Agricultural Context for the Rappahannock River Valley:
1860-1900
Candice Roland
Summary
The Rappahannock River Valley has historically been an agriculturally rich region of Virginia. Including areas in Caroline, Culpeper, Fauquier, Greene, King George, Madison, Orange, Spotsylvania, and Stafford counties, the lands surrounding the Rappahannock River are relatively flat with some rolling hills, and suitable for a variety of crops and livestock. East of the river’s Fall Line, located near the city of Fredericksburg, soil is sandier and rich in nutrients as sediments are carried toward the bay, historically an advantageous environment for tobacco. To the west, soils are more clay than sand, in between the flat terrain of the coast and the folding igneous and metamorphic rock that forms the first line of the Blue Ridge Mountains. Land here is generally moist from the tributaries of the Rappahannock, yet well drained and arable.1 Products
By the middle of the nineteenth century, most of the commonwealth had moved away from a tobacco-­‐focused, though diversified, agricultural system. Corn and wheat were the dominant crops in the decades before the Civil War and remained dominant after, with corn even more prevalent than wheat. Berkley Township in Spotsylvania County produced 62,111 bushels of wheat compared to 143,840 bushels of corn in 1860; in 1870 they still produced more than twice as much corn as wheat.2 Because wheat involved the harvest and threshing process, wealthier landowners were more likely to grow the labor-­‐intensive grain, especially before the war when slavery made it an even more profitable endeavor. Smaller planters were more likely to grow corn, making it the true staple crop of the region during this time. A Union solider in Stafford Country in 1864 noted, “A great deal of corn growing but not much other grain. The corn was just right for roasting and we got plenty of it besides apples and pears.”3 Agriculture in the region remained fairly diversified through this period, with most farmers involved in multiple products; corn, wheat, and livestock did not exclusively identify the region. Orchards, though never a leading product, did exist, and Madison and Fauquier counties especially produced modest yet notable fruit harvests.4 The Courtland area in Spotsylvania 1
Department of the Interior, National Park Service, “Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania County Battlefields Memorial National Military Park Geologic Resources Inventory Report,” 2010. http://www.nature.nps.gov/geology/inventory/publications/reports/frsp_gri_rpt_view.pdf 2 United States Census Bureau, Production of Agriculture, Berkley Parish, Spotsylvania County, Virginia, Schedule 4, 1860 and 1870. 3 Union soldier, personal correspondence, August 6, 1864, in Places I Have Known Along the Rappahannock River, Beverley C. Pratt, 2005. 4 Historical Census Browser, University of Virginia Geospatial and Statistical Data Center, Agriculture: Value of Orchard Products, http://mapserver.lib.virginia.edu/collections/ stats/histcensus/index.html. yielded $3,585 worth of apple and peaches in 1880, a small percentage of the total agricultural yield, and with only eleven farmers using more than ten acres as orchards.5 Richard Henry Turner of the large Oaken Brow plantation wrote of a storm in 1896, “The hail cut wheat and corn to pieces. All my peaches were knocked off the trees.”6 Though tobacco no longer ruled agriculture in the region as it did in the settlement period, several farmers still profited greatly from the product. O.M. Crutchfield, a wealthy Spotsylvania landowner with a 1,700-­‐acre farm and forty slaves, produced 12,000 pounds of tobacco in 1860; the county as a whole produced 709,605 pounds of tobacco.7 Livestock became an increasingly central part of Rappahannock River Valley agriculture during this time. Though the value of livestock plummeted in the postbellum recession, for most counties in the region livestock constituted over half the total value of all agricultural products from 1860 to 1900.8 In Caroline County, the value of livestock was $450,654 in 1860, and almost half that in 1870 following the war.9 This stark decrease in livestock value mirrors losses in other agricultural products, and is a reflection of the physical and economic devastation facing Reconstruction-­‐period Virginia in 1870. Livestock values recovered gradually with the economy until the agricultural boom around 1890, and by 1900 made up over 60% of Caroline County’s total agricultural production. This period was a time of transition in agriculture in many ways, including in size and frequency of farms. From 1860 to 1900, the Rappahannock River Valley saw a steady increase in the number of farms. However, the total value of all agricultural goods produced by these farms steadily declined after the war until 1900. The physical devastation and economic depression following the Civil War strongly contributed to this trend of more farms producing less; however, farm size was already in decline in the antebellum period as large plantation were divided between heirs and changes in the market made massive plantations less common. Changes in transportation affected agriculture in the region as well. The increasing presence of railroads on the landscape by 1870 allowed farmers to ship products into city centers on a more frequent, even daily basis. This contributed to the agricultural boom at the turn of the century, and facilitated a rise of the dairy industry in the region. Larger dairy operations were made feasible as demand for milk increased in cities; fresh dairy could now be delivered to doorsteps every day, and new technologies like refrigeration and streetcars facilitated dairy’s rise in popularity. In 1885, Fredericksburg had five “dairymen,” indicating for these men at least dairy farming was profitable enough to be their predominant livelihood.10 5 United States Census Bureau, Production of Agriculture, Courtland Enumeration District 135, Spotsylvania County, Virginia, Schedule 2, 1880. 6
Richard Henry Turner, personal diary, May 26, 1896, in Places I Have Known Along the Rappahannock River, Beverley C. Pratt, 2005. 7
United States Census Bureau, Production of Agriculture, Berkeley Parish, Spotsylvania County, Virginia, Schedule 4, 1860. 8
Derived from Historical Census Browser, University of Virginia Geospatial and Statistical Data Center, Agriculture: Value of Livestock and Total Value of All Farm Products, http://mapserver.lib.virginia.edu/collections/ stats/histcensus/index.html, for Caroline, Culpeper, Fauquier, Greene, King George, Madison, Orange, Spotsylvania, and Stafford counties. 9
Historical Census Browser, University of Virginia Geospatial and Statistical Data Center, Agriculture: Value of Livestock, http://mapserver.lib.virginia.edu/collections/ stats/histcensus/index.html 10
Fredericksburg Business Directory, 1885. Developing transportation technology opened up new markets for agriculture, and facilitated real recovery after in the postwar years. Labor and Land Tenure The period after the Civil War brought radical change to agriculture in Virginia; perhaps even more significant than the physical and economic devastation, however, was the upheaval the war brought to the labor system upon which Virginian agriculture had come to depend. At the time of the Civil War, the economic system of the Rappahannock River Valley was deeply intertwined with the institution of slavery, which, for those who could afford slaves, had allowed agriculture to flourish and production and profit to rise. In 1850, 7,484 slaves lived and worked in Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania County.11 In 1860, 554 farmers owned slaves, with an average of eleven slaves per owner.12 Slavery played a significant role in the prewar agriculture of the region. Tenant farming increased in the years following the Civil War as decimated plantations sought a way to stay in production and newly freed slaves a first independent livelihood. It is important to note that before the war freed blacks, who made up 12% of Virginia’s African American population in 1860, participated in agriculture as well, and some were landowners.13 In the postbellum period, devastation from the war presented an opportunity for some free blacks; the war’s aftermath acting as an equalizer, some African Americans, for a time, increased profits and became landowners. Most, however, began their agricultural career as tenants, although the typically minuscule profits of tenant famers meant self-­‐sufficiency was not always realized after slavery. In Caroline County, 91% of black men in farming recorded by the Freedman Bureau were living the same region as their last owner, indicating that after slavery they remained in agriculture near or on the land where they worked as slaves.14 The rise of tenant farming, however, cannot be entirely explained by the end of slavery and the addition of freed slaves to the paid labor force. An average of only 28% of tenant farmers in the region were designated “Negro or nonwhite” by the 1910 census;15 in Orange, Culpeper, and Stafford, the percentage was just 17%. The economic hardships after the war caused white farmers, too, to become tenant farmers, even through the turn of the century. In 1910, tenants operated 1,705 farms in the region.16 Some wealthy farmers before the war were beginning to invest heavily in new technology that would increase efficiency and decrease the need for labor. New technologies 11
United States Census Bureau, Enslaved Inhabitants, Spotsylvania County, Virginia, Schedule 2, 1850. 12
Derived from United States Census Bureau, Free and Enslaved Inhabitants, St. George’s Parish, Spotsylvania County, Virginia, Schedule 2, 1860. 13
Luther Porter Jackson, The Virginia Free Negro Farmer and Property Owner, 1830-­‐1860, 390. 14
African American Freedman Bureau, Register of Colored Persons of Caroline County, State of Virginia, cohabitating together and husband and wife on 27th February, 1866. 15
Derived from tenant farmers who were designated “Negro or nonwhite” by United States Census Bureau, Agricultural Production, 1910, for Caroline, Culpeper, King George, Louisa, Orange, Spotsylvania, and Stafford counties. 16
Historical Census Browser, University of Virginia Geospatial and Statistical Data Center, Agriculture: Total Farms Operated by Tenants, http://mapserver.lib.virginia.edu/collections/ stats/histcensus/index.html, for Caroline, Culpeper, King George, Louisa, Orange, Spotsylvania, and Stafford counties. like the reaper, however, remained out of reach for the average farmer during this period. John M. Waller, a Spotsylvania farmer, owned $940 worth of farm implementation in 1860; while his investment was certainly an outlier in the county, many famers in Spotsylvania had expended hundred of dollars in implementation, suggesting early investment in mechanization.17 Those who did invest in the new machines faced significant set backs after the war, when the depression caused the value of machinery to plummet and ruined harvests and fields resulted in a profit too small to pay off the investment in new technology. Mechanization was not the norm in the mid-­‐nineteenth century. The Book of the Farmer, a widely distributed publication, stated that in 1857 “still a great deal of corn is sown by the hand, especially on small farms, on which expensive machines have not yet found their way.”18 Overall, the average farmer during this time was still harvesting primarily by mule, horse, or hand, though a flurry of new agricultural patents proved a more mechanized future was on the horizon. By 1900, the agricultural boom and recovering economy made mechanization possible for more farmers, and the value of these new technologies, and the yearly production, increased. Buildings and Landscapes The rise of tenant farming brought changes to the landscape as well. Tenant farmers built small, usually one or two room vernacular structures with little elaboration, often near their portion of farmed land. The earlier, common farm layout of a main house with its surrounding outbuildings shifted to a main house with tenant farm houses scattered throughout the improved acreage, any of which might have their own small barns. Farmers planned out field locations around their most arable lands, and had some understanding of crop rotation to best work the soil. Some massive plantations surviving from as early as the settlement period continued in production through and after the Civil War, but these were outliers for Rappahannock River Valley agriculture. In 1876, 21 out of 1,100 farms surveyed in Culpeper County were more than a thousand acres, indicating that some of the largest farms did survive after the war, though they were certainly not the standard after the settlement period.19 Crop patterns emerged early on in the region, and were based on topography.20 The Civil War left burned crops, dilapidated fences, and abandoned fields on farms across the region. In Spotsylvania County, an area especially hard-­‐hit by the war, 50,683 acres of improved land were lost between 1860 and 1870.21 By comparison, Augusta County, less directly impacted by the war in the Shenandoah Valley, saw only a 1,801-­‐acre loss in improved farmland, a less than one-­‐percent drop, compared to Spotsylvania’s 43% loss. The trend of decline in acres of improved farmland did reverse by 1890, and by 1900 had surpassed pre-­‐war levels in Stafford County. The Southern War Claims Commission, established to investigate war damages to 17 United States Census Bureau, Agricultural Production, Berkeley Parish, Spotsylvania County, Virginia, Schedule 4, 1860. 18
Book of the Farmer, 1857, page 32. 19 Eugene M. Scheel, Culpeper: A Virginia County’s History through 1920, (Culpeper, Virginia: Culpeper Historical Society, 1982,) 242. 20 Scheel, Culpeper, 246. 21 Historical Census Browser, University of Virginia Geospatial and Statistical Data Center, Agriculture: Acres of Improved Land, http://mapserver.lib.virginia.edu/collections/ stats/histcensus/index.html, for Caroline, Culpeper, King George, Louisa, Orange, Spotsylvania, and Stafford counties. Southern citizens who could prove they did not support the Confederacy during the war, recorded the specifics of farm size, value, and production in the region. Union-­‐supporting farmers appealing for reparations very rarely received back the full value of their losses. Joseph Ficklen, a wealthy miller from Falmouth, argued for reimbursements for hay, corn, livestock, and timber taken by the army, as well as damages to houses and fences on his property, an example of the wide-­‐reaching effects the war left on farms across the region.22 The built environment in war-­‐torn Spotsylvania and surrounding counties looked starkly different in 1870 than it did in the antebellum period. A northern journalist travelling through the region wrote, About every two miles we passed a poor log house in the woods or on the edge of overgrown fields….I do not remember more than two or three framed houses on the road. The city has not one-­‐third the number of houses…it had before the war.23 Certainly the war brought physical ruin to innumerable farmhouses and barns in the Rappahannock River Valley; however, log structures were visible on the landscape before the war as well. A drawing from a journalist covering the war in 1864 shows a log building, likely a barn, in a Spotsylvania farm turned battlefield.24 More common were framed barns with gable roofs, typically around twenty feet wide, clad in vertical weatherboard siding. A photograph from 1880 shows such a barn in Spotsylvania, typical of the time period and region, though large in size at about forty feet long. The gambrel roof barn became popular after the Civil War and with the rise of the dairy industry.25 A number of outbuildings were common on the typical farmstead during this time. For larger farmsteads established before the war, slave houses, typically one or two room framed structures, were located close to working fields.26 At Belmont in Falmouth, Ficklen owned what was likely slave housing, refereed to as a “double dwelling house” with weatherboard siding.27 Most slave owners documented in Spotsylvania in the 1860 census are listed as having at least one slave dwelling on their property. Large corn harvests meant the presence of more and larger corn cribs. Ficklen describes in his war claims a barn for keeping corn, which likely fit this description.28 As tobacco was still produced in the region, tobacco smokehouses-­‐ narrow but tall frame or log structures with ventilation stacks, were still present on the landscape. The late nineteenth century was a time of great transition in agriculture, which left its mark on the changing built landscape of the Rappahannock River Valley. New framing techniques created barns with wider spans of open space for storage, and although the vast 22 Southern War Claims Commission, Joseph Ficklen case, 1871. 23 John Trowbridge, personal notes, in Images of America: Spotsylvania County, John F. Cummings, Arcadia Publishing, 2011. 24 Edwin Forbes, drawing, May 10, 1864, in Images of America: Spotsylvania County, John F. Cummings, (Arcadia Publishing, 2011.) 25
Allen G. Noble and Richard K. Cleek, The Old Barn Book, (New Brunswick, New Jersey, Rutgers University Press, 2009) 120. 26 United States Census Bureau, Enslaved Inhabitants, Spotsylvania County, Virginia, 1860. 27 Southern War Claims Commission, Joseph Ficklen case, 1871, page 448. 28 Southern War Claims Commission, Joseph Ficklen case, 1871, page 448. majority of framed barns during this time were still of timber construction, balloon framing techniques were beginning to influence agricultural structures as well. The 1880s and 1890s were a time of transition in barn construction as with residential structures, and many barns show a combination of new and old methods, like large timber framing that is circular sawn. By the turn of the century, the availability of manufactured lumber made plank framing more popular. Plank framed barns, with larger members formed out of two-­‐by-­‐fours gang planked together as a single unit, were common on the landscape by the turn of the century. This period also saw an increased interest in the science of agriculture, and an emphasis on establishing and maintaining best practices in farming. This translated to the built environment, as new ideas about barn design stressed efficiency and sheltering of animals to yield higher profit. Practical Hints About Barn Building emphasized the need for farmers to thoughtfully consider the layout of the barn and its location on the landscape, saying, “The importance of location and arrangement with reference to the fields and pastures is a point often overlooked, and much valuable time is frequently wasted in driving stock to and from the barn that might with a very little foresight be saved.”29 Publications like this one argued for a centrally located barn, adjacent to as many field as possible for efficiency, but while still considering the topography of the farm and factors like drainage and relative altitude. Light and ventilation were also prescribed; barns built during this time period had more windows and doors than barns of the early nineteenth century.30 Though certainly not every farmer implemented these prescribed changes, nor was even aware of them, these changes in agricultural study did impact the products, practices, and built environment of agriculture during the 1880s and 1890s. The growth of the dairy industry caused a change in the barns common in the area at the end of the nineteenth century. Dairy barns, often with a gambrel or Gothic-­‐style roof for increased hay storage above, increased in size and changed in function to adapt to a modern emphasis on best practices. Though historically farm animals were left to pasture even in the winter and in cities like Fredericksburg, an emphasis on the science of agriculture emphasized the benefits of keeping livestock indoors to fatten and collect manure. Dairy barns with stanchions for feeding and milking cows became more prevalent. Round barns, though never common in Tidewater or Piedmont Virginia, appeared around 1890, with a large feeding area for cows in the center.31 By the twentieth century, great emphasis was placed on cleanliness in dairy barns, especially following the establishment of the Food and Drug Administration in 1906, which implemented standards for the infrastructure of dairy operations. Farmers covered dirt floors, painted walls white, and added avenues for washing out floors Silos made an appearance on the landscape during this time. The earliest silos, appearing around 1880-­‐1890, were varied in material and experimental in form. Most were wooden structures, first square or octagonal and later circular, with a variety of roof forms from gabled to pyramidal. The turn of the century was a time of an increasingly scientific approach to agriculture, and farmers continued to study the effectiveness of the new silo during this time. Fencing was also in transition, as new materials and a new emphasis on sheltering animals brought changes to the rural landscape. Earlier in the region, livestock and especially pigs were not penned, but left to forage even during the winter months. Local Fredericksburg 29 James Harvey Sanders, Practical hints about barn building, together with suggestions as to the construction of swine and sheep pens, silos and other farm outbuildings, (Chicago, J. H. Sanders Publishing Company, 1893), 10. 30 Sanders, Practical Hints about Barn Building, 40. 31
Noble, The Old Barn Book, 120. city laws and the General Assembly tried to regulate this roaming of animals, indicating both the trend towards fencing and the reality that many farmers did not yet participate in it.32 Though the 1870s and 1880s, wooden fencing methods were prevalent on the region’s farms. A drawing by a journalist documenting Civil War battlefields in 1864 shows a long stretch of split rail fencing at Spindle Farm in Spotsylvania County. Ficklen describes this type of worm fencing on his property as being twelve rails high, as well as extensive “panel” fencing.33 Post-­‐and-­‐rail fencing was also used, visible on the Alsop Farm in Spotsylvania during this period.34 Along with wood, farmers also used stone fences and walls to secure their fields.35 By 1890, wire fencing was beginning to replace wooden versions, though not every farmer transitioned to the newer technology. Lines of barbed wire and woven wire fences appeared on the landscape, and by the turn of the century were affordable modern alternatives to wood. 32
Scheel, Culpeper, 241. 33
Southern War Claims Commission, Joseph Ficklen, 1871, 429. Library of Congress, photograph of Alsop Farm, no date, in Images of America: Spotsylvania County, John F. Cummings III, Charleston, S.C., Arcadia Publishing, 2011. 35
National Park Service, Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania: Sunken Road/Stone Wall Sector of Fredericksburg Battlefield, 2013, http://www.nps.gov/frsp/photosmultimedia/sr.htm 34
Total Value of All Farm Products in Dollars, 1870-­‐1900 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 Caroline 400,000 Orange Spotsylvania 300,000 Stafford 200,000 100,000 0 1870 1880 1890 1900 Total Number of Farms, 1860-­‐1900 3000 2500 2000 Caroline 1500 Orange Spotsylvania 1000 Stafford 500 0 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 Total Farms Operated By Tenants, and Race of Tenants, 1910 700 600 500 400 300 Non-­‐White Tenants White Tenants 200 100 0 Acres of Improved Land, 1860-­‐1900 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 Spotsylvania 150,000 Caroline 100,000 50,000 0 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 Bibliography African American Freedman Bureau, Register of Colored Persons of Caroline County, State of Virginia, cohabitating together and husband and wife on 27th February, 1866. Beverley C. Pratt, Places I Have Known Along the Rappahannock River. 2005. Chataigne's Fredericksburg and Falmouth City Directories, 1888-­‐1889. 1889. Digitized by Gary Stanton and the University of Mary Washington Center for Historic Preservation, at http://vagenweb.org/stafford/towns/citydirectory1888.htm. Cooke, Patty G. P., Images of America: Louisa and Louisa County. Charleston, South Carolina: Arcadia Publishing, 1997. Cummings, John F., Images of America: Spotsylvania County. Charleston, South Carolina: Arcadia Publishing, 2011. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, “Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania County Battlefields Memorial National Military Park Geologic Resources Inventory Report,” 2010. Forbes, Edwin, drawing, May 10, 1864, in Images of America: Spotsylvania County, John F. Cummings. Arcadia Publishing, 2011. Fredericksburg Business Directory, 1885. Fredericksburg, Virginia and Vicinity, Map. 1862. From Library of Congress, Hotchkiss Map Collection, http://www.loc.gov/item/2005625032. Historical Census Browser, University of Virginia Geospatial and Statistical Data Center, Agriculture: Acres of Improved Land, http://mapserver.lib.virginia.edu/collections/ stats/histcensus/index.html, for Historical Census Browser, University of Virginia Geospatial and Statistical Data Center, Agriculture: Value of Orchard Products, http://mapserver.lib.virginia.edu/collections/ stats/histcensus/index.html. Historical Census Browser, University of Virginia Geospatial and Statistical Data Center, Agriculture: Value of Livestock and Total Value of All Farm Products, http://mapserver.lib.virginia.edu/collections/ stats/histcensus/index.html Historical Census Browser, University of Virginia Geospatial and Statistical Data Center, Agriculture: Total Farms Operated by Tenants, http://mapserver.lib.virginia.edu/collections/ stats/histcensus/index.html, for Jackson, Luther Porter, The Virginia Free Negro Farmer and Property Owner, 1830-­‐1860. Library of Congress, photograph of Alsop Farm, no date, in Images of America: Spotsylvania County, John F. Cummings III, Charleston, S.C., Arcadia Publishing, 2011. National Park Service, Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania: Sunken Road/Stone Wall Sector of Fredericksburg Battlefield, 2013, http://www.nps.gov/frsp/photosmultimedia/sr.htm Noble, Allen G. and Richard K. Cleek, The Old Barn Book. (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2009). Rappahannock River, Virginia, from Port Royal to Richard’s Ferry. Map. 1863. From Library of Congress, Map Collection, http://www.loc.gov/item/2003630517. Sanders, James Harvey, Practical hints about barn building, together with suggestions as to the construction of swine and sheep pens, silos and other farm outbuildings. Chicago: J. H. Sanders Publishing Company, 1893. Scheel, Eugene M., Culpeper: A Virginia County’s History through 1920. Culpeper, Virginia: Culpeper Historical Society, 1982. Southern War Claims Commission, Joseph Ficklen case, 1871. Stephens, Henry, Book of the Farm: detailing the labors of the farmer, steward, plowman, hedger, cattle-­‐man, shepherd, field-­‐worker, and dairy maid. 1857. Auburn: Alden, Beardsley and Company, 1852. Trowbridge, John, personal notes, in Images of America: Spotsylvania County, John F. Cummings. Charleston, South Carolina: Arcadia Publishing, 2011. United States Census Bureau, Enslaved Inhabitants, Spotsylvania County, Virginia, Schedule 2, 1850. United States Census Bureau, Production of Agriculture, Berkley Parish, Spotsylvania County, Virginia, Schedule 4, 1860 and 1870.