 |
To Crosbies & Trafford
Gentn Mount Vernon Virginia 6th March 1765 Captn McCabe has prevaild on me to believe, that you will render me an agreeable Acct of Sales for a Ton of Tobacco; to try the event therefore and oblige him I now Inclose you a Bill of Loading for four Hhds, which you will please to dispose of to the best advantage.1
In return, I shoud be obligd to you for sending me one of the Rotheram (or Patent Plows)—If the construction of them are not thoroughly understood in Liverpool you woud do me a singular favour in getting it from a place of that name in Yorkshire (where I suppose they were first Invented and now are made) for none but the true sort will answer the end of my sending for it & I had rather be at the expence of the Carriage from thence than not have the right kind or be disappointed. You will please to order it to be made exceeding light as our Lands are not so stiff as your’s nor our Horses so strong2—At the sametime I shoud be glad to receive
1 dozn 8/4 Diaper Table Cloaths @6/ ½ dozn 10/4 Do Do Do @10/ 60 Ells of strong white Sheeting at about 20d. 25 Sacks of Salt (best twilld Sacks) or what remains of the nett proceeds of the Tobacco in this last Article.3 As I woud willingly receive these things by the Return of Captn McCabe and you may not by that time have disposed of my Tobacco possibly you can judge nearly what it will fetch, & make the Returns accordingly. I am Gentn Yr Most Obedt Hble Servt
Go: Washington
 |
| Figure 2: Master farmer Ed Schultz driving oxen team while apprentice guides plough |
.
While building another replica Rotherham was more than feasible, there was an unforeseen wrinkle in the story:
In another much later letter between George Washington and Arthur Young from August 6th 1786, Washington asks Young to acquire two ploughs for him, which he has him send to Wakelin Welsh esq in London to arrange shipment. The builder of these ploughs is unknown, but given Washington's praise for the Rotherham, we can assume that Young would have attempted to acquire some variant of the Rotherham for Washington. With this idea in mind, Ed said that during a correpsondence with Bob Powell of the National Museum of Rural Life in Scotland (who has made a special study of European plough history), it was conjectured that the ploughs that Young acquired for Washington could in fact have been designed by Scottish ploughwright James Small. Powell claimed that the late 1700s, when Young would have acquired the ploughs for Washington, there would have been little distinction between the Rotherham and the Small's plough, and thus what was called a Rotherham may instead be a newer and more sophisticated design engineered by Small. Small's workshop and business were after all located at Blackadder Mount, Allanton in the county of Berkwickshire, only a county over from Yorkshire (Dunse Hist. Soc.) where the Rotherham factory was supposed to be. Thus, given Small's proximity to Yorkshire and his reputation as a ploughwright in the area, there is some plausibility to Powell's argument. Small's design was widespread by the 1780s. Hence, if Young went looking for a Rotherham for his buddy Washington, he may have inadvertantly acquired a Small's style plough.
Here's an excerpt from Washington's correspondence with Arthur Young from 1786:
I will give you, Sir, the trouble of providing, and sending to the care of Wakelin Welch, Esqr. of London, Mercht the following articles.
Two of the simplest, & best constructed Plows for land which is neither very heavy nor Sandy. To be drawn by two horses. To have spare shares & Colters—and a mold17 on which to form new irons when the old ones are worn out, or will require repairing.
I shall18 take the liberty in this place to observe, that some years ago, from a description, or recommendation of19 what was then called the Rotheram; or Patent Plow, I sent to England for one of them,20 and till it began to wear, & was ruined by a bungling Country Smith that no plow could have done better work, or appeared to have gone21 easier with two horses; but for want of a Mold (wch I had neglected to order with the Plow), it became useless after the irons which came in with it were much worn.
This is where things get interesting: When Young writes back to Washington on February 1, 1787, he treats thoroughly of both the performance and construction of the ploughs he sent, even including details of dimensions with an accompanying doodle.
 |
| Figure 3: Excerpt from correspondence from Arthur Young to George Washington from February 1, 1787. Young includes detailed dimensions and a doodle of one of the two ploughs he sent Washington. |
In Young's letter he writes:
The ploughs are excellent; I have had them both tried; & ploughed some furrows with them myself & find that they do their business perfectly to my wish. In regard to the mould by which the shares are made & wch you seem to lay some stress upon; I do not perfectly comprehend you; as they are not wrought, or cast on any. but I have taken every possible precaution that you should find no difficulty in their reparation, having sent three shares & three coulters to each plough, In order that you may keep one of each as a pattern to work them by; and that you may know whether they are made properly & put on so, I also send the measures of each plough by wch you may examine them;3 for if they do not at any time go well (that is quite easy in hand & for small distances almost without holding: I should add that I saw them both go without being touched, for several seconds) you have only to alter them till they agree with the measures & then you are sure of their performing. I should add that they are made for a 9 inch furrow, & from 4 to 6 or 8 inches deep; & to be drawn by two stout oxen or horses: the depth of 8 inches only in loose easy friable soils. The horses are to go abreast & without a driver. I have sent one pair of whippletrees. Should you afterwards approve better of Wooden ploughs I would with great pleasure send you one; but they admit scarcely any alteration; if once twisted or drawn out of the right line, new ones must be made. Whereas you will see on examining these ploughs that they are to be taken entirely to pieces by the screws in half an hour.
The details from this correspondence indicate that Young does not understand what Washington means by a "mold on which to form new irons", sending him instead a number of additional coulters and ploughshares. That Young can not acquire the ploughshare mold nor that he understands what Washington is looking for makes sense. Such cast-iron molds were likely proprietary to the ploughwright, and not easily come by since casting iron was no simple matter in the late 18th century. In other words, they were not for sale. Also, Arthur Young, being only a writer and agricultural enthusiast, probably wasn't acquainted with ploughwrighting practices at the time, therefore this idea of a ploughshare mold was lost on him.
But what is perhaps even more confounding is when Young relates "[s]hould you afterwards approve better of [w]ooden ploughs I would with great pleasure send you one[.]" This seems to suggest that what Young has sent Washington is an all-iron plough, maybe with a cast-iron mouldboard. The notion that these ploughs were all-iron is further substantiated by Washington's reply on November 1, 1787, where he writes:
I have tried the Ploughs which you sent me and find that they answer the description which you gave me of them; this is contrary to the opinion of almost every one who saw them before they were used, for it was thought their great weight would be an insuperable objection to their being drawn by two Horses.
Why would ploughmen, accustomed to wooden ploughs like the Rotherham, think a similar style of wooden swing plough was "insuperable [...] to [...] being drawn by two [h]orses" due to its "great weight"? This anecdote suggests instead that what Washington's ploughmen were greeted with was an all iron or heavily iron-ed plough.
So could this still be a Small's plough? It is possible. Numerous sources claim Small did eventually cast the mouldboards of his plough. One of the earliest I have found is in a footnote to Lord John Somerville's work Facts and Observations Relative to Sheep, Wool, Ploughs, and Oxen from 1809, where he writes: "The cast-iron plate used by this ingenious ploughwright (James Small) has been much talked of [.]" He goes on to be rather dismissive of Small's ingenuity, perhaps because Somerville himself has a patent for new and improved cast-iron mouldboard plates? Nevertheless, it is proof that not only had Small been casting his mouldboards, but that by 1809 he was widely known for having done so.
The Dunse Historical Society claims Small was casting his mouldboards early on, saying that they were cast at the famous Carron Company ironworks, whose foundry was based in Scotland. I have found corroborating evidence in a periodical entitled The Scot's Magazine and Edinburgh Literary Miscellany printed in 1812, wherein is given a rather in-depth account of Small's story An Account of James Small and of his improvements in the construction of Agricultural Implements by Sir John Sinclair.
It was about the end of the year 1779, or the beginning of the year 1780, that James Small made a pattern in wood for the mouldboard, also for the land-side plates of his plough, and he took them with him to Carron, where he got them cast.
Given Sinclair's access to Small's family members and close colleagues, the veracity of his account appears sound. The years he cites when Small first cast the mouldboard are the earliest purported dates that I have come across, and if true, strengthen the likelihood that Arthur Young might have sent George Washington ploughs with cast-iron mouldboards, and, moreover, that they might have been manufactured by Small's shop. Indeed, casting a mouldboard would not have been a trivial endeavor in the 18th century, and the Carron ironworks was a rather state-of-the-art foundry in the period, meaning they were up to the challenge. In other words, if anyone were to have their mouldboards cast early on, it would have been a ploughwright like Small who was serendipitously situated near a top-notch foundry like Carron.
Nonetheless, Small does not make overt mention of the mouldboard being cast, and instead describes the mouldboard being shaped out of wood. But, I have speculated that perhaps the plating of the mouldboards was the first thing to be cast. Perhaps there was an intermediate stage in the evolution of the all cast-iron mouldboard, where the plating for the mouldboard was cast, while the body of the mouldboard was still carved out of wood. That is until Small realized that the added weight and structure of the wooden mouldboard was unnecessary to the performance of the plough. It is easy to imagine the uninitiated observer conflating mouldboard plating with the entire mouldboard. Casting the plating seems a natural evolutionary step before casting the entire mouldboard. Indeed, there are irresolvable details in Small's treatise that may be explained by this hypothesis, but still it seems far-fetched, for where are the survivng examples?
Whether or not Small was casting his mouldboards or mouldboard plates in the 18th century, we intend to focus on the wooden swing plough he developed before this transition to casting. I have been digging into Small's "Treatise on Ploughs and Wheel Carriages" published in 1784, and as I will describe further below, the treatise is a veritable goldmine—a real window into the 18th century ploughwright's craft—and has inspired us to build a real working replica of Small's plough using precisely the same method as described in his treatise. In other words, we are embarking on real experimental history!
The History of the Plough
Before sinking our teeth into the intricacies of Small's plough design, it is worthwhile to give some context to its genesis. Small's plough did not spring forth full-formed from the vacuum. To appreciate what aspects were truly innovative about Small's plough, I want to go over a quick crash course in the history of the plough.
The Ancient Plough
 |
| Figure 4: Depiction of scratch plough from Ginzrot's Die Wagen und Fahrwerke der Griechen und Romer und alterer alten Volker |
Plough technology has been evolving for many thousands of years. The earliest evidence of ploughing dates back to around 3800-3500 BCE in what is the current day Czech Republic, but likely had been going on since 4000-6000 BCE in Mesopotamia. The ploughs used in antiquity simply scratched the earth, cutting a shallow channel and pushing the earth out of the way to either side. These type of ploughs are called ards or scratch ploughs, and were commonly drawn by two oxen abreast, as seen in numerous depictions below. Due to their ineffectiveness at breaking up the soil, however, fields had to be double ploughed, with a second pass perpendicular to the first.
 |
| Figure 5: clay figures driving an ard with two oxen from Ancient Egypt, Middle Kingdom |
Some variation of the ard continued to be used the world over up until the early middle ages. In fact, scratch ploughs are still used in present day Greece, where they remain ideally suited to the light sandy soils. But, in order to make the plough more effective in the heavy soils of Europe, modifications needed to be made.
 |
| Figure 6: painting from burial chamber of Sennendjem c. 1200 BC |
The Medieval Plough
Starting in the late 6th century (White 1962), a significant shift in plough technology started to occur in Europe. Ards were generally better suited to the light sandy soils of the Mediterranean, and were not well-equipped to negotiate the heavier clay soils of Europe nor to help establish those lands then only recently cleared for cultivation. Thus the ards of the Mediterranean were gradually outfitted with additional features to help adapt them to new types of land. First, iron coulters were added, which made a vertical cut ahead of the share, and then a wheeled fore-carriage to help the ploughs track better in the heavy soils. Finally, the ploughs were equipped with a mouldboard and an asymmetric ploughshare, both serving to move and turn the soil over. As a consequence of the additional iron, the timbered fore-carriage, and the bulky mouldboards, ploughs became considerably heavier. For that reason the Medieval European ploughs are referred to as heavy ploughs. The additional weight of these ploughs likely had the collateral benefit of rendering the ploughs more robust and durable, and since they were being used not only to till established fields, but also to initiate recently cleared land, the greater weight and robust build was necessary. The downside of the heavy ploughs, however, was the need for additional draft animals. They were not only heavier, but the bulky and broad mouldboard increased the plough's draft resistance significantly. Hence oxen teams of four to eight were not uncommon, and because practically no Medieval farmers owned that many animals, meant multiple farmers would have to pool their animals to run the plough.
 |
| Figure 7: Depiction of four oxen team pulling a wheeled plough from 11th century Anglo-Saxon calendar |
The importance of the heavy plough to the growth of Medieval Europe cannot be understated. A team of researchers from the University of Southern Denmark (Andersen, Jesen, Skobsgaard 2013) showed through rigorous mathematical modeling that the agricultural revolution in Medieval Europe— attributable primarily to the introduction of the heavy plough—resulted in a calculated 10% overall population growth.
 |
| Figure 8: Vignette from the 11th century Bayeux tapestry showing two different scenes: (1) a wheeled plough being drawn by a mule or ass and (2) harrowing and seed broadcasting |
Plough design continued to develop over many centuries, reaching a pivotal moment in the latter half of the 18th century.
The Plough in the 18th Century
 |
| Figure 9: The wooden components of the basic Rotherham design |
For the first half of the 18th century, the most prominent plough design (at least in England) was the so-called Rotherham, patented by Disney Stanyforth and Joseph Foljambe in 1730. The Rotherham established many constructional conventions that later plough designs would adopt and modify. Interestingly, the origins of the Rotherham design are obscured by many apocryphal creation myths. One such story was that Foljambe designed the Rotherham under the tutelage of Walter Blith—which would have been practically impossible given that Blith would have been 125 years old by 1730. Another story claimed a man named Lummis developed the basic design according to ploughs he studied in Holland. But unfortunately for him, as the story goes, the basic principles of his design were stolen by an unscrupulous ploughwright named Pashley, who worked for Sir Charles Turner of Kirkleatham. Subsequently, Pashley's son went on to set up a plough factory in Rotherham—thus the Rotherham was born. Yet another story claims Charles Varley or Varlo, known for his two volume treatise A New System of Husbandry, himself invented the Rotherham, and still another story claims the Earl of Stair brought a Dutch plough to England in 1730, which became the basis for the Rotherham. Nevertheless, all these scenarios appear spurious in light of the official 1730 patent filed by Foljambe and Stanyforth.
In the specifications of the 1730 patent, thirteen features were enumerated which distinguish the Rotherham from the ploughs that came before. The new features not only include the addition of new parts, but also re-designed components and more modern constructional practices. The list goes thus:
1) A beam made by mould, mortised into land stilt
I am uncertain what is meant by "made by mould". Some have translated that as being bent into shape on a mould, however, the beam being made of such a stout timber makes this unlikely. Stanyforth and Foljambe probably mean that the beam is made according to a drafted template.
2) Staith (standard) mortised into beam, made of different shape, and projects out forward of shield board (mouldboard)
The staith or standard projecting out in front of the mouldboard is a feature that the Small's plough shares with the Rotherham.
3) Shield board made by mould, made of different shape, differently joined, the front edge joined to staith, but does not project as far forward as staith, pinned to the furrow stilt. The staith, shieldboard, and furrow-side stilt all form the entire shield board.
Again, what is meant by "made by mould" is uncertain. The mouldboard is a very uniquely shaped piece of wood, and is more likely to have been sculpted than bent. So, it stands to reason that, yet again, what is actually meant here is that the ploughwright follows a template of sorts. This is an important detail. What Stanyforth and Foljambe are intimating here is that the mouldboard construction for the Rotherham should be standardized, in some sense. Whereas ploughwrights previously navigated the shaping of the mouldboard by hand and eye, the Rotherham is meant to have a more consistent and reliable mouldboard shape.
4) The fore end of the land-side stilt fastened to the staith, the furrow stilt fastened to the shield board.
5) A new part known as a "heel" which is fastened under the fore end of the land stilt, (the land stilt falling between the staith and the heel).
Small's plough design also possesses a heel
6) Two spindles, one between the stilts about half way up, and the other through the shield board and heel by the end of the land stilt.
7) Two shares: the haine share and the sockett share, which are formed to their shape on an iron mould, and are different from all preceding shares.The haine share is fixed to the staith and shield board, going about six inches up the staith, the land stilt laps two inches over the land side of the staith, and goes about four and half inches over the fore end of the shield board, and the furrow stilt laps round until it comes within two inches under the shield board breadthwise. the sockett share is fixed upon the in the same manner, but laps around the fore ends of the staith and shield board.
Two important ideas here. First, the Small's plough has only one as opposed to two shares. So this is a key difference with the Rotherham. Second, both the Rotherham and Small's plough have shares "formed to their shape on an iron mould". Small calls this iron mould the "sock mandrel".
8) The coulter goes through the beam nearer to the top of the staith compared to previous ploughs, and is fixed upright, cutting a square kerf, which is different from previous ploughs.
One interesting difference here between the Rotherham coulter and the Small's coulter is the Small describes the ideal coulter being forged with a dog-leg shape, kinked two the land-side slightly, so that effectively half the coulter's thickness projects land-wise, proud of the plane formed by beam, staith, and land-side stilt
9) Two mould plates fastened upon the shield board, one upon the upper edge, and the other upon the lower edge.
Small does not describe the exact manner in which the mouldboard should be plated. He does seem to indicate that the plates or plating is of uneven thicknesses, but it remains an open question exactly how Small intends his ploughs to be plated.
10) Three "slips" of iron: one on the sole of the shield board, one under the heel and fore end of the staith, and one that goes on the land side of the plough.
11) A pair of shackles
12) a "bee" that goes around the beam where the coulter comes through, and if it is a horse plough, then the shackles are replaced with an iron cock (clevis?) at the far end of the beam.
13) An additional share which can be exchanged for the standard share, used for paring the ground
The features of the Rotherham become standard to most European ploughs from the 18th century through the early 19th century. But ploughs, perhaps more than any other farm kit, were always being tweaked and modified. It was while working as an "operative mechanic" in Doncaster in the years between 1758 - 1764 that James Small first came into contact with the Rotherham. He developed a number of modifications to its design, and more importantly, start developing a systematic approach to plough construction that would become crystallized in his treatise on the subject.
James Small & The Treatise on Ploughs and Wheel Carriages
James Small was a Scottish wheelwright who, in 1784, published his landmark “Treatise on Ploughs and Wheel Carriages”. I’ve been diving deep into this treatise for the past couple months.
Among other things, Small describes a methodology for generating the complex geometry of the mouldboard in a repeatable way. His plough design was based on his own folksy and empirical principles of soil dynamics.
The mouldboard is the part of the plough which is responsible for sculpting the cut earth into a kind of breaking wave as the plough is drawn, both throwing the soil to one side and turning it over simultaneously. The shape that Small deemed best for this job was a uniformly twisting plane. Small outlines a sort of algorithm that ploughwrights could follow to produce this twisting shape the same way every time. ensuring greater consistency in the product and better performance from the plough.
Citations
Small, James. The Treatise on Ploughs and Wheel Carriages.
Fussell, G.E. Ploughs and Ploughing before 1800. Agricultural History, Jul., 1966, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp 177-186.
Blith, Walter. The English Improver Improved.
Somerville, John Lord. Facts and Observations Relativie to Sheep, Wool, Ploughs, and Oxen.
Black, John. Observations on the Tillage of the Earth and on The Theory of Instruments Adapated to this End.
Gow, A. S. F. The Ancient Plough. The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 34, pp 249 - 275.
Andersen, T. B, Jensen, P. S., Skovsgaard, C. S. The Heavy Plough and the Agricultural Revolution in Medieval Europe.
Sinclair, Sir John. An Account of James Small and of his improvements in Agricultural Implements. The Scot's Magazine and Edinburgh Literary Miscellany, 1812.. pp 260 - 265
I built the last plough in 2019.
ReplyDelete