application, and a source of clean drinking supply. Rum was one of the most important commodities of colonial America.

Infographic on Rum

^[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] Ed Crews. “Drinking in Colonial America: Rattle-Skull, Stonewall, Bogus, Blackstrap, Bombo, Mimbo, Whistle Belly, Syllabub, Sling, Toddy, and Flip.” Colonial Williamsburg Journal, December 2007. http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/holiday07/drink.cfm (Accessed December 5, 2016).

^[3] Ibid.

^[4] Ibid.

^[5] Ibid.

^[6] Henderson, et. al. Ledger 1760-1761, Colchester, Virginia folio 10 Debit.

^[7] Crews. “Drinking in Colonial America.”

^[8] Ibid.

December 11, 2016
Pots from the Furnace to the Household

Luis Torres Rivera // AMH 4112.001 – The Atlantic World, 1400-1900

A sectional cast cooking pot from the early 1700s. Image from Bushcraft UK.

Iron pots were in use in the 1700s. They were used to cook over an open fire given that iron is one of the best transmitters of heat. “During the late seventeenth century and the early eighteenth century, Pennsylvanians imported most of the iron that they used from Britain.”^[1] Given that iron ore was mostly imported to the colonies, “ironmasters established early furnaces and forges as a more efficient way to make more iron than local blacksmiths were able to, and as a way to make profits and to diversify their investments.”^[2] Iron pots may have been manufactured either in a large industrial furnace or by a local blacksmith. In Virginia, Thomas Jefferson described iron manufactured from two furnaces as being exceptionally strong: “Pots and other utensils, cast thinner than usual, of this iron, may be safely thrown into, or out of the waggons in which they are transported.”^[3] They were thinner than usual due to that in “1750 the British government enacted the Iron Act which prohibited the erection of new steel furnaces, mills for slitting or rolling iron and plating forges with tilt hammers,” so that jobs would not be stolen from British citizens.^[4]

At Glassford and Henderson’s Colchester, Virginia store, we see the sale of iron pots as part of the Ready Money accounts in 1760-1761. In November 1760, three iron pots were sold with prices ranging from 9 shillings to 10 shillings and six pence.^[5] In other months like August, April and December iron pots were sold at similar prices. The small variation of prices could be presented in regards of the quality and thickness of the iron used. Also, sales could have been greater in November in preparation for the winter season.

Examples of “Iron pot” purchases in the November 1760 Ready Money Pages of the Colchester store of Glassford and Henderson (folio 10).

Looking at the conditions in colonial times, the iron pot was a commodity necessary to the household. “While theoretically, colonists could have manufactured all their own high quality consumer goods and accumulated a valuable a stockpile as that of the person buying on the market, it would be rather unlikely that the nonspecialized home manufacturer could have shone in all areas of production. In fact, most homemade items tended to be crude and cheap.”^[6] Iron pots were hard to make; they were sold in local stores or by blacksmiths that had furnaces to make them. As seen in the Colchester store, iron pots were valuable and necessary commodity.

Infographic on Iron Pots

^[1] Arthur C. Bining, Pennsylvania Iron Manufacture in the Eighteenth Century (Harrisburg: Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission), 1973.

^[2]Ibid.

^[3] Thomas Jefferson, “QUERY VI A notice of the mines and other subterraneous riches; its trees, plants, fruits, &c.”, Notes on the State of Virginia, http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/JEFFERSON/ch06.html (Accessed on 18 April 2016).

^[4] Harold B. Gill, Jr. The Blacksmith in Colonial Virginia. (Williamsburg, Virginia: The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 1965), (Accessed 5 December 2016), http://research.history.org/DigitalLibrary/View/index.cfm?doc=ResearchReports%5CRR0022.xml.

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

^[6] Carole Shammas , “Consumer Behavior in Colonial America,” Social Science History 6 (1982): 67–86, 81.

December 11, 2016
The Longest Living Fashion Statement: The Women’s Pump

Vincent Ventola // AMH 4112.001 – The Atlantic World, 1400-1900

In the past, women as well as men and children wore pumps, or shoes; these pumps are very similar to what we know as pumps or heels in the 21^st century.^[1] In the 18^th century, pumps were also worn during special occasions, just like they are today. However, they were crafted in a different manner than today. They used materials such as silk, glass, and metal.^[2] Where as today it is mostly out of leather and modern materials. When looking at the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s shoe collections, you find many different variations of shoes produced during the 18^th century.^[3] Floral patterns, as well as very colorful patterns, were very common for women of this period. Some pumps had a buckle as well as some with rhinestones, to show wealth and class. Pumps were worn in very social settings, so mostly women that could afford shoes for form over functionality were the main ones wearing pumps in the 18^th century.

Women’s Silk Pumps from the mid-1700s. Image from the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

You aren’t able to tell much what the pumps looked like from Glassford and Henderson’s Colchester store’s 1760-1761 Ready Money ledgers.^[4] Because the pumps were sold at a store, they were unlikely to be made-to-order shoes, but more likely represented the most current fashions from Glasgow or London. According to the Ready Money accounts in November, 1760, only five pairs of pumps (described a as single or double channeled or boys) were bought. On one occasion buckles were also purchased which may have been acquired to complement the pumps.^[5] In November 1760, only four additional pairs of shoes were purchased in the same month, all of which were less expensive than the pumps.

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

Women, just like today, loved wearing heels to show off to others. They obviously wanted the most decorated and classiest pump for their special event. Pumps were basic fashion for women in the 18^th century and it correlates to the women of today. There was a sense of fashion back then, especially since their pumps were handmade.

Infographic on Pumps

^[1]Elisabeth McClellan. “Women’s Dress 1700-1800.” Historic Dress in America 1607-1800. N.p.: GeorgeW. Jacobs, 1904. pp. 391.

^[2] The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Shoes, 1760-79, Accession Number: 11.60.198a, b, http://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/98056 (Accessed 5 December 2016).

^[3] Ibid.

^[4]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).

^[5] Henderson, et. al. Ledger 1760-1761, Colchester, Virginia Folio 10 Debit/Credit.

December 11, 2016
Imitation Scottish Linen

James Wilson // AMH 4112.001 – The Atlantic World, 1400-1900

After looking through the Ready Money account (1760-1761) of Glassford and Henderson’s Colchester store in Virginia, there were a few items that stuck out to me because I had no idea what they were. One of which was Osnaburg, having never heard of this, I decided to look more into it what it was because I saw it being purchased quite a few times in September, 1761.^[1] What was the item? What was it used for?

Osnaburg was purchased many times in September 1761 at the Colchester store of Glassford and Henderson (folio 13).

These questions were much easier to find answers to than I thought they were going to be. Osnaburg was a form of linen that was particularly coarse that was originally made in Osnabrück, Germany, which is where the name is derived. Osnaburg was used for quite a few things from napkins, to upholstery, to clothing.^[2] The fabric doesn’t seem to have been a luxury item because it was used to make clothing for everyone, including slaves. In a 1761 slave advertisement from the Virginia Gazette, a runaway slave named Joe had been captured and was being held in the public jail in Williamsburg, Virginia, his only clothing described as ‘a ragged Oznabrigs Shirt’.^[3]

An example of an 18th-century Osnaburg man’s work shirt. Image courtesy of Jas Townsend & Son, Inc.

Something of interest that I found was the probability of where this linen came was made. Osnaburg was originally imported to England from Osnabrück, Germany. By the 1730s, Scotland, which was attempting to become a larger economic power and trader in her own right, started to craft their own version of Osnaburg fabric.^[4] The Edinburgh Linen Copartnery even sent one of their executives to Germany to learn how to properly make authentic Osnaburg, which the people particularly wanted.^[5] Given the wars in Germany from 1756-1763, which caused their exports to go down, Scotland became the better choice for many nations to buy their fabrics from.^[6]

This revitalization of the economy paid off, after all was said and done, with the work done by the many of the fabric companies, Scotland provided millions of yards of linen that was exported to England and other parts of Europe. This piece of linen that was bought in a small shop was actually a piece of economic revival for Scotland based off of copying a form of linen created by a town in Germany.

Infographic on Osnaburg

^[1]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).

^[2] C. E. Davis. “Inventory of Col. Bridger’s Estate.” The William and Mary Quarterly 22, no. 2 (1942): 186-87. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1925299; Alastair Durie. “Imitation in Scottish Eighteenth-Century Textiles: The Drive to Establish the Manufacture of Osnaburg Linen.” Journal of Design History 6, no. 2 (1993): 71-76. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1315959.

^[3] James Galt. “Runaway Announcement.” Virginia Gazette (Hunter), Williamsburg, January 16, 1761. http://www2.vcdh.virginia.edu/gos/search/relatedAd.php?adFile=rg61.xml&adId=v1761010146, Accessed December 5, 2016.

^[4] Durie, Alastair. “Imitation in Scottish Eighteenth-Century Textiles: The Drive to Establish the Manufacture of Osnaburg Linen.” Journal of Design History 6, no. 2 (1993): 71-76. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1315959.

^[5] Ibid.

^[6] Ibid.

December 11, 2016
Shalloon Useful and Unknown

Christian C.deBaca // AMH 4112.001 – The Atlantic World, 1400-1900

Shalloon, a fun name to come across when learning about life in colonial Virginia, but what is it?
As found in the Glassford & Henderson 1760-1761 ledger at the Colchester, Virginia store on January 16, 1761, Humphrey Peake purchased 9 yards of Shalloon along with various other fabrics, buttons, and thread.^[1] Based on the associated items and its unit price, one could assume that Shalloon was a type of cloth.

Civilian coat reconstructed by Joel Bohy. Coat of Golsing Green Superfine body and Buff Superfine Shalloon lining. Image courtesy of Historical Textiles (Kochan and Philips Historical Textiles, England).

What type of cloth was shalloon? Did it have a specific function? Who were the general consumers of it? Shalloon was a common fabric in the 18th century that was a thin twill, made of worsted wool, and primarily used for the lining of coats. When considering that it was used for the lining of coats, it comes as no surprise that it was not a common purchase, unless you were crafting your own clothing or needed to replace the lining of your existing coat. The author J. H. Clapham states that Shalloon was a fabric that was worn “by the lower classes of females” but it was also widely used in coats of all demographics including military uniforms.^[2] Since Shalloon was not thought of highly, it was affordable, while still not the cheapest fabrics. At the same time, shalloon was known for its versatility and relative ease in dyeing, making it a fashionable choice of cloth for everyone. Not only was shalloon used for clothing, it was also sometimes used in blankets and things like curtains or for the drapery around beds.

As found in the ready money account and personal accounts in the ledger, shalloon was sold as a raw material typically bought in small quantities along with other clothing related items. In the Ready Money accounts, of the seven purchases of shalloon, the length of fabric purchased ranged from ½ yard to 5 ½ yards. It is possible that by comparison, Humphry Peake may have been a tailor, given his purchase was for 9 yards of shalloon. The sale of shalloon seemed to peak during the winter months when production and need for coat linings would have been at its highest.

Shalloon was a cloth common because it could be used relatively cheaply to line coats. With that being said, shalloon was not as commonly purchased as other fabrics, such as linen.

Shalloon was not a cloth that was often exclusively used to make clothing. It stayed relevant for the colonial period due to its multiple uses for home décor and its ability to be dyed easily for custom work.

Shalloon purchased by Humphry Peake in January 1761 at the Colchester store of Glassford and Henderson (folio 97).

Infographic on Shalloon

^[1] Alexander Henderson, et. al. Ledger 1760-1761, Colchester, Virginia folio 97 Debit, from the John Glassford and Company Records, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., Microfilm Reel 61 (owned by the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association).

^[2] J.H. Clapham. “The Transference of the Worsted Industry from Norfolk to the West Riding.” The Economic Journal 20, no. 78 (1910): 199. doi:10.2307/2220916.

December 11, 2016
Sugar in the Atlantic World & What It Represented

Zebadiah Barnard // AMH 4112.001 – The Atlantic World, 1400-1900

Sugar today looks very different from sugar in the 18th century. Image from Agriculture Corner.

Sugar as we know it today is a product found in a grocery store and that has many uses – such as for cooking, flavoring food, and preservation – for people in their everyday lives. For most people, the use of sugar is in cooking, and this would have been the case in the early modern period too.

In the 18th century, sugar came in cones and had to be nipped to be used. Image courtesy of Jas. Townsend & Son, Inc.

In the Ready Money account for 1760-1761 in the Colchester ledger of the Glassford and Henderson store, sugar was a commodity that was pretty much constantly in demand and pretty much consistently purchased and paid for with cash.^[1] This commodity did not necessarily come in the powdered form that most people are familiar with today but was sold in cone-shaped bricks and had to be shaved, or nipped, off to be used by cooks.

Sugar was purchased often in December 1761 at the Glassford & Henderson’s Colchester store (folio 13).

Before being imported to the colonies, the sugar cane was grown on plantations, first in the Atlantic Islands off the coast of Africa and then in the Caribbean. It was a part of the plantation complex that relied on the trade of raw materials, manufactured goods, and slavery.^[2] As a result, this simple product affected the economy on a much larger scale and became ingrained in the way people lived their lives.^[3] The ready money account shows that people were buying sugar pretty consistently, and while not in huge quantities, its purchase reinforces its use in the everyday given it was usually sold in weights of only 2 to 3 pounds. There was, however, a single purchase of an entire barrel of sugar weighing 599 pounds!

A single barrel of sugar weighing 599 pounds was sold in a single transaction in December 1761 at the Colchester store (folio 13).

The price of the sugar at about 9 pence per pound suggests that it was a commodity that was more in line with a necessity item rather than a luxury. Sugar seemed likely to be used in the same way that we use it today in many of our food stuffs.^[4] The uses and function of sugar, economically, from the early modern period seem to indicate that this product played a much more vital role for which most people would initially give it credit.

Infographic on Sugar

^[1] Alexander Henderson, et. al. Ledger 1760-1761, Colchester, Virginia folio 13 Credit, from the John Glassford and Company Records, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington D.C.

^[2] Thomas Benjamin. The Atlantic World: Europeans, Africans, Indians and their Shared History, 1400-1900. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2009

^[3] Jason Moore. “Sugar and Expansion in the early Modern World Economy: Commodity Frontiers, Ecological Transformation, and Industrialization.” Review (Fernand Braudel Center) 23, no.3 (2000): 409-33. Accessed 10 November 2016. http//:www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/40241510.pdf

^[4] Woodruff D. Smith. “Complications of the Commonplace: Tea, Sugar, and Imperialism.” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 23, no.2 (1992): 259-78. doi: 10.2307/205276

December 6, 2016