Economy of Goods

Category: Goods

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.

October 11, 2018
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.

October 11, 2018
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.

October 11, 2018
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.

October 11, 2018
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.

October 11, 2018
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.

October 11, 2018
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.

October 11, 2018
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.

October 11, 2018
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.

October 11, 2018
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.

October 11, 2018