. , .
. . , ~ r
, ;
. ‘ ’ r , - ’ r
l C X ‘ ~ ' ‘

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

£7335273

____ WWW:
rm LIBRARY fl
{ 5111523833“

L# J

‘fi

i“

 

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled
FLUSH TIMES ON THE UPPER TOMBIGBEE:
SETTLEMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN LOWNDES COUNTY,
MISSISSIPPI, 1833-1860
presented by

WILLIAM STEPHEN MCBRIDE

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph. D. degree in Anthropology

    

Majorrofessor

Date 714600! q liq,

lfif

MS U is an Aflinmuin Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

l PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove We checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or betore date due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

s , 053280054

"———'— /

 

 

 

’—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

’—
MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

 

FLUSH TIMES ON THE UPPER TOMBIGBEE:
SETTLEMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN LOWNDES COUNTY,
MISSISSIPPI, 1833-1860

By
WILLIAM STEPHEN MCBRIDE

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Anthropology

1991

5% — 79¢?

ABSTRACT
FLUSH TIMES ON THE UPPER TOMBIGBEE:
SETTLEMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN LOWNDES COUNTY,
MISSISSIPPI, 1833—1860
By

WILLIAM STEPHEN MCBRIDE

This is a study of settlement patterns and hierarchy, socioeconomic structure, and
economic behavior in a recently settled plantation region. The nature of economic
behavior, processes of change which occurred as the region evolved from a frontier to a
more stable state, has been little studied by students of plantation regions or frontiers in
general. To facilitate an understanding of this issue, a model of economic behavior is
presented and tested in this study. This model, the Boom-Bust model, focuses on the
relationship of economic cycles to settlement patterns, economic development and behavior
in a developing plantation, or at least "export propel] " region. While this model is a type
of frontier model, the situations it is applicable to are much different from the stereotypical
isolated frontier. These areas were more commercialized and experienced more rapid
change. A three phase scheme of development, including a boom, a bust, and a recovery,
is predicted within the model.

Hypotheses on immigration, socieoeconomic structure, agricultural methods, town
development and settlement hierarchy, stores, and consumer behavior were generated from
this model and tested with documentary data from Lowndes and Monroe Counties,
Mississippi, and with archaeological data recovered from the excavation of Colbert and
Barton, extinct towns which were located in Lowndes County, Mississippi.

The results of this analysis indicate that in the context of a recently settled plantation
region, economic cycles had a very strong impact on the natme of settrnent pattern and
hierarchy, town development, and consumption of luxuries. The examination of
socioeconomic structure and consumption patterns within each phase of the model suggests

that the societal simplification noted in many frontier situations is generally not present in

those areas which conform to the model. This study demonstrates some of the
complexities involved when examining consumer behavior, and the need to be aware of
overall economic as well as individual socioeconomic context. It also demonstrates some
of the unique contributions historical archaeology can offer, particularly in the study of

consumer behavior.

   
       

by“ v ‘c J! e 3e ' -"‘
, IND: l 'p
_ _ Gfif‘m .ro . A .,

P‘olhmr 1. > . .. r
gore- s-‘a! a»...

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This dissertation could not have been completed without the assistance of many persons
and institutions. First, for their guidance and patience, I owe a great debt to the members
of my doctoral committee, Dr. Charles E. Cleland, Dr. Kenneth E. Lewis, Dr. William A.
Lovis, and Dr. David T. Bailey. I especially thank Charles Cleland, my committee chair,
for his great patience and insistence that I examine the Upper Tombigbee data within a
broader context. A special debt is also owed to Kenneth Lewis for his advice on the
organization of this dissertation.

Much of the data examined in this dissertation was collected during Michigan State
University Museum’s Tombigbee Historic Townsites Project, funded and administered by
the US. Army Corps of Engineers-Mobile and the National Park Service. I especially
thank Dr. Stephanie Rodeffer of the National Park Service for her encouragement and
administrative support. I also thank John O’Hear and Richard Marshall of the Cobb
Institute of Archaeology, Mississippi State University, for their assistance in making
archaeological collections accessible for my study. A number of Mississippi archival
repositories were utilized in the completion of this study. I especially thank staff members
at the Clay, Lowndes, and Monroe County courthouses; the Clay and Lowndes County
libraries; the Evan’s Memorial Library; and the Mississippi State Department of Archives
and History.

One of the greatest debts is owed to Jack D. Elliott, Jr. of Palo Alto, Mississippi and
the Mississippi Department of Archives and History. Without Jack’s research and
preservation efforts, the Tombigbee Historic Townsites Project would have never
occurred. I also thank Jack for sharing his extensive notes and knowledge of the Upper
Tombigbee towns and merchants.

Family and friends have contributed great encouragement and patience. Colleagues at
the University of Kentucky and fellow Students at Michigan State University deserve
special thanks for their support. I thank my parents, Beverley McBride and John McBride
and my parents-in law, Charles and Nora Arbogast, for their moral and financial support.

I also thank my grandfather, Edward Lee Booth, for his support and for sharing with me
his interest in history. My greatest thanks are extended to my wife, Kim, without whose
encouragement and assistance this dissertation could never have been completed.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . viii
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . x
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

Introduction . . . . . . . . 1
Arrangement of chapters . . . . . . . . 4

CHAPTER 2. THE BOOM-BUST MODEL: A MODEL OF SETTLEMENT AND
ECONOMIC BEHAVIOR

Introduction . . . . . . . . . 6
Frontier Settlement Models . . . . . . . . 7
Boom-Bust Model . . . . . . . . . 20

CHAPTER 3. THE SETTLEMENT CONTEXT OF LOWNDES COUNTY,
MISSISSIPPI: PRECONDTTIONS OF THE BOOM-BUST MODEL

Introduction . . 24
Precondition 1: The Context of American Expansion In the Nineteenth Century . 27
Precondition 2. Antebellum Economic Cycles. . . 29
Precondition 3. Settlement of the Old Southwest. The Availability of Land . . 31
Precondition 3, 6, 7. Cotton and and Environment of Lowndes County . . 37
Preecondition 4. Migrants to Lowndes County . . . 4O
Preecondition 5: Transportation . . . . . . 44
Hypotheses . . . . . . . . 45
Data Sources . . . . . . . . . . 50

CHAPTER 4 SETTLEMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF LOWNDES

COUNTY

Introduction . . . . . . . . 53
Migrations of the Boom Period . . . . 53
Socioeconomic Structure and Concentration of Wealth . . . . 59
Agricultural Methods and Production. . . . . . . 75
CHAPTER 5. TOWN DEVELOPMENT IN LOWNDES COUNTY

Inu'oducn'on . . . . 78
Pre-Boom Town Development . . . . . . . 78
Boom Town Development . . . . . . . . 81
Bust Period Town Development . . . . . . . 101
Recovery Period Town Development . . . . . . . 106
Diversity of Stores, Goods, Services . . . . . . . 119

CHAPTER 6. ECONOMIC CYCLES AND CONSUMER BEHAVIOR IN LOWNDEZS5
COUNTY

Archaeological Investigations at Colbert and Barton I . . . . i26
Analysis of Consumption Patterns . . . . . . 187
CHAPTER 7. CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . 207
APPENDIX. Mean Ceramic Index Calculations. . . . . . . 215
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . 230

vii

 

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1. Lowndes County Population, 1820—1850

Table 4.2. Distribution of Slaveholding Households, Lowndes County, 1820- 1840.
Table 4.3. Distribution of Landholding Households, Lowndes County, 1833-1840.
Table 4.4. Distribution of Slaveholding Households. Lowndes County, 1840-1860.

Table 4.5. Distribution of Landholding Households, Lowndes County, 1840-1860.
Table 4.6. Distribution of Slaveholding Households, by Location, 1840 .
Table 4.7. Distribution of Landholding Households by Location, 1840
Table 4. 8. Slave Concentration, 1840- 1860.

Table 4. 9. Acreage Concentration, 1840- 1860

Table 4.10. Agricultural Land Value Concentration, 1840—1860

Table 4.11. Comparison of Gini Coefficients, 1840-1860 .

Table 4.12. Distribution of Slaveholding Households, by Location, 1850
Table 4.13. Distribution of Landholdng Households, by Location,1850
Table 4.14. Agricultural Production, Lowndes County, 1850—1860.

Table 5.1. Lowndes County Merchandise Sold .

Table 5. 2. Lowndes and Monroe County Merchandise Sold

Table 6.1. Ceramic Maker' 5 Marks from the Allen Site

Table 6.2. Diagnosn'c Ceramics from the Allen Site .

Table 6.3. Ceramic Maker' 5 Marks from the Cherry Site .

Table 6.4. Diagnostic Ceramics from the Cherry Site, Features 7 & 9

Table 6.5. Ceramic Maker's Marks from the Warren Site .

Table 6.6. Diagnostic Ceramics from the Warren Site.

Table 6.7. Ceramic Maker's Marks and Labels from the McGowan Site
Table 6.8. Ceramic Maker's Marks from the Adair-Rodgers Site

Table 6.9. Ceramic Maker's Marks from the Warren-Duling Site

Table 6.10. Ceramic Maker's Marks and Labels from the Griswold Site
Table 6.11. Ceramic Maker's Marks from the Early Griswold Site .

Table 6.12. Purchasing Patterns of Lowndes County Merchandise .

Table 6.13. Mean Ceramic Index Values of Separate Colbert Deposits .
Table 6.14. Feature 16 and Wanen Site, Mean Ceramic Index Values (1846)
Table 6.15. Wealth of Colbert Site Residents .

Table 6.16. Wealth of Barton Site Residents

Table 6.17. Mean Wealth at Barton Sites

Table 6.18. Life-cycle and Occupation Span at Colbert and Barton Sites

Table 6.19. Ceramic Consumption and Site Rank, Colbert and Barton

Table 6.20. Late Colbert Mean Ceramic Index Values .

Table A.1. 1838 Mean Ceramic Index Calculation, Colbert Site A, Feature 3
Table A2. 1838 Mean Ceramic Index Calculation, Colbert Site A, Feature 16
Table A.3.1838 Mean Ceramic Index Calculation, Colbert Site B

Table A.4.1838 Mean Ceramic Index Calculation, Don' s Landing, WFl & 2
Table A.5.1838 Mean Ceramic Index Calculation, Don' s Landing, East Feature
Table A.6. 1846 Mean Ceramic Index Calculation, Colbert Site A, Feature 16
Table A.7.1846 Mean Ceramic Index Calculation, Colbert Site B, Feature 7,8,9
Table A.8.1846 Mean Ceramic Index Calculation, Don' s Landing, East Feature
Table A9. Mean Ceramic Index Calculation, Barton, Site 5442 .

viii

Table A.10.
Table A.11.
Table A.12.
Table A.13.
Table A. 14.

Mean Ceramic Index Calculation, Barton, Site 5443
Mean Ceramic Index Calculation, Barton, Site 5444
Mean Ceramic Index Calculation, Barton, Site 5445
Mean Ceramic Index Calculation, Barton, Site 5447
Mean Ceramic Index Calculation, Barton, Site 5448

Figure 5.
Figure 5. 6.
Figure 5.7.
Figure 5.8.
Figure 5.9.
Figure 5.10.
Figure 5.11.
Figure 5.12.
Figure 6.1.
Figure 6. 2.
Figure 6.3.
Figure 6.4.
Figure 6.5.
Figure 6.6.
Figure 6.7.
Figure 6.8.
Figure 6.9.

Figrne 6.10.
Figure 6.11.
Figure 6.12.
Figure 6.13.
Figure 6.14.
Figure 6.15.
Figure 6.16.
Figure 6.17.
Figure 6.18.
Figure 6.19.
Figure 6.20.
Figure 6.21.
Figure 6.22.

LIST OF FIGURES

1828 Map of Northeastern Mississippi .
Indian Cessions in Mississippi and Alabama

. Choctow and Chickasaw Cessions of the 1830s
. Physiographic Regions of the Upper Tombigbee ”Valley

Distribution of slaveholdings, 1840- 1860

Distribution of landholdings, 1840—1860

Lorenze Curve, Slaveholding, 1840-1860

Lorenze Curve, landholding,1840-1860

Lorenze Curve, land value, 1840- 1860 .

Monroe County Mississippi, and Surrounding Area, early 1820s.

. Towns In Lowndes County, circa 1839.

Plat of West Port

. Plat of Waverly .

Share of Sales, Columbus and Speculative Towns, 1833- 42 .
Share of Sales, Columbus, Aberdeen, Cotton Gin Port, 1821 -40
Towns in Lowndes County and Surrounding Area, circa 1848 .
Towns in Lowndes County and Surrounding Area, circa 1856 .
Towns in Lowndes County and Surrounding Area, circa 1865 .
The Upper Tombigbee Region, circa 1865 .
Share of Sales, Columbus, 1842- 1858
Share of Sales, Columbus, Aberdeen, Cotton Gin Port, 1840- 56
Tombigbee Townsites and Vicinity .
Colbert Plat, with Archaeological Sites .
Excavated Sites at Barton .
Colbert Site A, Excavation Plan .
Feature 3, Colbert Site A (Allen)
Feature 16, Colbert Site A (Allen)
Colbert Site B, Excavation Plan .
Feature 9, Colbert Site B (Cherry)
Feature 7, Colbert Site B (Cherry)
Don's Landing (Warren) Site Plan (from Marshall 1988)
Plan of East Feature Area 1 (from Marshall 1988)
Plan of West Feature Area 2 (from Marshall 1988)
Site 5442, Excavation plan
Feature 55 (well), Site 5442
Feature 8 (pit), Site 5442
Site 5444, Excavation plan .
Feature 16 (chimney), Site 5444
Site 5445, Excavation plan .
Site 5447, Excavation plan
Site 5448, Excavation plan
Feature 2 (chimney). Site 5448
Feature 3 (well), Site 5448

CHAPTER 1.
INTRODUCTION

Most social and economic studies of plantation regions, particularly the Plantation
South, have been focused on longer settled and economically established regions or
settlements. This is not surprising given the larger and better quality of data sources in
these situations, but it has led to a somewhat static and incomplete picture of variation
within plantation economies. These studies have also tended to focus on the plantations
rather than other settlement forms, such as farms or towns. Variation and development on
the frontiers had significant and lasting impacts on the settlement patterns and economic
development of plantation regions.

The inattention given to plantation or other "export propell " (Katzman 1975)
agricultural frontiers has also lessened our ability to attain a broader understanding of the
variability of behavior and process on agricultural frontiers in general. Most models of
agricultural frontier settlement and adaptation have been based on non-plantation systems
and their applicability to plantation situations is unclear. The highly commercial nature of
plantation agriculture and its dependence on international markets should certainly lead to
many differences from the more fretluently studied small farm frontier.

In the study presented below, a model of settlement patterning, town development, and
economic structure and behavior will be presented and tested. This model, the Boom-Bust
model, focuses on the relationship of economic cycles to economic development and
behavior in a developing plantation, or at least "export propelled" region. While this model
is a type of frontier model, the situations to which it is applicable are much different than

the stereotypical isolated frontier. These latter areas were more commercialized and

2

experienced more rapid change. It is hoped that testing of this model leads to a better
understanding of plantation frontiers in general. On a more particular level, the relationship
of economic cycles to changes in settlement patterns, socioeconomic structure, agricultural
methods, and consumption patterns in the frontier context will be illuminated.

Two independent data sources, documentary and archaeological, will be utilized in
examining the Boom-Bust model. How these two data sources are utilized or related has
been a methodological problem in historical archaeology for some time. Documentary
sources have often been utilized simply to create a narrative background for a particular
site. The narrative is then forgotten and not integrated with the archaeological data in an
amlytical way. Another common method is to generate hypotheses from the local
documents and then test these hypotheses against the archaeological data. In this latter
example, the two data sources are treated as separate and non-overlapping. While this
method can be fruitful, particularly for development of middle-range theory, it does not
make full use of the uniqueness of either data source. Since the two data sources have
different strengths and weaknesses, they should be integrated to address different aspects
of general questions rather than simply being tested against each other.

In a recent Society for Historical Archaeology Plenary Session, a number of
participants identified the inadequate integration of documentary and archaeological data as
one of the greatest failings of historical archaeology, and called for the use of both data
sources to test general propositions (Cleland 1988; Deagan 1988; Schuyler 1988). In the
study to follow, a general model, the Boom-Bust model, is constructed from sources
outside the study area, and then tested with both county and community-level documentary
data and archaeological data from the study area. The integration of the two data sources in
the examination of the general model should make a significant methodological contribution
to the field of historical archaeology.

The overall study area is Lowndes County, Mississippi, a county which became
involved in cotton production and slave-based agriculture immediately after its settlement

3

began. Data from surrounding counties, particularly Monroe County, Mississippi, are also
used in creating a regional perspective. The archaeological data come from eight domestic
sites within the Lowndes County river towns of Colbert and Barton. Although relatively
short, the period under study, 1833-1860, spanned a very dynamic time in the region.

As was mentioned above, the main topics to be investigated include changes in
socioeconomic structure, agricultural methods, town speculation, settlement patterns and
functions, and consumption. The two most important documentary sources to be
examined are the county property tax rolls dating from the 1830s to late 18503 and the
Federal manuscript census rolls dating from 1820-1860. These two sources provide
information on population and wealth, in land and slaves. Agricultural data in the
published federal census for 1850 and 1860 will be used to examine questions related to
agricultural methods.

A number of data sources will be combined to examine questions related to town
development, settlement patterns, and the stores, services, and goods provided by these
towns. These records include deeds, county governmental records, store inventories and
bills, newspapers, reminiscences, and county property tax rolls.

Archaeological data as well as documentary sources are utilized to examine
consumption patterns. The archaeological sample is derived from three domestic sites in
the extinct town of Colbert (1835-1847), and five domestic sites in the extinct town of
Barton (1848-ca. 1862). Refined ceramics will be the artifact type used in the investigation
of changing consumption patterns. Consumption patterns at the county level will be
investigated by examining merchandise sales in the county tax records. The archaeological
data are important because they provide the most information on household level
consumption and on the consumption of certain types of items, in this case refined
ceramics. The county tax rolls only give inforrrmtion on total merchandise sold.

Over the last few years consumption patterns or "consumer choices" have become a

popular topic of study within historical archaeology (Henry 1989; Spencer-Wood 1987a).

4

Many of these studies examine the impact of different variables on consumption patterns.
Socioeconomic status or class, and to some degree ethnicity are the primary factors utilized
in the explanation of consumption variability (Spencer-Wood 1987a). The influence of
different economic contexts, including economic cycles, has received surprisingly little
analysis, however. Consumption variability on frontiers has been examined to some
degree, but generally in more typical isolated frontier situations (Miller and Hurry 1983).
A much deeper understanding of the influence of different settlement and economic
(cyclical) contexts on consumption patterns is needed to more confidently explain

consumption variability.

AuangemtnLChanm

Following this chapter, Chapter 2, presents a model of economic behavior and
conditions during the geographical expansion of an export propelled agricultural systems.
This type of expansion is referred to here as Boom-Bust expansion and is briefly defined as
a type of agricultural frontier expansion which begins during a period of high demand and
price for crops, which can be grown in the new area, and ends, or at least is slowed, by a
dramatic drop in the price of the same crops.

For the changes described in the Boom Bust Model to occur in a frontier area, a series
of preconditions must be present. These preconditions relate to conditions in the frontier
area itself, the nature of the intrusive society, and conditions of the world economy.
Chapter 3 examines early and middle nineteenth century Lowndes County in order to
determine if these preconditions were present there. The data presented to examine the
preconditions also serve as contextual descriptions from which specific hypotheses are
constructed and tested on documentary and archaeological data in later chapters. These

hypotheses focus primarily on issues related to socioeconomic stratification, agricultural

5

production, town settlement patterns and functions, and consumption patterns. These
issues are ones that are sensitive to change in a developing region.

Chapter 4 presents data on the settlement and development of Lowndes County, with
an examination of the first eight hypotheses of the study. These hypotheses examine the
speed and size of settlement, wealth and socioeconomic structure, and agricultural methods
and production. Chapter 5 presents the data on town development and examines the
hypotheses on town speculation, town settlement patterns, the hierarchy of towns, and the
stores, goods, and services available in the towns. The examination of these hypotheses is
organized by the different cycles of the model: Boom, Bust, and Recovery. In Chapter 6,
hypotheses related to the impact of economic cycles on consumer behavior, in the context
of a developing plantation region, are tested. These hypotheses are tested with both
documentary and archaeological data The materials and methods to be utilized in these
tests are discussed below. The socioeconomic level of each of the site residents is
identified through documented wealth. As part of these tests, the relationship of
socioeconomic level and consumer behavior is addressed. Chapter 7 summarizes the
finding of the study and highlights their application to several issues in Historical
Archaeology, and hopefully, other disciplines as well.

CHAPTER 2.
THE BOOM-BUST MODEL:
A MODEL OF SETTLEMENT AND ECONOMIC BEHAVIOR

Introducricn

In this chapter, a model of economic behavior and conditions during the geographical
expansion of an export propelled agricultural system is presented. This type of expansion
is here referred to as Boom-Bust expansion and is briefly defined as a type of agricultural
frontier expansion which begins during a period of high demand and price for crops, which
can be grown in the new area, and ends, or at least is slowed, by a dramatic drop in the
price of the same crops. General hypotheses will be generated from this model and
presented in the next chapter. These hypotheses will focus primarily on issues related to
urban hierarchy, settlement pattems and functions, agricultural production, consumption
patterns and socioeconomic stratification. These issues are ones that are sensitive to change
in a developing region.

The model to be presented combines certain aspects of previous frontier models or
theories derived from the study of economic behavior during economic cycles. The
primary settlement or frontier models to be utilized are those of Peet (1969), Margolis
(1973, 1977, 1979), Casagrande et a1. (1964), and Hudson (1969) . These models are
utilized either because they deal explicitly with the relationship between frontier expansion
and economic cycles. or because they present general insights into issues such as settlement
patterns, which will increase the understanding of changes which took place during Boom-

Bust expansion.

WWI/Indra:

Frontier models and theories have been constructed to investigate and explain such
topics as the relationship of the frontier to the sociopolitical nature and identity of a nation
(Turner 1893), the nature of adaptations associated with different frontier types (Leyburn
1935; Prescott 1965; Steffin 1980), sociocultural regularities associated with adaptation to
frontier conditions (Casagrande et al. 1964; Hardesty 1980), the relationship of frontier
expansion to the world economy or "world system" (Meinig 1986; Peet 1969; Wallerstein
1974), and of course, the interrelations of colonizers and indigenous peoples, particularly
the changes and adaptation of the latter (Wells 1973; Hallowell 1957; Wasalkov and Ely
1980; White 1983). The third and fourth approaches mentioned above, or those which
have addressed regularities in frontier adaptation and those which have examined the
frontier in the context of the world economy, will be utilized to a greater extent in the
creation of the Boom-Bust model because they more thoroughly address questions of
material change.

The model of Peet (1969), which combines the static Von Thunen Model of agricultural
zones and a world sysrem approach, is particularly relevant to the Boom-Bust model
because it incorporates worldwide supply and demand cycles (Boom-Bust cycles) in an
examination of the frontier expansion of western Europe. This model is very general and is
not limited to a particular locale. The Von Thunen model is characterized by a central
market surrounded by concentric zones of production. What crops are grown in each zone
and how far from the central market the zones extend is based upon comparative land
values and crop revenues, which are somewhat dependent on the cost of transport to
market, and production per acre.

In Peet's model, agricultural expansion or colonization is driven primarily by two

forces, changes in crop demand and supply in the market center (core), and changes in the

8

technology of transport. Since the sixteenth century, this core has been Western Europe,
with the northeastern United States added in the late nineteenth century. Increases in
demand lead to rises in price, which encourage both intensified agricultural production in
older areas, and geographical expansion of the territory in which the crop is grown. In
other words, an outward expansion of the zones surrounding the market center occurs.
Improvements in transportation technology and organization can reduce the cost of
transport and further extend the zone of profitability in which a crop can be grown.

If increases in demand and transportation improvements occur simultaneously, they can
lead to great and rapid geographical expansion. This combination is essential for protracted
expansion (Peet 1969:289). In fact, Peet notes that these two driving forces are usually not
independent. Increases in demand and prices provide capital incentives for experimentation
and improvement in transportation methods and systems (Peet 19692298). The movement
of peoples into new territories also places demands on better transportation systems, since
they become not only producers, but also consumers.

The exact nature of these zonal expansions depends upon the relative strengths of the
forces causing changes in demand, those leading to changes in supply, and those leading to
transportation cost decreases (Peet 1969:290). Certainly, if the supply grows too rapidly,
that is faster than demand, prices will eventually drop, resulting in a recession (bust) with
stagnation or depopulation occuning in the frontier area.

To summarize, Peet's model states that an increase in demand and price for frontier
products in market areas is the main force which permits extension of commercial
production beyond its previous zone. Under conditions of rising demand and falling
transportation costs, the model forecasts rapid outward movements (Peet 1969:290).

The model of Margolis ( 197 3, 1977, 1979) is based on her research, historical and
present day, into Brazilian "commodity cycles" and in particular, the nature of frontier
expansion and agricultural practices in a plantation mono-crop system. Margolis

mmmarizes the expansion and decline of a ntrmber of Brazilian crops, including sugar,

9
cotton, nibber and cocoa, but her primary focus is on coffee. The bulk of her study is
based on ethnographic research in the coffee growing Parana frontier region of Brazil.
This model, therefore, like Peet's (1969), describes frontier expansion in relation to the
world economy and in particular, in relation to crop demand and prices.

In the Margolis model, a cash-crop (or export propelled) frontier will proceed through a
number of predictable Stages if certain conditions are present (Margolis 197322). These
preconditions include a demand, usually international, for a valuable cash crop, the
presence of unsettled land suitable for producing this crop, a population to settle the new
lands, accessible markets for the crop, and available credit to finance settlement and initial
production (Margolis 1977243). Having accessible markets obviously depends on having
an adequate transportation system already in place or at least having the technology and
funds to have one constructed soon after settlement

During the first stage of the cycle, a great demand and high price level for a certain crop
is established. This is followed by a large migration to areas suitable for growing this
crop. In this new area or frontier, the forests are quickly cleared and production is begun
on a large scale, with extensive shifting agricultural methods. Yields are very large at first
and profits are high (Margolis 1973:2; 1977:46).

This phase is marked by great prosperity and a boom-town atmosphere which is
refened to as W in Brazil (Margolis 1973:9; 1977:46). New towns spring up
overnight and their stores are stocked with a variety of goods, including luxuries.
Comparatively lavish consumption and upward social mobility are common characteristics
of this stage (Margolis 1977 :46).

Booms of this sort in frontiers generally do not last. Eventually, overproduction
occurs, in this area and others, and the price begins to decline. Also, unused land becomes
scarce and lands under cultivation begin to get depleted, resulting in declining yields.
These two developments mark the beginning of the second stage of Margolis' cycle.

Farmers and planters often react to these developments by intensifying their production of

10
the cash crops, which leads to even lower prices and more soil depletion (Margolis
1977:49). Soil conservation methods are rarely attempted since they are expensive and
markets are uncertain. How many years it takes this bust phase to begin is highly variable
as it depends on local environmental and international market conditions. As these trends
continue the agriculturalist's plight becomes worse. For towns. the decline results in a loss
of business and loss of the ngimento associated with the initial boom. Stores eventually
stock only basic necessities as there is no market for luxuries (Margolis 19739). The
opportunities for upward social mobility decrease and there is a slowing of migration into
the frontier zone.

Finally, profits for producers become so reduced that replacerrrent crops or livestock
may be tried, but this is generally unsuccessful in rejuvenating the area. The'cycle ends in
the old frontier area when depopulation begins and towns decline. This, however, often
makes the beginning of another cycle in a new frontier region. According to Margolis, as
long as there is more fertile frontier land, the exploitive and depleting agricultural methods
are continued, and in fact, are adaptive (1973:5; 1977:59).

The works of Green (1979) on temperate forest colonization and Katzrrran (1975) on
differing Brazilian frontiers also support the adaptiveness of frontier expansion and the
extensive agricultural methods utilized in this context, particularly in conditions of soil
exhaustion. As Green notes, expansion is the "least-effort" strategy since it maintains the
realized-niche extensive strategy and its higher output per unit of input (1979:75-76). The
"comparative costs" of expansion are generally less than intensification and under
conditions of low transport costs, are adaptive for export-propelled agriculture (Katzman
1975:269). Expansion is particularly adaptive in tropical regions, sub-tropical regions such
as Margolis' study area, and thin soiled temperate regions since soils in these regions are
quickly exhausted and take many years to recover due to low resilience (Green 1979283,
97). In thicker soiled temperate regions, however, where soils are more resilient, intensive

agricultural methods, including soil conservation methods, are more feasible, particularly

1 1
among wealthy farmers (Green 1979:97). In temperate regions, intensive methods will
begin after competition for land raises land prices or rents to a degree that shifting methods
are not affordable (Katzman 1975:269-270). Therefore, Green suggests that while all areas
go through an initial phase of extensive agricultural exploitation, this is followed, after the
land is filled up and rents increase, by intensification in heavier soiled temperate regions
and site abandonment in the other regions (1979:98).

The type of agricultural units and social relations of production on frontiers has also
been explicitly discussed by Katzman ( 1975) in his comparisons of Brazilian frontiers.
Katzman recognizes two basic agricultural units, family farms and plantations (19752273).
The former is found on both subsistence and export-propelled frontiers while the latter is
found only on export-propelled frontiers.

Whether they re-occur on export-propelled frontiers depends on a number of variables,
including restrictions on land ownership, political control of labor, and requirements of the
cash crop. Under liberal conditions of frontier land ownership and freedom of movement,
the small farm unit will be the norm. The very low labor-to-land ratio of frontiers generally
results in very high wages for labor, which discourages plantation formation, even in areas
where landownership is monopolized by a few (Katzrrran 1975:274275). For plantations
to occur on frontiers, landlords generally have to possess enough political power to coerce
laborers to work for them. As Katzman (197 5:275) states, "The linkage between the man-
land endowment and the social relations of production depends upon whether the landlords
can offset labor's market power with their own political power." The labor anangement on
plantations in these conditions is usually in the form of slavery or serfdom.

Plantation development on fiontiers also requires crops that can be grown efficiently
and profitably on large units, with a large labor force. This usually requires crops which
need more constant maintenance year round, and command a high price (Earle 1987: 189).

Since the models of Peet (1969) and Margolis (1973) focus on the relationship of

frontier expansion to economic cycles, some discussion on the nature and causes of

‘-

12
economic cycles will be presented. An understanding of these cycles is critical since, as
Peet (1969) and Margolis (1973) suggest, fluctuations in economic activity can have a
major impact on the speed and conditions of colonization.

By definition, economic cycles are recurrent periods of expansion and constriction in
aggregate economic activity (Lee 1959: 15). They are a normal part of capitalistic western
economies and occur at somewhat regular intervals, although much variation can occur in
the length and severity of cycles. There can also be cyclical variation, in timing and
severity, of the different components of the economy.

Each cycle consists of a boom or prosperity period, a crisis, a depression or recession,
and a recovery. The cause or causes of economic cycles are complex. Changes in such
factors as the money supply, the structure of markets, technological innovations, natural
resource base, legal framework, political atmosphere, and psychological attributes can
affect the level of investment, production, and consumption and initiate a boom or a
depression (Lee 1959263, 124). Significant booms have historically been generated by
expansion of bank credit (i.e., new money) in combination with new investment avenues
such as those associated with the opening of new territory, the exploitation of newly
discovered natural resources, the extensive development of new industries, or
revolutionary changes in old industries due to technological change (Adams 1936:88).
Dramatic busts have resulted from overproduction in combination with lessened bank funds
and credit (Adams 1936243).

The prosperity phase, which may or may not be a true boom, is characterized by
increased investments and loans, increased consumption, especially of durables and
luxuries, increased production, increased prices, increased employment, increased wages
and salaries, and increased profits (Lee 1959:42-43). Each of these developments "feeds"
on the other and the overall economy spirals upward.

Different components of the economy grow at different rates, however (Lee 1959222).

For instance, the demand for raw materials and commodities grows faster than demand for

13

finished consumer goods, and production grows ahead of retail trade (Adams 1936:45-46).
Of course, some products or commodities might not be affected in the boom period because
of previous overproduction or unusual demand patterns, but these occurrences are not
common.

The boom period corresponds with the first stage of Margolis' cycle. This is when
demand and prices for a crop are so high as to encourage rapid migration and investment
into an area suitable for growing the demanded crop(s). As Peet (1969) notes, this is the
period when crop prices are so high as to overcome previous transport cost restrictions and
allow the production zones to expand. Of course, if transportation improvements are also
involved, the expansion could be even greater and more rapid.

Eventually, however, interest rates and prices rise too high and investments and
purchases begin to decline. The economy becomes saturated with too much inventory as
production outstrips consumption. This marks the beginning of the crisis.

The crisis generally leads into a period of depression or recession characterized by
contracting expenditures by businesses and consumers, contracting bank deposits,
declining prices and profits, short credit, reduced incentives to invest, rising unemployment
and business banln‘uptcies. Again, the drop in demand and prices for different categories
of products occur at different rates. The demand and price of raw materials, such as metals
and agricultural products, decline that, more rapidly, and to a greater extent than do other
classes of goods (Adams 1936148). Smaller businesses and farms tend to be especially
vulnerable because of their inflexibility and fail at a higher rate than do larger operations
(Earle 1975:115; Lee 1959:40). In fact, many large businesses and plantations actually
expand during depressions by absorbing the smaller operations, which can be bought at a
cheap price (Earle 1975:106). This trend seems to hold for society overall since the gap
between rich and poor often widen during depressions (Earle 19751115).

The bust corresponds to the second state of Margolis' (1973) cycle, which is
characterized by declining crop prices and increasing soil depletion. This condition leads to

14
a general economic decline of the frontier area and perhaps eventual abandonment if the
soils cannot be maintained or rejuvenated.

Eventually, the economy will hit bottom. At this point, production levels and prices
have becorrre very low and unemployment has peeked. But, consumers have postponed
purchases (especially for durables) for a relatively long time and with prices so low, they
begin to purchase more. Sensing the end of the depression and taking advantage of low
capital, land, and stock prices and low interest rates, investments begin to increase. This
continues and the economy begins to move upward (Lee 1959:39-40).

Eventually, a recovery is in effect. This is characterized by increased employment,
increased consumption (especially in durables), increased production, increased
investments and rising anticipation for profits, increased bank deposits and credit,
increased profits, and increased wages (Lee 1959241). Again, the demand for and price of
raw materials increase more rapidly than for finished goods, such that wholesale prices rise
before retail prices (Adams 1936249).

In Margolis' (1973) and Peet's (1969) models, new frontier expansion may be
encouraged in this recovery period, if demand and prices reach a level to offset transport
costs. In areas of thicker soil, more intensive agricultural practices would continue and
increase in light of the higher crop prices (Green 1979).

Much has been written by economists on consumer behavior during the various cyclical
movements and sonic of these have been noted above. But, since consumption patterns are
a topic of this thesis, a closer exanrination of these findings is needed. In general,
economists have found that spending on expensive drnables and luxuries fluctuate more
than on non-durables (Lee 1959:18; Matthews 1967:124). During booms, therefore,
spending on durables and luxuries would increase more dramatically than for items such as
food and clothing, while during depressions, spending on the former goods would decline
relatively rrrore than on the latter (Hoyt 1938: 178, 181). These are patterns observed by
Margolis (1973) in her study of Brazil (see above). In fact, because of the Maximum of

15
the boom on the frontier and the vulnerability of overextended frontier farmers at the bust,
these consumption patterns are likely exaggerated.

Economists have noted, however, that consumption patterns are affected less rapidly by
a fall in income than with a rise (Lee 19592315; Matthews 1967:123). This is because
people get used to a certain level of consumption and reduce their savings or even borrow
money to maintain their past level of consumption (Lee 1959:315; Matthews 19672123).
People also tend to believe that cyclical movements are temporary. Of course, if there is a
change from employed to unemployed, consumption patterns will change more rapidly.
How other factors which influence consumption patterns, such as class, occupation, ethnic
affiliation, and family life cycle, interact with cyclical movements is unclear at present, but
it does appear that in depressions, wages generally fall more than salaries and the
purchasing power of farmers declines more than average (Hoyt 19382176).

The next two models discussed, those of Casagrande et al. (1964) and Hudson (1969),
do not specifically examine frontier settlement in relation to broader economic condin'ons,
but rather look at general regularities and changes in the sociocultural system of the frontier
society. Both of these models are of such a general nature that they should have
applicability to most if not all agricultural frontiers (Casagrande et al. 1964.311). These
will be examined in order to determine if Boom-Bust frontier expansion conforms to the
frontier generalizations put forward in these models.

The study of Casagrande et al. (1964) is based on ethnographic research in two
Ecuadorian frontiers: one in the Orente and one on the Western Coastal Plain. Although the
relationship of frontier expansion to economic cycles is not discussed, these frontiers are
similar to that studied by Margolis and to the study area of this thesis in that they were both
export-propelled, had relatively good transportation networks (at least on the inner side of
the frontier), and possessed both farms and plantations (Casagrande et al. 1964).

In the Casagrande et al. (1964) model, colonization is defined as a relatively rapid and
often large scale movement of peoples from settled areas to new territories (Lewis 1976;

16
Miller 1984213). The central tenet of this model is that during colonization, there is an
abandonment of complexity by the colonizing peoples and that the degree of complexity or
simplification varies by the distance from the motherland and duration of settlement
(Casagrande et al. 19642311). Casagrande et al. (19642282) suggests that during the
colonization process, more specialized sociocultural components are selected against and
lost since they are unnecessary or maladaptive. This results in a more generalized
sociocultural system. This loss of complex or specialized components within the social,
economic, and political system has been called "ruralization" by Casagrande et al. (1964)
and "deculturation" by Thompson (1973). These simplified-generalized systems are more
efficient in adapting to a new extensive, open environment (Lewis 1984211; Sahlins and
Service 1960). Increased complexity occurs with increased population density and
improved connections with the mother region.

The evolution from this simplified frontier society to a more complex and integrated one
has been formulated into the concept of a "colonization gradient". This gradient has both
spatial and temporal aspects. The spatial aspects of the model predicts that as the distance
from the homeland increases so does the degree of simplification and fluidity (Casagrande
et al. 1964:3112 Miller 1984217). The temporal aspect of the model predicts that after the
period of initial simplification, the colonizing society will beconre more complex and stable
as the duration of occupation increases (Casagrande et al. 19642314; Miller 1984218).

Casagrande et al. (1964) and Thompson ( 1973) state that the colonization gradient
should be visible in many aspects of the cultural system, but they put particular emphasis
on the settlement system and social structure. With regard to the settlement system,
settlements closer to the homeland will be more complex and there will be more variety
among them, while at the frontier edge only the simplest settlement forms will be found.
Overall, the urban hierarchy will be much less complex than in established areas. The
settlement fomrs predicted include, in order of decreasing size and complexity, the

"Frontier Town", nucleated villages, semi-nucleated settlements, and dispersed habitations.

17
The Frontier Town is the major link with the homeland and is found only in the longest
settled or most accessible portion of the frontier. It is by far the largest central place on the
frontier and provides the most services. The other settlement types are found throughout
most of the frontier, although the nucleated villages are usually absent on the outer fringes
(Casagrande et al. 1964:312-314; Miller 1984:19). Over time, the settlement system
becomes much more complex and better integrated until it replicates that of the homeland.

Within the colonization gradient the social structure of the colonial society is more fluid
timing the early stages of settlement (Miller 1984:20; Thompson 1973z3). Over time, the
social structtrre becomes increasingly rigid and complex.

Again, all of these trends are directional, from simplified to complex. The degree of
simplification that occurs and the duration of time it takes to replicate the homeland's level
of complexity depends on many factors, including distance from the homeland, quality of
transportation networks, environmental differentiations from the homeland, and
technological level of the colonists. The end of colonization occurs when the demographic
structure, social structure, settlement patterns, and economic system more closely match the
stability in the homeland.

An additional note about settlement patterns, and urban patterns in particular, is that
town growth and central place complexity is usually more simplified in plantation regions
because of the multi-functional nature of plantations. Urban development is even more
simplified if the plantation crop has low processing and storage needs (Earle and Hoffman
1976). So, while the increased complexity in the settlement system predicted by
Casagrande et al. (1964) may still occur in plantation frontier areas, the level of complexity
will never be as great as in more diversified small farm regions.

While the models of Margolis and Casagrande et al. certainly have a different emphasis,

they do share certain aspects such as the prediction of increasingly complex and rigid social
structure as the frontier matures. In fact, the basic idea of the "colonization gradient" (i.e.,

that there is a directional change from a more simple to a more complex socioeconomic

18
system) also pertains to many of Margolis' findings, although her findings suggest less
"simplification" than the Casagrande et al. model predicts.

Hudson's (1969) model is concerned only with settlement patterns and is therefore
somewhat simpler than the two models discussed above. This model is very general and
should be applicable to many different situations. Its basic goals are to explain the
morphological changes that take place in settlement distribution over time (Hudson
19691580). Hudson's model, which was adapted from plant ecology models, states that
given a relatively uniform topography, the evolution of frontier settlement patterns can be
characterized by three stages, as follows:

1) Colonization - sparse and random settlement pattern
2) Spread - as population increases, offspring communities spread out from
original settlements. This results in a clustered pattern.
3) Competition - after gaps in the settlement pattern are filled in, competition
leads to the decline of many settlements having less advantageous locations.
This results in more even spacing between settlements.

This model has been tested on rural settlement patterns by Hudson (1969), Lewis
(1984), and O'Brien (1984) and on town settlement patterns by Blouet (1972) and
Swedlund (1975). One finding by Swedlund, which is important, is the lack of a spread or
clustered phase in his town analysis. This is not overly surprising since towns do not
generally "bud off“ from one another.

The Hudson stages should be present in a Boom-Bust frontier context since it meets the
basic precondition of colonization of an open territory. The primary difference when
compared to other frontier centers is that the settlement pattern should progress from one
stage to the next more rapidly in the Boom-Bust situation.

To facilitate the examination of expansion and economic behavior in the study area, the
characteristics of this "Boom and Bust" type of colonization will be organized into an

explicit model. Many aspects of this model are borrowed directly from the models of

19
Margolis, Peet, and Green discussed above. To this are added the idea of the "colonization
gradient" from Casagrande, Thompson, and Young (1964), the settlement predictions of
Hudson (1969), and information gained through the study of conditions and behavior
associated with the various stages of economic cycles. The same preconditions Margolis

(1977:43) stated for her model also hold here. These include the following:

1) An intrusive society which is at a state level of sociopolitical integration and is
highly integrated in an international profit-motivated market economy;

2) National or international economic conditions which result in a large national or
international increase in the demand and price for certain crops and an increase in the
credit available to finance the expanded production of the crop;

3) The presence of inexpensive vacant or sparsely settled land suitable for growing
crops in great demand (This condition often requires the intrusive society to have the
ability to remove indigenous peoples);

4) A population ready to settle this new territory and with the ability to grow the
crops in demand;

5) An adequate transportation and marketing system so that the crop can be

exported and consumer goods imported.

For plantations to be established in the frontier area two more preconditions need to be

met. These include

6) A society in which landowners have the political and economic power to coerce
or even own labor; and

7) The production of crops which can be efficiently and profitably grown on large
agricultm'al units with a large labor force.

20

If these preconditions are present , the colonized area is predicted to proceed through
three stages: Boom , Bust and Depression, and Recovery. The last stage in this model
differs somewhat from Margolis' study area which experienced soil exhaustion and
depopulation during and after the depression stage, and is directed at thicker-soiled
temperate zones (Green 1979; Peet 1969). In this area, some soil exhaustion occurs after
the first few decades, but it is generally not sufficient to cause depopulation in most cases.
Indeed, rich harvests and large profits could usually still be made on these temperate lands
once prices recovered, if more intensive methods, including soil conservation, are adopted.
If the area under study is a tropical or thin-soiled temperate area, the third phase would be

depopulation and perhaps abandonment, as in the Margolis model (see above).

W

Characteristics of each phase are as follows: -

W

During this stage, the new territory should experience very rapid settlement and
economic prosperity as lands are put into cash crops immediately. Initial agricultural
methods will be extensive. Agricultural units can include both small farms and plantations.
The latter will develop if preconditions six and seven above are met. High levels of
speculation in land and towns should occur. A large number of towns should be created
overnight and the expected size of these towns should be relatively great. The settlement
system should have a relatively simple and hierarchy and settlements should be distributed
in a random fashion relative to each other. The number of services offered in frontier trade
towns should be great relative to their size. The towns should contain general and
speciality stores which are stocked with a variety of goods, including luxuries. A dominate
town, referred to as the "Frontier Town" by Casagrande et al. (1964) should exist in the

21
longest settled portion of the frontier. Transportation and marketing systems should
develop quickly.

This economic prosperity and optimism should result in comparatively lavish
consumption, particularly of durables and luxuries. The social structure in the new
territory should be simpler (i.e., less hierarchical) than that in settled areas or at later
periods in the new territory and possess greater potential for upward mobility. The simpler
social structure will result in less concentration of wealth when compared to later periods.
Areas suitable for crops grown on plantations will have a more complex social structure

than family farms fronu'ers.

Wm)

As the new lands are settled and brought under production, staple crop production will
eventually rise to a level that surpasses demand and a price drop and depression occurs.
The length of time between the beginning of the land rush to the bust can be quite variable,
but in most examples, it was slightly less than a decade (North 1966272).

Characteristics of the bust period should include tighter credit, a slow down in new
settlements, and economic hardship for agriculturalists and businessmen. The economic
decline should cause increased competition between towns, resulting in the decline of many
businesses, especially specialty shops within towns and even the extinction of whole
towns. The town settlement pattern should become more uniform as more poorly located
towns disappear. Consumption of luxuries and durables should decline, although perhaps
slowly at first. The price of most goods should decline relative to the levels in the boom.

The opportunities for upward social mobility should decrease in this period and the
social structure should increase in complexity. The degree of wealth concentration should
increase significantly since large planters and merchants with more land and financial

reserves to fall back on, can better weather price declines. As vacant land is sold and

22
unimproved land diminishes, more intensive agricultural methods become increasingly
necessary to keep up production levels. This again favors the larger planters who can

better afford additional costs.

W

Given the settlement slow down of the depression phase, staple production grows at a
much slower rate relative to the boom and demand will eventually catch and surpass
supply, resulting in an increase in staple price and economic recovery in areas dependent on
that crop. This upswing should mark the beginning of less dramatic economic
development and behavior in the region. This phase, the recovery, will not occur in some
areas, such as thin-soiled or tropical plantation regions, which due to soil depletion had
been abandoned during the bust (see Margolis 197 3).

In fact, by this time the new area should begin to parallel older settled regions in its
stability and social structure. agricultural methods, and town settlement system. There
should be an increased trend toward social structural complexity. The structure should
become more hierarchical and rigid. Wealth should become increasingly concentrated,
although the pace of this increased concentration should be reduced from that of the
depression period. More intensive agricultural methods, including fertilization, increased
mechanization, and soil conservation methods, will expand in this period.

The town settlement pattern should further mature in this stage and it should become
increasingly uniform. Some disadvantageously located towns may still decline or
disappear in this rather prosperous period due to competition from others. The town
settlement system should become more complex and hierarchical than earlier as the region
passes its frontier stage, although in plantation areas it may remain relatively simple. The
importance of the "frontier town" for the entire region should become reduced as the area

matures. Its size relative to other towns will not be as great as in earlier phases.

23

Consumption of durables and luxuries should increase relative to the bust period, but
they should not be as lavish as the boom period. The number and variety of goods and
services available in towns should increase relative to the depression stage but the number
and variety available in small towns should not be as great as in the boom when many
towns had aspirations to become cities.

In the chapter to follow, the model will be utilized to examine and explain developments
which occurred in Lowndes County, Mississippi during the middle nineteenth century.
This examination will take the form of a test of the various characteristics of the model.
Before the hypotheses can be generated, however, certain aspects of the study area will be

examined to determine if it meets the preconditions of the model.

CHAPTER 3.
THE SETTLEMENT CONTEXT OF LOWNDES COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI:
PRECONDITIONS OF THE BOOM-BUST MODEL

Immiucu'szn

For the changes described in the Boom Bust Model to occur in a frontier area, a series
of preconditions must be present. These preconditions relate to conditions in the frontier
area itself, the nature of the intrusive society, and conditions of the world economy. It is
the purpose of this chapter to examine early and middle nineteenth century Lowndes
County in order to determine if these preconditions were present. The data presented to
examine the preconditions will also serve as contextual descriptions from which specific
hypotheses will be constructed. These hypotheses will be tested on documentary and
archaeological data in the chapters to follow.

As was stated in Chapter Two, there are five general preconditions which should be
present at time of settlement for the characteristics of the Boom-Bust model to occur.
These include:

1) An intrusive society which is at a state level of sociopolitical integration and is
highly integrated in an international profit-motivated market economy;

2) National or international economic conditions which result in a large national or
international increase in the demand and price for certain crops and an increase in the

credit available to finance the expanded production of the crop;

24

25
3) The presence of inexpensive vacant or sparsely settled land suitable for growing
crops in great demand (This condition often requires the intrusive society to have the
ability to remove indigenous peoples);
4) A population ready to settle this new territory and with the ability to grow the
crops in demand;
5) An adequate transportation and marketing system so that the crop can be

exported and consumer goods imported.

For plantations to be established in the frontier area two more preconditions need to be

met. These include

6) A society in which landowners have the political and economic power to coerce
or even own labor; and
7) The production of crops which can be efficiently and profitably grown on large

agricultural units with a large labor force.

W

The study area is Lowndes County, Mississippi, which is located in the Upper
Tombigbee Valley region of that state. This county was founded in 1830 and experienced
two different initial settlement phases. The eastern part of the county, which was originally
part of Monroe County, was officially opened for settlement in 1820, although a scattering
of settlement occurred as early as 1815. Monroe County, which was founded in 1821,
originally included that part of Mississippi east of the Tombigbee River and south of
Gaines' Trace (Figure 3.1). Eastern Lowndes County consisted of that part of old Monroe
County south of the Buttahatchie River.

26

 

 

 

muffle, r I
VIII '

r)..""r'.i./r- “vs E» ' . . ' .

'11::qu mm,

1 ' \ . . .
Marla/u”; a“ I
,

        
     

 

  

'. . fl :0! More
I ' Jlnn ru , i
' ~ ‘h ”Tatiana (an
. _' C‘Iu'dnu
‘ A
_ \ . ...1!'.'i‘. [
. mug C. 50
\Q
/ I I [now D l
I \ 413m.“ - I
. V L \ l/nduvoorl: ' I u
' OLm'M' Lag.
- 4V1”,
oumermn' u mnlu

Mr fhorlnulyui' . . l m

5“ I ‘ :
a" ' I ' .
VA Idr’rul AL | ‘.- I

. 1‘

T” 1Imam/L - .... I-” ' ' 6‘
I" r. -\ N 3 .
“bun-h. 1 ii. 3'-
‘ "3

‘ma' Turn it <
c-m'rulm l'uim - o
u] ‘ I: . \ / t b R l ”mourn”:

n :0. .70 a .50 a p (can.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3.1. 1828 Map of Northeastern Mississippi.

27

The western side of Lowndes County, or that part west of the Tombigbee River, was
officially opened for settlement between 1833 and 1836, although some squatters moved
into this area by 1831 (Doster and Weaver 1981:59). This side of the county included
lands from both Choctaw (1830) and Chickasaw (1834) cessions, which were located
south and north of Tibbee Creek, respectively. In the discussion below, both of these

periods or phases will be examined in relation to the preconditions above.

E 1.. 1.1]: EE'E ..
W

The United States in the early to middle nineteenth century meets the criteria for the first
precondition. It was a state level society and it was involved in the world market economy.
In fact, soon after its earliest permanent settlement, the English North American colonies
had been involved in inter-continental trade, particularly in the exporting of agricultural
products, lumber, naval stores, and furs to Europe; and the importing of finished products
from Europe. Individual participation in commercial agriculture and land ownership in fee
simple became common by the middle of the seventeenth century (Hilliard 1987:155).

From the point when the United States became an independent nation to the beginning
of the study period, 1815, the country experienced a great deal of economic and
geographical change. The economic growth of the new nation was initially hindered by
trade restrictions imposed by England and other Western European nations, but after the
wars between England and France began in 1793, this changed From 1793 until 1807,
with the exception of a few years, the US. enjoyed a position of a neutral trader and its
economy grew accordingly (North 1966:36). Growth occurred in the exports trade, but
especially in the re-export trade. The latter greatly enhanced Northeastern shipping and its
associated industries, including shipbuilding, rope making and sail making, as well as

enlarging commission merchant houses, banks, and marine insurance companies (North

28
1966:49). The grth of the English textile industry at this time and the invention of the
cotton gin in 1793 led to a great growth in cotton production and exports and
manufacturing (North 1966:40; Wright 1978114).

The return of some English and American trade restrictions beginning in 1807 and
continuing through the War of 1812 damaged the American export trade. But, these
restrictions greatly aided the growth of American manufacturers. The number of American
cotton mills increased from 15 mills, with 8000 spindles, in 1808 to 102 mills, with
31,000 spindles, in 1809. By 1811 there were over 50,000 spindles (North 1966:56).

After the War of 1812 ended, the liberal trading policies enacted by both England and
the United States and the increased English demand greatly enhanced American commodity
production, especially of cotton. This free trade, however, severely damaged American
manufacturers (North 1966:57).

As part of the Treaty of Paris, which ended the Revolutionary War, the United States
acquired claim to the territory from the Atlantic to the Mississippi River, and from the Great
Lakes to Spanish East and West Florida (Hilliard 1987:149). This was the land that was to
become available in periods of high crop price and demand. Originally, the method of
disposing of this western land was unstructured and complicated by land claims by many
of the states for the territory extending to the Mississippi River. Between 1784 and 1802,
however, the states ceded their claims to most of this land, and through the Ordinances of
1787 and 1794, the Federal Government created a system for disposing of it (Hilliard
1987:154-155). The policy of land disposal was a liberal one which involved selling small
parcels at a low price to encourage settlement by individual farmers (Hilliard 19872162).
These ordinances also gave Congress sole power to deal with Indian claims (Hilliard
19871162).

The United States Public Domain nearly doubled in 1803 with the Louisiana Purchase.
This territory did not possess the encumbrances of the states that had occurred on the lands

east of the Mississippi. Although the United States possessed a tremendous western

29

territory by the early nineteenth century, the vast majority of the lands west of the
Appalachians had still not received agricultural settlement by the beginning of the War of
1812. The exceptions to this were Kentucky, Tennessee, southern Ohio, and the Lower
Mississippi Valley. Most of the land north of the Ohio River and south of the Tennessee
River, while within the boundaries of the United States, was still Indian territory (Hilliard
1987:164). This presented large scale settlement by Euro-Americans. The settlement
situation was to change in the middle 18105, however, with the beginning of large scale

Indian Cessions and Removals in the Old Northwest and Old Southwest.

E l"2'!lllE '12]

Two major Boom-Bust cycles occurred during the antebellum period. The first began
in 1815 with the end of the War of 1812, and the reopening of British markets for
American products. This greatly increased the demand and price for American
commodities. Given the growth of the English textile industry in the 18105, cotton was in
particular demand. Cotton prices jumped 62 % between 1814 and 1815 (Gray 1933:1027).
Soon after the Treaty of Ghent was signed in 1815, a flood of English investment capital
came into the United States. This, coupled with the large jump in commodity prices,
created an economic boom. The boom lasted until 1819, when a commodity glut,
particularly of cotton, caused prices to plummet 58% from Fall, 1818 (Gray 1933:1027).
Investment soon ceased and payment was demanded on previous lands. Cotton prices
remained low until the early 18305 (North 1966:73).

The second economic boom was during the 18305. Although the boom of the 18305
was not associated with a war, it resembled the 1810s boom in other aspects, including a
large increase in US Bank reserves which then could be used for investment. This specie
consisted of both gold from England, which was experiencing economic prosperity, and
silver from Mexico (Temin 1969:68, 77). The dissolution of the Second Bank of the

30
United States and the redistribution of its funds to state banks with much looser loan
policies also increased the availability of credit (Lee 1959:124). By 1833, because of the
strong economy and good wheat harvests in England, the demand and price for cotton
jumped about 75% from 13 to 18 cents a pound (Gray 1933:1027; Temin 19692100, 104).
Although the price of cotton was not as high as that found in the 1810s, increased
efficiency in production and transportation made cotton very profitable in rich soils at the
18305 prices (Moore 1986).

Reasons for the end of the 18305 boom are somewhat more complex than the earlier
boom, and include both political and economic factors. The land boom was ended in 1836
by President Jackson's "Specie Circular" which required payment in specie for government
lands. This circular contributed to the financial Panic of 1837 (Lee 1959:124). But this
was only a temporary "correction" and did not initiate a depression (North 1966:201).
Cotton prices recovered in 1838 and remained relatively high until the end of 1839 when
again, production outstripped demand and prices dropped 46% (North 1966:201; Temin
1969:154—155). The change in the supply and demand ratio was the result of the great
increase in cotton production associated with the settlement of the new lands in the
Southwest, improvements in cotton breeds, and a number of poor grain harvests in
Europe, which had the effect of lowering demand for clothing among those farmers (Gray
1933; 1027; Terrrin 1969: 100). This price deflation and the associated tighter bank credit
policies, which were also influenced by the reduced specie exports of the Bank of England,
marked the beginning of a long and deep worldwide depression which continued until the
late 1840's (T emin 1969:88, 115). Cotton prices did not experience a long term
improvement until the fall of 1849 (Gray 1933: 1027). Both the middle 1810s and middle

18305 were boom times ripe for frontier expansion.

31

E 1.. 35' El 2151 .1151”. E11

As mentioned above, the major obstacles to the Euro-American settlement of much of
the United States, including study area, was the fact that it was already claimed by several
Indian groups. Thus Indian cessions were necessary before settlement could begin. In the
study area and in much of the Old Southwest, the main Indian Land Cessions occurred at
three separate times: in 1814 following the Creek War, in 1816-1820, following the War
of 1812, and in the early to middle 18305 (Figure 3.2). The first cession was an outcome
of war. As part of the 1814 Treaty of Fort Jackson, which ended the war between the
United States and the Red Stick Creek Indians, the Creeks were forced to relinquish control
of their lands between the Tombigbee and Coosa Rivers in the Mississippi Territory, and
all their lands in southern Georgia (Howell 1971124). Interestingly, General Jackson used
this Creek War as a pretense to remove all Creeks from this land, even though only one
fraction, the Red Sticks, had been belligerents in the war (Abemethy 1965:22). The Creek
claims on the Tombigbee River included what was to become eastern Monroe and later
eastern Lowndes Counties (Figure 3.2).

Although a trickle of Euroamerican settlement began entering the Upper Tombigbee
Valley as early as 1815, the settlement was slowed by additional claims to the Tombigbee-
Black Warrior territory by the Choctaw and Chickasaw Indians. These claims prevented
the Federal Government from beginning a survey and quickly disposing of the Tombigbee-
Black Warrior Tenitory.

Soon after 1815, land in what in now northern Alabama (1816), western Alabama and
eastern Mississippi (1816), western Tennessee and Kentucky (1818), and southwestern
Mississippi (1820) was ceded to the United States by the Choctaw, Chickasaw, and
Cherokee Indians. These Indians, along with the Creeks, although relinquishing large
tracts of their land, still resided in other sections of their traditional horrrelands after these

32

CHEROKEE
1806

     
 

CHICKASAH
1816

 

   

CHICKASAH
1834

    

CHICKASAH
1816

 
 

CHOCTAH
1816

 
  
  

 
    
  

CHOCTAU
1777

 
 
 

CHOCTAU

1805 CHOCTAU

1765

l

     

Figure 3.2. Indian Cessions in Mississippi and Alabama.

33
cessions. It was not until the cessions of the 18305 that they were removed to west of the
Mississippi (see below).

Monroe County, from which eastern Lowndes County was created, or that part of
Mississippi east of the Tombigbee River, was carved out of both the Chickasaw and
Choctaw cessions of 1816 as well as the Creek cession of 1814. The northern half of what
was to become Monroe County was ceded by the Chickasaws while the southern half was
ceded by the Choctaws. This land was very peripheral to either tribe's homeland and very
few Indians actually lived there. The Tombigbee- Black Warrior area was primarily used
as hunting grounds, and by the early nineteenth century game was becoming deplewd.
These factors explain the lack of controversy among either the Chickasaws or Choctaws
regarding sale of this property (White 1983:112-113; Young 1961:13).

Both groups lived primarily west of the Tombigbee River on lands they held until the
18305. The closest Chickasaw villages were near present Pontotoc and Tupelo,
Mississippi, while the Choctaw villages were primarily clustered in what is now central and
southern Mississippi (Doster and Weaver 1981 :37).

As was noted above, some squatters began moving into what was to become eastern
Monroe and Lowndes County as early as 1815. The primary settlement into this area,
however, had to await the Federal survey and land sales. Following the Ordinance of
1787, the Federal Government had exclusive rights to dispose of ceded Indian lands. The
survey of the study area was delayed until 1819-1820, and land sales did not begin until
1820 (Doster and Weaver 1981:47). By this time, the boom, which began in 1815, was
over and cotton prices had dropped 38%. Since eastern Monroe, and later Lowndes, was
not open for legal settlement until after the Panic or Bust of 1819, this area, at least at this
time, did not meet the criteria of the second precondition stated above, although it fulfilled
precondition three. This situation changed in the 18305, when land was vacated in the

context of an economic boom, thus meeting both Preconditions 2 and 3.

34

The remaining Indian lands in Mississippi after 1820 consisted of territory claimed by
the Choctaws and Chickasaws in northern Mississippi west of the Tombigbee River, as
well as part of southeastern Mississippi. Since these lands were the last remaining claims
of either group, these cessions involved the removal of these Indians to a new territory.
Initially, neither the Choctaws nor the Chickasaws wanted to leave their homelands. It
took a combination of factors to push the Indians into negotiating for their own removal.
These factors included threats, political manipulations, and bribery by the federal
negotiators; political maneuvering by different Indian factions; depredations by white
settlers; and the extension of the Mississippi State law over the Indians in January 1830
(Gibson 1971; White 1983; Young 1961). The extension of state law over the Indians
entailed the dissolution of their tribal government. This latter development was not
contradicted by the federal government; on the contrary, they used it as a threat, along with
such tactics as withholding annuities (Gibson 1971:174). Although the majority of
Choctaws and Chickasaws still did not support removal in 1830, a majority of their chiefs,
both full-blood and mixed-blood, saw removal as inevitable and attempted to make the best
arrangements possible (Gibson 1971:170-172; White 1983:140-143). Also, those chiefs
which were against removal tended to not be recognized as legitimate by the federal
negotiators (White 1983: 139).

The Choctaws were the first to negotiate a treaty, the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek in
1830. Certain problems, however, including a reluctance of some Choctaw families to sell
their land and speculation before the allotments were finalized, caused a delay in the public
land sales (Young 1961:47,69). The first public land auction occurred in October 1833 and
the second in the fall of 1834. These sales included that part of Lowndes west of the

Tombigbee and south of Tibbee Creek (Figure 3.3). Some settlement had begun,
however, as early as 1831 by squatters hoping to acquire land through preemption (Young

1961:58). In fact, many did acquire the right to purchase their improvements after

i

35

 

 

 

l TAUAMBA

PONIOTOC ‘

  
    
     

CH 1 CKASAU 13555101
1834

CH 1 CKASAH

 

2+

CHOCTAU CESSION
1830

OKTIIBENA LMDES

 

==
o 10 miles

Figure 3.3. Choctaw and Chickasaw Cessions of the 18305.

36
Congress passed the Preemption Act of January 30, 1834 (Doster & Weaver 1981:53;
Young 1961 :58).

The Chickasaw Treaty of Pontotoc was not negotiated until 1832. But, it had to be
renegotiated since a mixed-blood faction of the tribe led by the powerful Colbert family
wanted larger individual allotments (Gibson 1971:77; Young 1961:42). The renegotiated
treaty, the Treaty of Washington, was finalized in 1834. The Chickasaw treaty was
somewhat unique in that they received directly the revenue from the public sale of their
non-alloted land, less the cost of survey and sale, rather than simply receiving a set amount
by the government. As part of this arrangement, the Chickasaws had to pay for their
removal and purchase resettlement land in Oklahoma (Gibson 1971:176). After this treaty,
removal of the Chickasaws went forward relatively smoothly. The first public land sales in
the Chickasaw Purchase, which included the northwestern part of the Lowndes County,
occrn'red in January 1836 at Pontotoc, followed by a second sale in September 1836
(Young 1961:162-167) (Figure 3.3). As with the Choctaw Purchase, some settlement by
squatters occurred before the sales.

The lands of western Lowndes County were, therefore, fust put up for sale and
settlement during an economic boom. This area thus meets part of the criteria for
Preconditions two and three. A case can be made for eastern Lowndes also meeting these
preconditions since it was still very much undersettled and underdeveloped in 1830. Of
this section's 160,320 acres, only 30,005 acres had been purchased by 1830 (Rodabough
198527). The population of eastern Lowndes was still only 3,861 in 1830 and about 400
of these persons lived in Columbus (U .S. Census of Population, Lowndes County, 1830;
Doster and Weaver 198l:8).

37
E 1.. 35 11': H
W

From the above discussion it is apparent that cotton was the primary cash crop of the
Old Southwest during the two antebellum booms. Whether this crop could be grown in
Lowndes County will now be investigated. The cotton grown in the Old Southwest
during the 1810s expansion was the upland green-seed cotton . By the 18305 settlement,
this cotton had been replaced by an improved variety of upland cotton known as "petit gulf"
(Moore 1986:11). The "petit gulf" variety was more resistant to rot, easier to pick, and had
a longer fiber than older varieties of upland cotton (Moore 1986:11). For instance, a slave
could usually pick about 60 pounds of green seed a day, but about 150-200 pounds of
"petit gulf" a day (Moore 1986211). This crop needed a frost-free growing season of
approximately 200 days, at least a moderate amount of rainfall (over 25 inches annually),
and very rich soils or heavy fertilizer, since cotton is a very soil exhausting crop (Earle
1987: 1 84).

Whether cotton agriculture had a significant economy of scale is a topic that has been
debated for many years and will not be resolved here (see Conrad and Mayer 1958; Fogel
and Engelrnan 1974; Wright 1978). What is important, however, is that after the invention
of Whitney's cotton gin, upland cotton was a crop that, because of its relatively high price
and moderate but simple labor requirements, could be grown efficiently and profitably on
large scale plantations (Earle 1987: 189; Wright 1978: 13). Also, given the shortage of free
agricultural labor in antebellum America in general, and on the frontier in particular, the use
of slaves was the only way that very large agricultural units could be operated in areas of
abundant land (Wright 1978211). During the antebellum period, slavery was legal and
maintained with the territory and later state of Mississippi. Upland cotton was also
profitable on family farms as well, but these usually had a lower proportion of cotton to
food crops than did the larger plantations (Wright 197 8:75).

38

To determine that Lowndes County, Mississippi generally met all of the above
conditions necessary for cotton production, a physical description will be given. The
county averages 50 to 55 inches of rainfall annually and 200 to 240 frost free days a year
(Brent 1979:86—87). Physiographically, the county consists of three primary divisions, the
Fall Line Hills in the Northeast comer, the Tombigbee Terraces east and slightly west of
the Tombigbee River, and the Black Prairie to the west of the river (Figure 3.4).

The Fall Line Hills area is marked predominantly by Tuscaloosa and Eutaw geologic
formations and is characterized by dissected uplands with a few broad flat ridges separated
by valleys (Doster & Weaver 1981:22). Since the valley bottoms are so narrow in this
region, there are very few extensive alluvial deposits (Doster & Weaver 1981224). Overall,
soils consist of gently to steeply sloping sandy to clayey soils which are fair to poor in
terms of agricultural potential (Doster & Weaver 1981224). The primary vegetation today is
a mixed pine-hardwood forest, although in the past it may have consisted largely of
hardwoods (Doster & Weaver 1981: 24).

The Tombigbee Terrace is the predominant physiographic division of the eastern half of
Lowndes County and also borders the Tombigbee River on its western bank. This region
is characterized by more subdued relief and more extensive alluvial deposits than the Fall
Line Hills zone. The terraces represent earlier floodplains which have been somewhat
dissected by erosion (Doster & Weaver 1981229). The soils are generally level to gently
sloping and sandy to loamy in texture. More recent alluvial deposits, however, contain
more silt and clay. These soils are good to poor for agriculture, depending on the sand
content (Doster & Weaver 1981229). The vegetation is much like that of the Fall Line
Hills, although softer hardwoods, such as gum, cypress, and pecan predominates in the
alluvial plains (Doster & Weaver 1981229).

The Black Prairie region of Mississippi and Alabama historically made up some of the
most renown cotton land in the United States. Lowndes County has some of the western

extension of this zone ,which begins in east central Alabama. The Black Prairie is

39

  

I Pontotoc Hills
Fall Line Mills
Torrbigbee Terraces
Black Prairie

m Flat-roads 0 50M
I Churnemggee Ridge

 

Figure 3.4. Physiographic Regions of the Upper Tombigbee Valley.

40
characterized by undulating deeply weathered plains of low relief. Soils consist of gently
510ping clays or silty clays which were produced by the breakdown of Demopolis and

Mooreville Chalks and organic remains (Doster & Weaver 1981225). These soils are
very fertile and excellent for agriculture.

Although the Black Prairie is not well watered on the surface, it does contain many
artesian wells. The vegetation consists of grasses, canebrakes, and shrubs as well as some
hardwoods where the soil is especially thick (Doster & Weaver 1981226).

Overall, Lowndes County is rich in agricultural potential, particularly for cotton. The
soils of the Black Prairie region and the alluvial deposits along the Tombigbee and its major
tributaries are very fertile and can be quite deep. The flatter and less sandy terrace soils on
the eastern side of the county are also of good fertility.

From the above discussion it is evident that Lowndes County has an ideal climate for
cotton production. It also has excellent cotton soils in the Black Prairies and the alluvial
bottoms, and adequate soils in some parts of the Tombigbee Terraces. Slavery was also
legal and accepted in antebellum Mississippi. Lowndes County, therefore, meets the
remaining criteria of precondition three and the criteria for plantation development in

preconditions six and seven.

E I" I'll' l l C

The new settlers who came into the Old Southwest between 1815 and the 18305,
including Lowndes County, consisted primarily of agriculturalists from the Piedmont and
Central Plains (Upcountry) regions of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia (Abemethy
1965235; Doster and Weaver 1981259; Moore 198622; Owsley 1949260; Smith 1958223;
Taylor 1926:65; Weaver 1945228). For instance, in Lowndes County of 1850, still one
third of the heads of agricultural families were born in South Carolina, while 17.5%,

41

12.6%, and 12.3% of these heads were born in North Carolina, Virginia, and Georgia,
respectively (Weaver 1945228).

The upcountry regions of the South Atlantic States which these settlers left were
primarily areas in which upland green-seed cotton was the staple. A significant percentage
of settlers, however, probably also came from the tobacco producing regions of Virginia
and North Carolina. The South Atlantic upcountry areas had originally been settled
between the early to late eighteenth century and utilized cereals or tobacco as their cash
crops, if they had any, until the 17905 or early 18008 (Smith 195822). At this time, these
upcountry regions consisted primarily of small farms with very few slaves. Many of the
farms in these regions were still at a subsistence level at the turn of the nineteenth century
(Smith 195822).

The great English demand for cotton and the invention of Whitney's Gin in 1793
changed the nature of agriculture and demography in the Piedmont and western Central
Plains of the South Atlantic States. The upland green-seed cotton quickly became accepted
as the major cash crop in the upcountry regions of South Carolina and Georgia and in some
upcountry sections of North Carolina and Virginia (Abemethy 1965234; Owsley 1949260;
Smith 195822). This crop was well adapted to the climate and soils of these regions,
particularly the Carolinas and Georgia. This cotton could be more widely grown than the
long staple Sea Island cotton grown in coastal South Carolina and Georgia. The main
hindrance to the profitability of the green-seed cotton was the difficulty in separating the
seed from the lint, a problem which was solved by Whitney's Gin.

The spread of cotton into the upcountry also brought about a large increase in the slave
population and the beginning of plantations (Srrrith 1958248). From 1790 to 1810, the
proportion of slaves in upcountry South Carolina increased from between 15 % and 32 %
of the population, depending upon the specific county, as much as 54% of the population
in some areas (Klein 19902250-253). At this same period, the proportion of households

42

owning slaves increased from about 25% to about 40-45% (Klein 19902251). The
proportion of slaves continued to increase through the 18103 and 18205 (Klein 19902252).

By the middle 18105, when the first large scale emigration from the South Atlantic
States began, the Piedmont and Central Plains regions of these areas were already showing
signs of soil exhaustion (Craven 1926; Smith 1958229). Agricultural methods of the day
were very damaging to the soil. Shallow topsoil plowing, commonly up and down hills,
was the norm (Bonner 1964261; Moore 1986214). The frontier practice of field clearing,
multi-year farming until production declined, and finally field abandonment was generally
the main mode of cultivation. As William Ellison, a South Carolina planter, stated in 1828.

The successful cotton planter sits down in the choicest of his lands,
slaughters the forest, and murders the soil, and when his lands are exhausted,
buys all he can from his neighbors... and continues the work of destruction,
until he has created a desert of old fields around him, and when he drinks he can
do no better, sells his lands for what he can get, or deserts them, and marches
off to the new country to recommense (sic) the same process (quoted from
Smith 1958229-30).

As population increased, the field abandonment method became less practical, and
fields were put under crops even longer, with no nutrients retumed to the soil. Soil
exhaustion continued to increase through the 18205 as cotton farmers tried to increase
their crops in a period of low prices (Smith 195827). Even though cotton prices were
low at this time, cotton was still the most profitable crop grown in the region (Srrrith
1958;58). By the early 18305, the situation had become critical and emigration
accelerated (Smith 1958220-22). The severity of the soil conditions are illustrated in an
1839 statement that "the sterility of our land, produced by an injudicious and scourging
mode of culture, and the failure of our staple for a series of years, prove that there is a
radical defect in our usual system of cultivation" (Smith 1958293).

The poor soil conditions in the east and the known rich soils in the Old Southwest
were major reasons for errrigration between 1815 and 1840 (Abemethy 1965235;

Bonner 1964:61; Moore 198625-6; Smith 1958220). The quality of the southwestern

lands was well known in the east because of written accounts by travellers, promoters,

43

friends, and relatives (Doster and Weaver 1981). Often potential settlers, particularly
planters, sent relatives ahead to scout out the land and locate areas of high fertility. By
the 18305, the fertility of the Black Prairie soils of Mississippi were well known to
settlers, since similar soils were encountered in Alabama in the 18105.

Other reasons for emigration included the poorer transportation in the east, and a
system of land inheritance which often left second and third sons of planters without
land (Abemethy 1965235; Moore 198625-6; Smith 1958234; Taylor 1926232). The river
systems in the eastern upcountry were generally small and interrupted by rapids. In the
Southwest, a greater percentage of land was accessible to navigable streams flowing to
the Gulf of Mexico (Abemethy 1965235).

From the Piedmont and Central Plains of the South Atlantic States, the settlers
brought, besides their upland cotton, their system of farms and small to moderate-sized
slave plantations (Moore 198622; Owsley 1949260; Taylor 1926231). In the east, the
very large plantations were located on the coast. Few of these large planters migrated
to the Southwest because of the heavy capital investments in their low country
plantations and their social investments and status in the region (Abemethy 1965236;
Owsley 1949261). Also, the requirements of the low country crops, particularly rice
and Sea Island cotton, gave their lands a certain monopoly value (Abemethy 1965236).

Most of the upcountry settlers who moved into the Southwest, including northeastern
Mississippi, therefore, were very familiar with cotton production, either with family or
slave labor. Initially, they utilized their home implements, such as the shovel plow, and
home methods, such as shallow planting, but soon they had adapted to the deeper soils of
the Mississippi Prairie and alluvium by borrowing turning plows and deeper plowing
methods from Mississippi Valley planters (Moore 1986:14-15). By the 18305, there was
definitely a pool of potential settlers working and waiting to settle Lowndes County and
with the knowledge to grow cotton. The Upper Tombigbee Valley therefore meets the

criteria of precondition four.

44

E 1.. E'I .

The primary transport route in the study area was the Tombigbee River. This river
flowed from extreme northeastern Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico at Mobile, Alabama.
Mobile became a US. port in 1813 and by the late 18105 it had become a major cotton
port. From the earliest settlement in the study area, cotton and other agricultural produce
was shipped down river to Mobile.

In the 1810s, while goods were easily shipped downriver on flatboats, upriver
transport was extremely difficult and most finished goods had to be brought overland, an
expensive proposition. This situation must have encouraged a higher level of self
sufficiency than was found later, when transportation improved (Doster and Weaver
198 1 264).

In the early 18203, upriver transport became easier and less expensive when steamboats
finally reached the Upper Tombigbee region. After 1822, steamboats began regular service
as far north as Columbus, or even Cotton Gin Port, dming the high water season (Winter
and Spring) (Doster and Weaver 1981267). The much lower freight rates charged by
steamboats, relative to wagons, made commercial agriculture in the Upper Tombigbee
Valley much more profitable. The advent of steamboat transportation led to a drop in up-
river transport cost from 6.5 cents per ton-mile in 1816 to .0.5 cents per ton-mile in 1826
(Earle 19872176).

Numerous other, at least partially navigable tributaries of the Tombigbee cut through
Lowndes County. The most notable of these are the Buttahatchie River, the Luxapallala
River, and Tibbee Creek. Crops could be shipped down these streams on flatboats or
keelboats.

The Upper Tombigbee region also possessed a number of prominent trails early in its
settlement history. The nearby Natchez Trace provided contact with Natchez, New

45

Orleans, and Nashville. This route was surveyed in 1802 and ran west of Lowndes
County, crossing the Tombigbee just to the north of present Tupelo, Mississippi (Doster
and Weaver 1981232).

Other trails were also established in the Upper Tombigbee area in the first decade of the
nineteenth century. The most important was probably Gaines' Trace, which provided an
overland route from the impassable Muscle Shoals on the Tennessee River to Cotton Gin
Port on the Tombigbee. This trail was surveyed in 1807. Soon after this, another trail of
unknown name was established for the Tennessee River, at about present East Port,
Mississippi, to Pitchlynn's Trading Post on the west side of the Tombigbee (Doster &
Weaver 1981247; Elliott 1978b).

Soon after settlement began in Monroe County, two additional roads, Jackson's
Military Road (1818) and Robinson's Road (1821), were constructed through the area.
Both crossed the Tombigbee at Columbus and helped its growth considerably. After
Monroe County was formed in 1821, some local roads were constructed. The most
prominent of these was the road connecting Columbus and Cotton Gin Port to the county
seat of Hamilton and to each other.

By the time of the 18305 boom, Lowndes County and most of the Upper Tombigbee
region was endowed with a relatively good and reliable transportation system, especially
for that time. The study area, particularly after the beginning of steamboat trade in 1822,

therefore meets the criteria for precondition five.

firmwares

From the above discussion it is apparent that Lowndes County, at least after 1830, met
the preconditions for the Boom-Bust Model. During the early 18305, a vast amount of
territory ideal for cotton production was open for settlement at a time when cotton prices

were high. The suitability of cotton cultivation also meant that Lowndes County was

46

suitable for plantation slavery. The presence of a large navigable river, steamboat traffic,
and a good seaport (Mobile, Alabama) at this time meant that export-propelled agriculture
and the importing of manufactured goods could begin immediately after settlement began.

The settlement of Lowndes County from the 18305 onward should, therefore, follow
the pattern of development and change, described in the Boom-Bust model. In the section
below, the characteristics predicted for each phase of the model are formulated into
hypotheses. These hypotheses focus on the topics of immigration, socioeconomic
structure, agricultural methods, town settlement patterns, town services, and consumption
patterns and will be organized accordingly. These particular aspects of the model are
examined because they are sensitive to the changes occurring during the Boom-Bust
Recovery development and because they can be investigated by the available documentary
and/or archaeological data.

I . .

H1. During the boom period of the 18305, Lowndes County should have
experienced a much larger immigration of settlers than the county experienced
during the bust of the late 18105 and 1820s, or the bust of the 18403. The
18305 immigration should have been most apparent in the newly Opened lands
west of the Tombigbee River, but eastern Lowndes County should have also
experienced a significant population increase and agricultural expansion during
this time.

H2. The immigrants who entered Lowndes County during the boom of the 18305,
while including both fanners and planters (with their slaves) should have
included more planters, and larger planters, than entered the county during the
bust of the late 18105 and 18205.

47

As was noted above in the discussion of preconditions, eastern Lowndes was still only
sparsely settled in 1830, so land remained for new settlers after the cotton price increases of
1833 and beyond. Although the rapid sale and settlement of the Choctaw and Chickasaw
lands in the 18305, of which western Lowndes was a part, is well known to historians of
the region. Whether farmers or planters, or both, led this immigration is poorly

understood.

Wear:

H3. Given the prosperous times and frontier nature of Lowndes County during the
boom period of the 18305, the socioeconomic structure of Lowndes County
should have been hierarchically more simple and possessed a more even
distribution of wealth than in later periods in Lowndes County.

H4. During the 18405, there should have been an increase in hierarchical
complexity in Lowndes County and a large increase in the concentration of
wealth among the upper classes of the county, since they had the capital and
flexibility to weather the harsh conditions better than smaller agriculturalists and
merchants.

H5. During the recovery period of the 18505, there should have been only a slight
increase, if any, in wealth concentration in Lowndes County. Because of
increasing stability in the region, this change should have been much less than
that which occurred in the bust of the 18405.

Wealth categories will be utilized as an indication of the complexity of the social
structure since other information, such as occupation, is lacking before 1850. When
examined over time, the concentration of wealth illustrates the relative economic success of

people from different economic levels

48
E . l l l l l l l E l .

H6. Agricultural production methods during the boom of the 18305, when land
was plentiful and cheap, should have been more extensive than in the 18405,
when less vacant land was available, the price of land was higher, and the price
for cotton was lower.

H7. These more intensive agricultural methods, which should have begun in the
1840s, should have increased during the recovery phase of the 18505, as the
county became even more densely settled and the price of land increased.

Because of deficiency in historic records, particularly the 1840 Census, Hypothesis 6
cannot be tested in the study area. Hypothesis 7 will be examined, however, utilizing
agricultural production statistics in the 1850 and 1860 Federal Census.

WW

H8. During the boom of the 18305, a large number of towns should have been
established in Lowndes County, particularly west of the Tombigbee. Due to the
optimism and speculative nature of this period, the expectations and plans for
these speculative towns should have been exaggerated.

H9. Due to the lessened competition and immature nature of the initial boom
period, the distribution of towns in the middle to late 18305 should be relatively
random.

H10. During the boom of the 18305, the town hierarchy should have been
relatively simple and with a dominant, in terms of size and services, "frontier
town" located in the earliest settled part of the region.

H11. During the bust of the 18405, poor economic conditions should have

increased competition between towns and resulted in the decline or extinction of

49

most speculative towns and resulted in a more evenly dispersed town settlement
pattern, as compared to that of the 18305.

H12. During the bust of the 18405, the frontier town, because of its size and
multiple functions, should have weathered the harsh conditions better than
smaller towns and increased its dominance in size and services relative to the
smaller towns.

H13 During the recovery period of the late 18405 and 18505, frontier conditions
should have subsided. This will be reflected in a relatively more uniform
settlement distribution than previously.

H14. During the recovery phase of the late 18405 and 18505, an increasingly
hierarchical urban system should have evolved, and the size and service
dominance of the frontier town should have been reduced, relative to other

towns.

D. . E l l .
H15. The smaller towns in the boom period of the 18305, particularly the

speculative towns, should have had a greater variety of stores, goods,
especially luxrnies, and services than in the bust or recovery periods.

H16. During the bust, the variety of stores and goods, particularly luxuries, in the
smaller towns should have become scarce.

H17. In the recovery phase, the quantity and variety of stores, goods, and services
in the smaller towns should have increased relative to the bust, but should not

beasgreatasintheboomperiod.

Although some store inventories and bills are available for the study area, the lack of a
truly representative sample of store documents makes a formal test of these three
hypotheses impossible at present. What store data that are available, however, will be

50
utilized in a less formal examination of the availability of goods. Since very little
information is extant on the types of stores, particularly specialty stores, present in the

smaller towns, this aspect of the three hypotheses cannot be formally examined either.

Warm

H18. Because of economic prosperity (higher income), easy credit, and optimism,
much more lavish consumption of material goods, especially of luxuries and
durables, relative to socioeconomic status, should have been present during the
boom period of the 18305 compared to the depression or even the recovery
phase.

H19. While consumption of material goods, particularly luxuries and durables,
should have increased in the recovery period relative to the depression, the
consumption level should not have been as great as that of the boom for most

citizens.

Endgames

Both documentary and archaeological data will be utilized in the testing of these
hypotheses. Documentary data, however, are the major source of information on Lowndes
County to be utilized in these tests. The two main documentary sources to be examined are
the county property tax rolls dating from the 18305 to late 18505 and the Federal
manuscript census rolls dating from 1820-1860. These two sources provide information
on population and wealth, in land and slaves, and will be used in the tests related to
rrrigration, socioeconomic structure, and wealth concentration. On the topic of wealth, the
county tax rolls are vital in providing information for the period predating 1850, since no
land holding information is given in the censuses of 1820-1840. Slave holdings are
calculated from the federal census, as are landholdings fro 1850 and 1860.

5 1

The published federal census for 1850 and 1860 will be used to examine questions
related to agricultural methods. Since little quantitative data are present on actual methods,
production and agricultural expenditure figures provided in these two censuses will provide
an alternative with which to investigate agricultural intensification.

A number of data sources will be combined to examine the hypotheses on town
development, settlement patterns, and the stores. services, and goods provided by these
towns. Early maps are vital for showing locations of early towns, particularly those that
became extinct. Other data are used in conjunction with maps to provide more detailed
information on towns. These sources include deeds, county governmental records, store
inventories and bills, newspapers, reminiscences, and county property tax rolls. The
county tax rolls give the amount of merchandise sold in the county's stores. Once the
location of these stores is determined, this information provides an interesting method of
examining town strength and importance and how these changed over time. These sales
data will also be used to examine changing rates of consumption in the county.

Since some of the town development hypotheses are regional in scope, data on an area
larger than Lowndes County is needed. Secondary sources and the federal censuses will
be used in examining most other county towns, with the exception of those in adjacent
Monroe County, which will utilize similar sources to those described above for Lowndes
County.

Fortunately, a number of excellent secondary sources related to the history of Lowndes
County and the Upper Tombigbee Valley are available. Part of these data are the result of
projects associated with the construction of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway (Adams
1981; Doster and Weaver 1981; Elliott 1978a; Prout 1973; Way and McBride 1983;
Weaver and Doster 1982). But, along standing local interest in this region, particularly in
Lowndes and Monroe Counties, has provided a number in valuable studies dating back to
the early twentieth centtn'y (Evans 1979; Lipscomb 1909; Rodabough 1971-1975, 1985;
Wood 1925).

52

Archaeological data and merchandise sales in the county tax records are utilized to
examine the hypotheses related to changing consumption patterns. The archaeological
sample is derived from a number of domestic sites in the extinct towns of Colbert and
Barton. The excavation of these sites was completed as part of an overall cultural resource
management program associated with the development of the Tennessee-Tombigbee
Waterway and sponsored by the US. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District. The
data from these sites provide for household level examination which is not available from
many other sources. The archaeological data also provide information on the consumption
of certain types of items, in this case refined ceramics, while the county tax rolls give no
information more precise than total merchandise sold.

Because the Boom-Bust-Recovery cycles are so short in duration, usually no more than
a decade in length, very tight chronological control is necessary to examine the
consumption hypotheses. The fact that the towns of Colbert and Barton were fairly short
lived, each about 12 to 15 years, helps overcome this problem to some degree, but not
completely. The Colbert stores span both the boom and the bust phases and some of the
Barton sites were occupied into the twentieth century. Careful chronological control and
feature comparison is necessary to detennine if separate boom, bust, and recovery deposits
can be identified.

The above nineteen hypotheses will be examined in the next three chapters. Chapter 4
will address questions related to immigration, socioeconomic structure and wealth, and
agricultural methods. Hypotheses examining town development, settlement patterns, and
services will be presented in Chapter 5. Chapter 6 will address hypotheses related to
consumption patterns and will provide a discussion of the archaeological investigation at

Colbert and Barton.

CHAPTER 4
SETTLEMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF LOWNDES COUNTY

lntrcducticn

The discussion presented in Chapter 3 reveals that Lowndes County from the 18305
through the 18505 met the preconditions of the Boom-Bust Model. Therefore, the
settlement and development of Lowndes County during that period should follow the
predictions stated in the nineteen hypotheses. In this chapter, the first eight hypotheses will
be examined. These hypotheses deal with the speed and size of settlement, wealth and

socioeconomic structure, and agricultural methods and production.

11" EIB 2.1

The first hypothesis states that during the boom period of the 18305, Lowndes County
should have received a larger immigration of settlers than occuned during the bust periods
of the late 18105 and 18205 and the bust of the 18405. The 1830s immigration should have
been most dramatic in the newly opened lands west of the Tombigbee River, but eastern
Lowndes County should have also experienced a significant population increase. The
examination of this hypothesis provides the context and conditions which will lay a
foundation for the examination of the remaining hypotheses. The test implications for the
first part of this hypothesis is that the population of Lowndes County should have
increased much more between 1830 and 1840 than it did between 1820 and 1830 or
between 1840 and 1850.

53

54

In the analysis to follow, population and wealth data from the Federal Censuses will be
utilized The 1840 Federal Census will be utilized as a measure of the culmination of the
18305 boom. Since cotton prices did not begin their long term drop until late 1839 (see
Chapter 3), the use of the 1840 Census seems reasonable. The 1850 Federal Census will
be used to represent the culmination of changes which occurred in the 18405 depression.
Again, since cotton prices did not begin their long term increase until the late 18405, this
also seems reasonable. The 1860 Federal Census will be utilized to examine changes
which occurred during the 18505 recovery.

Table 4.1 gives population figures for Lowndes County for 1820 through 1850. This
data indicates that by far the greatest absolute and relative population increase in the county
was between 1830 and 1840. During this decade the total population increased by 11,340
persons, or 347%. This increase consisted of 7,274 persons in the newly opened territory
west of the Tombigbee, and an additional 4,066 persons in the eastern half of Lowndes
County. The increase in slaves from 1830 to 1840, which amounted to an increase of
724%, was especially dramatic and indicates that planters with slaves were entering the area
in this decade. More discussion on slavery and planters will be given below.

During the depression of the 18405 to 1850, the total population of Lowndes County
increased only 34.7%, and the white population only 13.8%. Between 1810 and 1820, the
population increased relatively more, 203%, but absolutely by only 2116 persons. The
underdeveloped nature of Lowndes County in the early 18305 is evident by comparing the
low quantity of early taxable land, only 30,005 acres in 1830 and 30,929 acres in 1833, to
the 203,040 taxable acres in 1840 (Lowndes County Property Taxes 1833, 1840;
Rodabough 1985227). The 1840 taxable land included 82,748 acres in the eastern half of
Lowndes County and 120,292 acres in the western half.

The above data support the test implication of a greater increase in population for
Lowndes County during the boom times of the 18305. These results indicate that while
most growth occurred in the newly opened western lands, the eastern half of Lowndes

55

County, although initially settled in the 18205, underwent considerable additional

settlement and development during the 18305.

Table 4.1. Lowndes County Population, 1820-1850.

 

 

, 1820 1830 1840 1850
"SIMPLE
Whites 776 2104 5730 6521
Free Blacks 5 5 12 28
Slaves 276 1064 8771 12995
Total 1057 3173 14513 19544

 

 

 

Source: US. Census Office (1832, 1841, 1854).

The second hypothesis states that the inunigrants who entered Lowndes County during
the boom of the 18305, while including both farmers and planters, should have included
more planters, and especially larger planters, than had entered the county during the 18105
or 18205. The first test implication of this hypothesis is that landholding and slaveholding
data from the western half of Lowndes County in 1840 should confirm the presence of
small and medium-sized landholders (1-300 acres) as well as some larger holders (> 300
acres). It should also include slaveless households, small slaveholders (< 10 slaves), and
medium to large slaveholders (> 20 slaves).

Tables 4.2 and 4.3 give the distribution of slaveholdings for 1820, 1830, and 1840-
west and landholdings for 1833 and 1840—west. Land ownership data for 1820 is not
available. The 1840west data is used since it represents only new holdings established
during the 18305 and, therefore, directly addresses the hypothesis.

The landholding data for 1833 and 1840 is constructed from the Lowndes County
Property Tax Rolls, while the slaveholding data is from the US. Census. The 1833 land
data was the earliest year available with complete landholding data. This data was still for
only the east half of Lowndes County. In order to make these sources corrrparable and to
render the 1833 and 1840 land data comparable to the 1850 and 1860 agricultural census,

only those tax roll entries who were also in the census were utilized This decision also

had the effect of removing any outside speculators from the sample, leaving only residents.

Some 1850 and 1860 agricultural census entries were also dropped since they were not in

the population schedule.

Table 4.2. Distribution of Slaveholding Households, Lowndes County, 1820-1840.

 

 

 

 

 

 

1820 1830 1840
w H 22 N .72 1:1. 522
1-9 49 87.5 115 78.8 84 38.9
10-19 6 10.7 23 15.8 51 23.6
20-29 1 1.8 7 4.8 29 13.4
30-39 0 0 1 0.7 18 8.3
40-49 0 0 0 0 9 4.2
50-74 0 0 0 0 15 6.9
75-99 0 0 0 0 3 1.4
199-149 0 0 0 0 5 2.3
150-199 0 0 0 0 l 0.5
200+ 0 0 0 0 1 0.5
TOTALS 56 100 146 100 216 100
Slaveless 74 56.9 132 47.5 61 22.0

 

 

 

Source: US. Manuscript Census, Lowndes County, 1820-1840.

Table 4.3. Distribution of Landholding Households, Lowndes County, 1833-1840.

 

 

 

 

 

 

1833 1840-West

Am N 22 H 29.

1449 0 0 0 0

50-99 54 36.2 7 4.3
100-299 57 38.3 34 21.1
300499 29 19.5 44 27.3
500999 9 6.0 47 29.2
1000-1999 , 0 0 20 12.4
2000+ 0 o 9 5.6
Terms 149 100 161 99.9
Landless 129 46.4 116 41.9

 

 

Source: Lowndes County Property Tax Rolls, 1833, 1840.

57

The landholding and slaveholding data from western Lowndes County in 1840 confirm
the first test implication. The 18305 immigrants included farmers and planters of various
sizes. The number of planter households, those containing twenty or more slaves, and the
large size of some slaveholdings and landholdings, is somewhat surprising. Nearly forty
percent of the slaveholding heads and nearly thirty percent of all household heads were of
planter status. Twenty-five, or 11.6 %, of the slaveholding heads owned 50 or more
slaves by 1840. The low proportion of non-slaveholding head, 22%, is quite striking and
indicates that Lowndes County in the 18305 was not a stereotypical backwoods frontier.

The landholding data also suggest that large holdings were established quite early after
settlement began in the western Choctaw and Chickasaw cessions. Nearly 50 %, or 76, of
the landowning households had holdings of 500 acres or greater. Some of these holdings
may have been speculative holdings, and therefore somewhat exaggerated in size, but since
the sample only includes resident households, and the major immigration had already
occurred by 1840, this bias is probably not very great. Also, the presence of large
slaveholdings, which are usually associated with large landholdings, suggests that many, if
not most, of the large landholdings were working plantations.

The second test implication for the second hypothesis is that the slaveholdings and
landholdings from 1840 should include a greater number and proportion of planters,
especially large planters, compared to the 1820 and 1830-1833 data. Tables 4.2 and 4.3
clearly indicate that this is the case. The immigrants who entered Lowndes County in 1820
or earlier consisted almost exclusively of small slaveholders or non-slaveholders. Only one
household in 1820 meets the usual requirement for planter status, that is, owning twenty or
more slaves (Bonner 1965). This range of holding size is not surprising, given the fact that
the original Monroe County, from which eastern Lowndes County was created, was not
completely surveyed until July 1820 (Howell 1971230). Therefore, many of these

households were still squatters when the census was taken.

58

The 1830 and 1833 data, however, indicate that Lowndes County society still consisted
of primarily small to medium holders and non-slave or non-landholders ten years after
official settlement began. Only eight households owned 20 or more slaves and none
owned over 39 slaves. In 1833, the number (38) and proportion (25.5%) of farmers with
over 300 acres was much smaller than in 1840, and again indicates that most of the
agriculturalists were small and medium-sized farmers.

The third implication of this hypothesis is that the proportion of slaves in the county
population should be much greater in 1840, than in 1820 or 1830. The proportion of
slaves in the population was 26.1%, 33.5%, and 60.4%, for 1820, 1830, and 1840,
respectively. This conforms to the test implication and supports the plantation nature of
Lowndes County in 1840. The population of the eastern half of Lowndes County in 1840
consisted of 47.2% slaves, while the west half consisted of 73.6% slaves. This again
underlines the strong plantation orientation of the newly opened prairie region west of the
Tombigbee.

The above results indicate that very different populations moved into Lowndes County
in the 18205 than entered the county in the 18305. The latter decade received a much
greater frequency of planters or prospective planters. The argument presented here is that
the boom conditions of the 18305 combined with the other preconditions stated in the
previous chapter, especially rich soils and an adequate transportation system, are the
variables responsible for the nearly immediate establishment of a plantation society in this
region. Although the soils in eastern Lowndes County ar overall not as rich as those in
western Lowndes County, this difference alone is not adequate to explain the great sparsity
of agricultural units over 500 acres and slaveholdings of over 19 slaves in 1830, especially
since these sized units became much more common by 1840 (Lowndes County Property
Tax Rolls 1840). The less developed transportation network may have initially hindered
immigration into the region, but by 1822 steamboats began regular service to Lowndes

59

County (Evans 1979). The most critical variable differentiating the 18205 and 18305
conditions was the recession conditions of the former and the boom conditions of the latter.
The above discussion lends quantitative support to the statements by Myers (1949) and
Moore (1986, 1988) that planters were included in the first settlement wave into the Black
Prairie. The data presented here also contradict the finding and theories of Foust (197 5),
Owsley (1949) and Phillips (1908) that farmers or herders led the migration into all areas of
the South, with the possible exception of the Mississippi River Valley. The lack of
analysis or data predating the 1850 federal census has severely hindered the examination of
this question. Surprisingly, most quantitative studies claiming to address questions related
to frontier migration are based on post-frontier data and have therefore missed the impact of

variables such as economic cycles (Foust 1975; Schaeffer 1987).

S' '5 1C . ElMll

Three hypotheses will be addressed which cover the socioeconomic structure and
concentration of wealth in Lowndes County during the boom, bust, and recovery phases of
development. Since the changes discussed in these hypotheses are measured relative to
each other, the three hypotheses will be examined together. Wealth in slaves and land will
be used to measure both the socioeconomic structure and the concentration of wealth in the
study area, since they were the major material determinants of status in the antebellum
South (Wright 197 8). Other measures of status, such as income, occupation, political and
social prestige or influence, are not available for most of the years under investigation.

Hypothesis 3 states that during the boom of the 18305, the socioeconomic structure of
Lowndes County should have been hierarchically more simple and possessed a more even
distribution of wealth than in the later periods. Hypothesis 4 states that there should have
been an increase in hierarchical complexity and a large increase in the concentration of

wealth among the upper classes during the depression of the 18408. Hypothesis 5 states

60

that there should have been a much smaller increase, if any, in the concentration of wealth
during the recovery period of the 18505.

As with the analysis above, 1840 tax and population census data will be used to
represent the culmination of the 18305 boom, while the 1850 population and agricultural
census data will be used to document changes which occurred during the 18405
depression. Developments which occurred during the recovery period of the 18505 will be
documented with the 1860 population and agricultural census.

The fast test implication for the above hypothesis is that the distribution of
slaveholdings and landholdings in Lowndes County in 1840 should form a pattern with
less range of holding sizes and a greater proportion of smaller holders, than was found in
1850 or 1860. Tables 4.4 and 4.5 and Figures 4.1 and 4.2 give the distribution of
slaveholding and landholding households in 1840, 1850, and 1860. These data do not
support the first part of Hypothesis 3, which predicted a simpler socioeconomic structure
for the county in the boom period, or the first part of Hypothesis 4, which predicted
increased complexity by 1850. By 1840, Lowndes County society contained a great
variety of economic levels and much disparity in the distribution of wealth between rich and
poor.

Table 4.4 indicates that in 1840 Lowndes County slaveholders had holdings of similar
size and distribution as in 1850 and 1860. The only differences between the three years is
a slight increase in slaveholdings of 50 and over in 1850, and again in 1860, as well as in
changes in the proportion of slaveless household heads. The landholding data illustrate
more variation between 1840 and 1850, but the 1840 distribution still could not be referred
to as simplified or clustered toward small holdings. The major difference between 1840
and 1850 is the large relative and absolute increase in holders of less than 50 acres (Table
4.4, Figure 4.2). Between 1850 and 1860, the number and proportion of holders with
over 499 acres increased significantly, as did the number and proportion of landless
household heads.

61

Table 4.4. Distribution of Slaveholding Households, Lowndes County, 1840-1860.

 

 

 

1840 1850 1860
M bl . 22 N 22 N 22
1-9 324 57 .5 442 58.4 510 56.4
10-19 121 21.5 141 18.6 169 18.7
20-29 48 8.5 71 9.4 71 7.8
30-39 26 4.6 33 4.4 38 4.2
40-49 13 2.3 14 1.8 32 3.5
50-74 20 3.6 38 5.0 42 4.6
75-99 4 0.7 13 1.7 27 3.0
199-149 5 0.9 4 0.5 10 1.1
150-199 1 0.2 1 0.1 5 0.6
200+ l 0.2 0 0 1 0
TOTALS 563 100 757 99.9 905 99.9
Slaveless 264 3 1.9 507 40. 1 482 34. 8

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: US. Manuscript Census, Lowndes County, 1840-1860.

Table 4.5. Distribution of Landholding Households, Lowndes County, 1840-1860.

 

 

 

 

1841) 1850 1860
m 3‘22 __éhl u__a__
1-49 16 3.5 90 13.3 25 4.0
50-99 70 15.3 88 13.1 75 12.0
100-299 157 34.3 228 33.8 192 30.7
300-499 99 21.6 117 17.4 99 15.8
500-999 84 18.3 100 14.8 133 21.3
1000-1999 23 5.0 37 5.5 87 13.9
2000+ ' 9 2.0 14 2.1 14 2.2
TOTALS 458 100 674 100 625 99.9
landless 369 44.6 590 46.7 762 54.9

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: US. Manuscript Census, Lowndes County, 1840-1860.

m‘caio

62

 

I 1840
I 1850

El 1860

 

 

 

 

 

1-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 60-74 15-90 roe-140 150-199 2000
size of slaves holding

Figure 4.1. Distribution of slaveholdings, 1840-1860.

63

‘0 II

 

I 1840
I 1850

El 1860

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

..-:l..

1-40 60-00 too-ass 300-400 SOD-999 1000- 1 999 2000.
size or farm, in acres

Figure 4.2. Distribution of landholdings, 1840-1860.

64

By 1840, Lowndes County appears to have been a full blown plantation society. This
result is not due to the manning of the earlier settled eastern half of the county, but rather to
the rapid establishment of settlers with diverse economic levels, including large planters on
both sides of the river, but particularly on the western side. Tables 4.6 and 4.7 below
show that western Lowndes County contained the vast majority of the larger slaveholdin gs
(50+) and landholdings (500 + acres) and all slaveholdings over 100 slaves and
landholdings over 2000 acres. Western Lowndes County also contained a much lower
proportion of non-slaveholding heads (22%) than the eastern half of the county (36.9%).

It is necessary to go back to 1820 and 1830 to view a simplified socioeconomic
structure in Lowndes County (see Tables 4.2 and 4.3). At these times, the society
consisted primarily of squatters, small to medium-sized holders, some townspeople, and
slaves. The county at these times, however, did not meet the preconditions of the model.
The 1810 settlement occurred before the land was surveyed and the 18205 settlement
occurred during a recession or depression.

It appears, therefore, that the societal simplification predicted in the model does not
hold for Lowndes County in the middle and late 18305. As was noted in Chapter 2, the
simplification process, which is characterized by a loss of numerous cultural components
(particularly specialized ones), is a normal adaptation in a newly settled environment
(Casagrande et al. 1964; Lewis 1984). Evidently a simplified, non-hierarchical society was
not adaptive or necessary in the area west of the Tombigbee River.

The exceptionally rapid establishment of a complex society in this region, at least one
that exceeded the expectations of the model, was probably related to a number of factors.
The proximity of Lowndes County to older settled non-frontier areas in northern Alabama
may be one factor. The previous (1830) establishment of county government certainly
made administration and communication with the new area more efficient and made
settlement of the new lands logistically easier and less risky. These factors probably
encouraged large planters with their slaves to move quickly to the newly ceded lands. As

65

Table 4.6. Distribution of Slaveholding Households, by Location, 1840.

 

 

 

 

 

East Side West Side

Slam 1:1 24 1:1 22

1-9 240 69.2 84 38.9
10-19 70 20.2 51 23.6
20-29 19 5.5 29 13.4
30-39 8 2.3 18 8.3
40-49 4 1.2 9 4.2
50-74 5 1.4 15 6.9
75-99 1 0.3 3 1.4
100-149 0 0 5 2.3
150-199 0 0 1 0.5
200+ 0 0 l 0.5
TOTALS 347 100.1 216 100

Slaveless 203 36.9 61 22.0

 

 

 

 

Source: US. Census, 1840

Table 4.7. Distribution of Landholding Households, by Location, 1840.

 

 

 

East Side West Side
M Lin L_:a__

1-49 16 5.4 0 0

50-99 63 21.2 7 4.3
100-299 123 41.4 34 21.1
300-499 55 18.5 44 27.3
500-999 37 12.5 47 29.2
1000-1999 3 01.0 20 12.4
2000+ 0 0 9 5.6
TOTALS 297 100 161 99.9
Landless 253 46.0 116 41.9

 

 

 

 

 

Source: Lowndes County Property Tax Rolls, 1840.

66

will be recalled, the Colonization Gradient Model predicted less simplification from the
outer edge to the inner edge of the frontier region (Lewis 1984211). But, this is a matter of
degree and even the edge closest to the homeland is predicted to have more simplification
than the study area.

Other factors are therefore necessary to more fully account for the social structural
complexity of the county in 1840. All of the preconditions of the Boom-Bust model,
especially the sanctioning of slavery and the exceptionally rich cotton lands, are probably
important factors in the lack of social—structural simplification in the study area. The
richness of the black praire soils was well known to potential settlers because of the 18105
settlement of the Alabama praire lands.

If the impact of the preconditions is this strong, perhaps the simplification hypotheses
should be removed completely from the model, at least for plantation situations. Further
testing, however, is needed to fully understand the simplification issue in Boom-Bust
contexts. In the Upper Tombigbee area, it would be fruitful to examine social structmal
complexity of counties which were not part of Old Monroe County. In this way, the
impact of the 1820s settlement and political organization could be examined. The model
also needs to be examined in non-plantation areas to examine frontier social structural
complexity more broadly.

The second test implication for Hypotheses 3, 4 and 5 is that the proportion of wealth
held by the upper levels of Lowndes County society in 1840 should be less than that in
1850 or 1860 and that the increase in this concentration of wealth between 1840 and 1850
should be much greater than that occmring between 1850 and 1860.

A decile analysis of slave ownership, farm acreage, and value of farm acreage, with
Gini coefficients calculated, will be utilized in the examination of this implication. The Gini
coefficient is a measure of how close a distribution falls to perfect equality. A value of 0
indicates perfect equality, while a value of 100 indicates complete concentration (Wright
1978225). The decile analysis illustrates the proportion of wealth owned by the middle to

67

richest ten percentile groupings of the households and the poorest 50% of the households
within the county. Decile analysis and Gini coefficient calculation are the predominate
methods of wealth analysis in recent economic history (Klein 1990; Weiner 1976; Wright
1978).

Tables 4.8, 4.9, and 4.10 present decile ownership and Gini coefficients for slaves,
land, and land value for Lowndes County in 1840, 1850, and 1860. Lorenze curves are
shown in Figures 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5. These curves give a graphical representation of the
Gini, with a more rapidly rising curve indicating a higher Gini, which means a greater
concentration of wealth. The diagonal represents a completely equal distribution.

In all three wealth categories, slaves, acres, and land value, the 1840 distribution was
fairly concentrated. This again, was the result of the immigration of large planters into the
county from the beginning of the 18305 land sales.

When 1840 and 1850 are compared, an increase in concentration of wealth is evident
for all three categories. For slaves, there was a 6.5% increase in the amount owned by the
top 10 % of society, with a 5.0 point increase in the Gini coefficient. These increases are
due primarily to the increase in holdings of over 49 slaves and the large increase in the
number of slaveless heads of households (see Table 4.4, Figure 4.3).

With land and land value, there was a 6.3% and a 9.8% increase, respectively, in the
share owned by the wealthiest 10% of the society between 1840 and 1850. The Gini
coefficients increased 5.5 and 6.0 points, respectively, for land and land value (note the
more rapid rise in the Lorenze curve for 1850, Figure 4.4). These measures are primarily
due to a large increase in small holders (149 acres) and a slight increase in the proportion
of holdings over 1000 acres (see Table 4.5). The greater concentration in land value versus
acreage indicates that the wealthier owners not only controlled more land, but also more of
the better land. The increase of small non-slaveholding farmers in 1850 is probably the
result of both the economic decline of somewhat larger holders from 1840 and the creation

or arrival of a disproportionate amount of new small holders between 1840 and 1850. The

68

Table 4.8. Slave Concentration, 1840-1860.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. 1840 1850 1860
LMMM
Top 10% 4255 52.9 6628 59.4 9169 58.7
2nd 1592 19.8 2237 ' 20.0 3129 20.0
3rd 956 11.9 1141 10.2 1622 10.4
4th 594 7.4 647 5.8 912 5.8
5th 361 4.5 351 3.1 498 3.2
Bottom 50% 279 3.5 161 1.4 294 1.9
TOTALS 8037 100 11165 99.9 15624 100
Gini 54.6 59.6 59.1
Source: US. Manuscript Census, Lowndes County, 1840-1860.
Table 4.9. Acreage Concentration, 1840-1860.
_ 1840 1850 1860
Lw—Mw
Top 10% 96666 52.0 153897 58.3 190330 57.5
2nd 39656 21.3 57866 21.9 80806 24.4
3rd 24217 13.0 30783 11.6 37773 11.4
4th 14623 7.9 15191 5.8 17794 5.4
5th 8204 4.4 5501 2.1 4222 1.3
Bottom50% 2683 l .4 784 0.3 0 0
TOTALS 186049 100 263967 100 330925 100
Gini 56.3 61.8 63.8

 

 

 

Source: US. Property Tax Roll 1840; Manuscript Census, 1850, 1860.

69

Table 4.10. Agricultural Land Value Concentration, 1840-1860.

 

 

 

 

 

1840 1850 1860
fl__¥flt____% _¥al£___% LL
Top 10% 174503 59.7 1385950 69.5 5395950 72.9
2nd 57518 19.7 331767 16.6 1345150 18.2
3rd 31287 10.7 163717 8.2 447595 6.0
4th 17338 5.9 79739 4.0 186230 2.5
51h 8806 3.0 30962 1.5 31880 0.4

Bottom 2730 0.9 3381 0.2 0 0
50%

TOTALS 292182 99.9 1995516 100 7406805 100
Gini 60.1 66.1 71.1

 

Source: US. Property Tax Roll 1840; Manuscript Census, 1850, 1860.

lack of credit and low cotton prices of the 18405 would have inhibited new holders from

acquiring much land or many slaves.

In order to examine how the newly settled west side and the more mixed (old and new)

settled east side of Lowndes County were effected by the depression of the 18405, Gini

coefficients and the wealth of the wealthiest decile is given separately for each location in

Table 4.11. This data shows that the changes on each side of the river were very similar,

although the increases on the eastern side of the county were generally slightly greater,

suggesting that people on each side were affected similarly by the 18405 conditions.

 

70

100 q , W
slaves

 

96 a
slaves
“eh
9"” °‘ 0- Equal 013mm
WM“
below 0-1840
"m l- 1850
III-1860

 

 

 

 

 

o A A a L a a a _a a
W V V V U I f V V

0 10 2O 30 40 50 80 70 80 90 100

oumuldlvo percent at total popdation beginning with top docile
Figure 4.3. Lorenze Curve, slaveholding, 1840-1860.

71

acres

 

'l. d
land
0“! O.
m at Equal 010an
owners 0' 1840
below
m l- 1850
D- 1880

 

 

 

 

 

‘ I l A J

0 i 5 i i 4 w r . - fl
0 10 20 30 40 50 so 70 80 90 100
moldinpereontotlnndowm,bodnningwlhtopdoelo

Figure 4.4. Lorenze Curve, landholding, 1840-1860.

72

value land

 

0- Equal alumna
0'1840
D1850
Ill-1350

 

 

 

 

 

o n 1 I A n A l n
V 1 V V f I' I V V ‘

010 20 30 40 50 60 70 no 90100
wmummamm.wmngmwpm

Figure 4.5. Lorenze Curve, land value, 1840-1860.

73

Table 4.11. Comparison of Gini Coefficients, 1840-60.

 

 

Slaves Kcres Land Value
ggglg tog gecile (:Lin_i to i1 Gini 132 $41; m y
1840 East 49.2 53.2 45.6 53.3 51 3 56 1
Difference 8.9 6.2 10.4 7.3 17 2 10.0
1840 West 46.9 49.1 46.3 52.8 48.9 53.3
W 5.2.6 11.2 16.2 52.2 63.9 61:4.
Difference 6.6 6.5 10 6 6.4 15.1 9 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: U.S. Property Tax Roll 1840; Manuscript Census, 1850, 1860.

The most striking discovery of the split analysis is the much lower concentration on
each side of the county when examined separately in 1840, than when the whole county is
examined. The higher concentrations in the whole county sample reflect the different
structures of the two halves of the county and result from the combination of the larger land
and slave holdings of the western half with the generally smaller and medium-sized
holdings of the eastern side of the county (see Tables 4.6 and 4.7). By 1850, the
differences between the two halves were not as exaggerated (see Tables 4.12 and 4.13).

The 1860 data presented in Tables 4.8, 4.9, and 4.10 support the test implication that
the difference in concentration of wealth between 1850 and 1860 should be less than that
between 1840 and 1850. This is very strongly supported with slaves and acres, where the
1850 to 1860 difference in ownership by the top (wealthiest) decile is only 0.7 and 0.8,
respectively. Both of these changes were in fact, decreases in concentration, which reflects
the broader opportunities of the 18505 economic recovery.

The land value data does not support the test implication as closely, however, although
it is still supportive. The difference in land value of the top decile and Gini coefficient for
this decade are 3.4% and 5 points. The greater change here, when compared to the acreage
change, reflects disproportionate price increase of planters' land, which was likely of

higher quality, during the 18503 rather than an increase in acreage concentration.

74

Table 4.12. Distribution of Slaveholding Households, by Location, 1850.

 

 

 

 

East Side West Side
filly—2L . ____N ‘12 N 72
1-9 298 66.7 144 46.4
10-19 75 16.8 66 21.3
20-29 35 7.8 36 11.6
30-39 12 2.7 21 6.8
40-49 8 1.8 6 1.9
50-74 15 3.3 23 7.4
75-99 4 .8 9 2.9
100-149 0 0 4 1.3
150-199 0 O 1 .3
200+ Q Q Q Q
TOTALS 447 100 310 100
Slaveless 345 43.6 162 34.4

 

 

 

 

 

Source: US. Manuscript Census, 1850.

Table 4.13. Distribution of Landholding Households, by Location, 1850.

 

 

 

Tast Side West Side

m l__27 L__ZQ__
1-49 58 14.7 32 11.5
50-99 52 13.2 36 12.9
100-299 147 37.3 81 29.1
300-499 73 18.5 44 15.8
500-999 46 1 1.6 54 19.3
1000-1999 14 3.5 23 8.2
2000+ 5 L2 2 1,2,
TOTALS 395 100 279 100
Landless 397 50. 1 193 40. 8

 

 

 

 

 

Source: U.S Manuscript Census, Lowndes County, 1850.

75
5.] Hill 1131'

In this section changes in the intensification of agricultural production in Lowndes
County between 1850 and 1860 will be investigated. As was noted in Chapter 3 above,
Hypothesis 6, which deals with changes from the boom to the bust, cannot be tested
because of weaknesses in the historical records predating 1850. Although the 1840 Federal
Census provides some agricultural statistics, they are diffith to compare with later years
because some measures are not only less reliable but also taken differently. The most
serious problem with the 1840 data is that only total acreage is given, with no information
on improved acreage, which is needed to identify farmland rather than simply total land
ownership.

Hypothesis 7, which examines changes from the bust to the recovery, can be
examined, however, since more detailed agricultural statistics are given in the 1850 and
1860 Federal Agricultural Censuses. (U .8. Census of Agriculture 1854, 1864) Since little
detailed information and no quantitative information is available on the agricultural practices
of this period, production figures will be used as a measure of intensification. The use of
production figures is reasonable, since intensification, which included planting more crops
per acre, increased use of draft animals, improvements in technology, increased use of
fertilizer, and improvements in soil conservation, is a major cause of production increases
(Moore 1988).

Hypothesis 7 states that more intensive agricultural methods should have increased
during the recovery phase of the 1850s as the county became even more densely settled and
the price of land increased. The 1850 and 1860 agricultural census will be utilized to
examine this hypothesis.

The first test implication is that an increase in improved acreage and in the ratio of
improved to unimproved acreage should have occurred between 1850 and 1860. This
would result from the opening of new land and the continued use of previously opened

76

land . In 1850 improved land consisted of 126,998 acres or 43.4% of the total owned
acreage of the county. In 1860, there were 167,373 improved acres, which was 52% of
the total owned acreage. This represents a 32% increase in improved acreage and a large
increase in the ratio of improved to unimproved acreage. The absolute amount of
unimproved acreage decreased 8% over the decade.

The second test implication is that the absolute production and production per improved
acre of cotton should have increased significantly between 1850 and 1860, and that the
increase should not be associated with a large decrease in the production of other major
crops. Production per improved acreage gives an indication of how intensively cultivated
land was being used.

Table 4.14 presents production figures, and production per improved acre for the major
crops grown in Lowndes County in 1850 and 1860. The cotton production figures
demonstrate a large absolute increase (239%) as well as large increases per improved acre
(157%). At the same time, improvements were also made in the absolute and per acre
production of corn and other major crops, except for oats. Since oats were never a
particularly large or important crop, this decline had little impact on cotton production
figures.

Since the number of horses/mules and slaves per improved acre (.04 and .10,
respectively) did not increase significantly from 1850, intensification came in other areas.
In fact, production per slave also increased tremendously between 1850 (466 pounds per
slave) and 1860 (1225 pounds per slave). Yields were increased at this time through
improvements in farm implementation and processing equipment, improvements in planting
and cultivating practices, such as deep plowing, increased use of cotton seed as a fertilizer,
and improvements in cotton breeding (Moore 1988). Improvements in farm implements in
Lowndes County is illustrated by the 66% increase in the value of implements per farm
between 1850 ($179) and 1860 ($297) (U .S. Census of Agriculture 1854, 1864). Crop

rotation, along with contour plowing, ditching, and fertilization, became more important in

77

the 18505, as soil exhaustion and erosion became more critical (Doster and Weaver
1981:62; Moore 1988:30-36). The large increase in legume production between 1850 an
1860, from 6439 bushels to 55,318 bushels, probably illustrates the increased use of pea
plants to enhance the soil. Peas and corn would be planted together every third of fourth
year to rejuvenate cotton fields (Bonner 1964; Moore 1958, 1988; Smith 1958).

Table 4.14. Agricultural Production, Lowndes County, 1850-1860.

 

 

 

 

; 1.850 1869

Crop 1:1 rm bl per
named 1111mm
E m.—

Cotton (lbs) 6050800 47.64 20493600 122.44

Corn (bu) 871864 6.87 1157271 6.91

Oats (bu) 41120 .32 2608 .02

Potato(bu) 99432 .78 124387 .74

 

 

 

 

Source: US. Census of Agriculture (1854, 1864).

The results of the above tests strongly support the agricultural methods hypothesis and
illustrate a large increase in the production of cotton, absolutely and per acre, from 1850 to
1860. These increases were primarily the result of a change toward much more intensive

agricultural methods from the early 18505 to 1860.

CHAPTER 5
TOWN DEVELOPMENT IN LOWNDES COUNTY

Inmducfian

The settlement pattern of a region is interwoven with its economic organization and
therefore can be a very sensitive indication of the level and processes of development of
that area. In this chapter, the town settlement patterns and town services within Lowndes
County, Mississippi will be investigated. This investigation will focus on the period of
1833 to ca. 1860, which meets the preconditions of the Boom-Bust Model. Ten
hypotheses (Hypotheses 8—17) will be examined in this chapter. These hypotheses focus
on town speculation, town settlement patterns, the hierarchy of towns, and the stores,
goods, and services available in the towns. The examination of these hypotheses will be
generally organized by the different cycles of the model: Boom, Bust, and Recovery. An
exception is the examination of the last three hypotheses (Hypotheses 15-17), which deal
with the diversity of stores, services, and goods. This discussion is placed separately, at
the end of the chapter, since different data are utilized.

WW1:

Before proceeding in the examination of these hypotheses on town development,
some background on eastern Lowndes County is needed to provide context. As

discussed above in Chapter 3, the eastern half of Lowndes and its parent county, Monroe,

78

79

had been settled by Euro-Americans since the late 18103. By the early 1820s, there were
three nucleated towns in old Monroe County. Two of these towns were founded in the
late 1810s before the government land sales. These were Cotton Gin Port at the northern
end of Monroe County, and Columbus, originally called Possum Town, in the southern
half of Monroe County (Figure 5.1). Both of these towns were located at the intersection
of the major trails with the Tombigbee River. Cotton Gin Port was on Gaines' Trace,
while Columbus sat astride the Wanior Trail and on what would soon become Jackson's
Military Road and the Robinson Road. Both of these towns developed as river ports and
trading centers, with a clientele consisting of both new Euro-American settlers and
Indians from west of the river.

By 1820, Columbus had a population of 109 and was already twice as large as Cotton
Gin Port, which had only 49 residents (U .8. Manuscript Census, N.E. Mississippi,
1820). Columbus had a number of advantages over Cotton Gin Port, including its
downstream position on the Tombigbee, the greater fertility of the surrounding region,
and its position on more heavily travelled roads. Cotton Gin Port's location on the
northern, less navigable, portion of the Tombigbee would be a major problem throughout
its history.

Both Cotton Gin Port and Columbus were platted in the 1820s and both contained
numerous service related businesses, including general stores, taverns, inns, stables, and
warehouses, as well as doctors and lawyers. Columbus, however, had more stores and
by 1821 it also had a school (Rodabough 1985z2).

After Monroe County was formed in 1821, a location for its seat of government had
to be chosen. Both Columbus and Cotton Gin Port vied for this honor. But, since
neither one was located near the center of the county and because competitive feelings ran
high throughout the county, a more neutral position was chosen just north of the
Buttahatchie River. The new county seat was named Hamilton.

80

I

 

 

 

 

 

 

MARION CO.
._ _. _ .. _ , Pikeville
N I 66‘“:
I
I Cotton Gin Port
l
I MONROE CO.
I
I-
1 Hamilton /’ PICKENS co.
|_ __ _ a
l
l
l
l Colmbus
|
$09 Pickensville
«‘90 5
Q? a:
A
3.
8
'5 g
‘0 h
g .8
a 81'
4g
0 h
‘30 I
----- Post 1834 Monroe . , . I a
and Lowndes Co. boarder-ice O 20 40M

Figure 5.1. Monroe County, Mississippi, and Surrounding Area, early 18205.

81

Hamilton was never much more than an administrative center. No more than two or
three stores were located there and its population never exceeded 100 to 150 people
(Rodabough 1985:34—35). The town's location off the river greatly hindered its
commercial development. Throughout the 18203 no real town speculation occurred in
Monroe County. The towns that were founded tended to grow gradually. As was noted
in Chapter 3, this was related to the low cotton prices and only moderate flow of
immigrants to the area during this time.

By 1830, Columbus had about 400 pe0ple, while Cotton Gin Port was probably no
more than half of this size (Rodabough 1985:27). Hamilton never grew beyond its early
100-150 population level (Rodabough 1985:34-35). Columbus' position in the region
was strengthened in 1830 when it became the county seat of the newly formed Lowndes
County. In 1833, Columbus became the land office for the Choctaw Cession, a
designation that further enhanced its position an made it a natural jumping off point and
supply center for new settlers. The development of Lowndes County and Upper
Tombigbee towns between 1833 and 1860 will now be investigated.

WW

As was discussed in Chapter 3 and 4 above, the boom began in 1833 with a rise in
cotton prices and with the Opening of the Choctaw Cession lands. Between fall 1832 and
fall 1833, the average price of cotton increased 46% to 14.7 cents a pound. This boom
continued until the fall of 1839, when cotton prices declined to an average of 9.1 cents a
pound (Gray 1933:1027). The boom was interrupted, however, in 1837 by a financial
panic, which hindered investment and led to a temporary drop in cotton prices.

The first hypothesis to be examined (Hypothesis 8) states that during the boom of the
18303, a large number of towns should have been established in Lowndes County,

82

particularly on the western side of the Tombigbee River, and due to the optimism and
speculative nature of this period, most of these speculative towns should have been
relatively large and nucleated. For this hypothesis to be verified, a large number of new
towns should have appeared on maps, in deeds, and mentioned in other records dating
between 1833 and 1840. The deeds, plats and advertisements from this period should
indicate that the town plans were large and optimistic.

Historic records from the 18303 indicate that five speculative towns were established
in Lowndes County and promoted during the boom of the 18303 (Figure 5.2) (Burr Map
of Mississippi 1839; Clay County Deed Books D—G; WW April 6, 1836;
Gwin and Dougharty Map of Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, and Arkansas 1838;
Lipscomb 1909:68, 70; Lowndes County Board of Police Minutes 1833-1839; Lowndes
County Deed Books 5-31; Laws of Mississippi 1836-1839; Map of Mississippi,
Louisiana, and Alabama 1837; mm December 17, 1836, September 26,
1837). All of these towns, except one, were established in the new western land,
particularly on the west bank of the Tombigbee River, or on one of its west side
tributaries. As Weaver (1986:4) states, "towns with the best prospect of success in terms
of lot sales were those on the west bank of a river through which would flow settlers
moving to new lands toward the west, and commodities seeking an outlet from those
newly settled land to the outside worl ."

The most prominent speculative towns in western Lowndes County were Colbert,
Plymouth, and West Port (Figure 5.2). All of these towns were on the west bank of the
Tombigbee River and all were quite ambitious.

The original plat of Colbert had over 100 blocks and it was viewed as a future rival to
Columbus (Figure 6.2). Colbert was vigorously promoted after its founding in December

1835, with advertisements such as:

83

V " ‘\

In \
cutcusm/ / / D ’ \\
/ / HOUR . Caledonia ’ I

1

fl

 

 

  

   

  

 

/
/ Colbert
I FAYETTE
I
- l
8
a; I
Plymouth Col 5 /
Nest Port V’ E I
\ES
OKTIBBEHA Nashville
\
NOXUBEE / Pickensville

 

     
  
  

M1DPOINT~ ~ _ .—
BOUNDARY

 
 

0 10 20M

Figure 5.2. Towns in Lowndes County, circa 1839.

84

[Colbert] is situated on an elevated Bluff on the Tombecbee River... It
occupies a beautiful open plain -- is well supplied with a number of pure,
never-failing springs; and is continuous to the large and fertile
prairies....The Bluffs on both sides of the river are the best known on the
river above Columbus. Colbert is nearly in a direct line between Pontitoc
and Columbus; of course the great thoroughfare from Memphis via
Pontitoc to Columbus, Tuscaloosa, etc. must necessarily cross the river at
this point.

The lands in the adjacent country are of a superior quality, and as the
title to the same are now confirming, it is certain that a dense p0pulation
will soon be dependent upon Colbert for their supplies (Columbus
Wt, August 6, 1836.)

This advertisement points out three important considerations related to a town's future
prospects, namely its t0pographic situation, its situation with respect to transportation,
and the prospects of the site for generating trade (see Weaver 1986:4). By the middle to
late 18303, Colbert had attained a population of 100 to 150 mph, and it contained four
to five stores, numerous artisan shops, a hotel, a school, warehouses, a voting precinct, a
militia company, and a post office (Elliott 1978az48-54; Laws of Mississippi 1838;
Lowndes County Property Tax Rolls 1837-1839).

Plymouth was founded about 1833, at the confluence of Oktibbeha (T ibbee) Creek
and the Tombigbee. It had an ambitious plat containing 56 blocks (Prout 1973:84).
During the 18303 Plymouth contained two to three general stores, and inn and tavern, a
brickyard, at least one cotton warehouse, a Silversmith shop, other artisan shops, a horse
mill, an academy, a voting precinct, and a post office (Elliott 1978az22; Prout 1973:66;
Rodabough 1985:30). In 1836, Plymouth was incorporated (Laws of Mississippi 1836).
Plymouth was well situated relative to transportation routes. It had access to two
navigable streams and it sat upon a major road, the Old Choctaw-Chickasaw Trail (Elliott
197 8a:20). The position on Tibbee Creek allowed Plymouth to tap not only west-central
Lowndes planters, but also those in Oktibbeha County (Elliott 1978az22). The peak
population of Plymouth is diffith to estimate, but it was probably comparable to that of

Colbert (Rodabough 1985: 130).

85

Perhaps the most ambitious of all the speculative towns in Lowndes County was West
Port. It was established on the west bank of the Tombigbee just above Columbus, in
1835. West Port's plat was the largest of the speculative towns and contained 103 in-
blocks (including fractional blocks) and 28 out-blocks (Figure 5.3). During the middle
and late 18303 West Port had two or three stores, two warehouses, a post office, and an
inn and tavern (Elliott 1978a25-7; Lowndes County Property Rolls 1837-40; Rodabough
1985:30). The population of West Port at this time is difficult to estimate, but it may not
have been as large as Colbert or Plymouth (Elliott (1978az7).

One other speculative town in western Lowndes County which was founded, but
which never succeeded in becoming a nucleated town was Waverly. Waverly, originally
known as Mullen's Bluff, was a river landing established just south of Colbert in 1836.
In 1839 Waverly was platted and lots were put up for sale (Adams 1980:80). Although
the plat was not large (22 blocks), Waverly‘s promoters must have expected a significant
town to develop (Figure 5.4). Because of its late founding toward the end of the boom
and competition from other towns, Waverly never developed into a nucleated town. In
remained only a hamlet and river landing throughout its history.

The only speculative town to develop on the east bank of the river was Nashville.
Nashville, which was located at an old hamlet known as Young's Bluff, was platted in
1834. The size of this plat is unknown, but Nimrod Nash purchased 290 acres in this
locale, presumably to develop into the town (Elliott 1988). By the middle 18303
Nashville contained three general merchandise stores, a number of artisan shops,
warehouses, and a post office (Rodabough 1985:29). It was designated a voting precinct
in 1834 (Lowndes County Board of Police Minutes 1834).

Another town that developed in the eastern half of Lowndes County, but it does not
follow the pattern of the speculative towns. This was Caledonia, which was located in
the northeastern part of the county. It evolved more gradually and was never promoted or
platted. The number of facilities, however, which included a bank, a tanyard, a shoe and

 

86

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 5.3. Plat of West Port.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Va
Arum—V 1|... L1 .1 L— P . _
r .J he; .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E4- . 1.1,. -

 

 

 

87
/:
A
L.__-_J L
l
“m
T
L
a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 5.4. Plat of Waverly

88

hat factory, a couple of stores, and a warehouse, indicated that Caledonia was a town
(Wood 1925:17; WPA Lowndes County n.d.). Caledonia, fits Adkin's ( 1972) "typical
town", level which is basically an enlarged and more nucleated cross roads settlement.

Of course, numerous smaller settlements were also created in the 18303. There were
hamlets located at cross roads, river landings, and at the intersection of roads and
navigable streams. Most of the new hamlets were established west of the Tombigbee.
These settlements usually contained, at most, a store, a warehouse, a blacksmith shop,
and a few dwellings. No speculation or promotion accompanied the development of these
central places. Some of the better known hamlets established after 1830 include
Lowndesville, Moore's Bluff, Cedar Creek, and Dailey's Crossroads.

From the above discussion it is apparent that town development in Lowndes County
during the 18303 closely followed the prediction in the test implications for Hypothesis 8.
Five speculative towns were founded and promoted in Lowndes County during this
period. Although these towns had differential success, all were created with high
expectations and ambitious plans.

The second town related hypothesis (Hypothesis 9) states that due to lessened
competition and immature nature of the initial boom period, the distribution of towns in
the middle to late 18303 should be relatively random in relation to each other. The
premise of this hypothesis is that the location chosen for the speculative towns usually
was not always strongly influenced by the location of other towns. Towns, rather than
hamlets or landings, are used because they are more sensitive to the changes in the Boom-
Bust cycle and because the identification and location of all hamlets within the county is
diffith if not impossible. Since Waverly never developed beyond a hamlet level, it is not
included in this analysis.

This hypothesis was derived from Hudson's (1969) model of frontier settlement.
Like some other tests of Hudson's model done in the past, the nearest neighbor technique
will be utilized here (see Lewis 1984; Swedlund 1975). This technique requires the

89

calculation of a mean observed distance between nearest neighbor points and expected
mean distances (from number of points and total area), and finally the ratios of the two
(R). When R = 1, this indicates random spacing of points. When R is between 0 and 1
the distribution is approaching "clustered", and when R is between 1 and 2.15 the
distribution is approaching regular or even spacing (Lloyd and Dicken 1977:66).

Before proceeding with the analysis, one commonly cited problem with the nearest
neighbor method needs to be discussed and resolved. This is the "boundary effect." This
problem has two aspects. The first aspect is exactly where one draws the boundary for a
study area. Unless there are dramatic natural boundaries such as high mountains or an
ocean, the study area will have to be chosen by the researcher. The size of the area
studied can change the results, since the expected distance between points is based on the
total area and the nearest neighbor statistic is observed distance divided by expected
distance. For instance, an isolated cluster of settlements may be regularly spaced within a
small area but clustered within a larger area (Hodder and Orton 1979:41). This problem
requires researchers to define whether they are examining a pattern within a region or
throughout the whole region (Hodder and Orton 1979:41). The primary solution to this
aspect of the boundary problem is simply for the researcher to choose the study area
carefully in accordance with the aims of the study (Hammond and McCullagh 1978;
Hodder and Orton 1979; Getis 1964).

The second aspect to the boundary effect problem is the potential distortion imposed
by points near the boundary of an area. This problem can be considerable in cases where
a large proportion of points are located near the boundary (Hodder and Orton 1979:41).
The substance of this problem is that the actual nearest neighbors of the edge points and
their area of influence may be outside the boundary of the study area. Limiting
measurements to within the boundary will produce a larger nearest neighbor value than if
the actual nearest neighbors are measured (Clark and Evans 1954; Hodder and Orton
1979:42).

90

Two primary solutions to this aspect of boundary problems have been suggested.
The first is that the actual nearest neighbors to points within the study area should be
measured even if they are outside the boundary (Clark and Evans 1954; Getis and Boots
1978; King 1962). The second solution suggested is to drop those points in the study
area which are closer to the boundary than they are to their nearest neighbor (Dacey 1963;
Peebles 197 8). Both of these methods reduce the distortion of the boundary effect. Both
methods create some distortion, however, since they alter the actual number of points per
area. This distortion can be reduced by choosing the study area carefully so that a
proportion of points near the edge, or at least with nearest neighbors outside the study
area, is low.

At any given year, Lowndes County had a high proportion of its towns near its
border, and some with nearest neighbors outside the county. Therefore, a boundary
problem is present in the study area (Figures 5.2 and 5.9). Because the sample of towns
within the county is so small, the removal of towns near the border would severely distort
the nature of settlement. Therefore, this methods is not used and the second alternative is
used. Again, in this second alternative, if the nearest neighbor of a given individual point
lies outside the specified area, this distance is measured. However, no individual points
lying outside the specified area should be used as a center of measurement (Clark and
Evans 1954:449-451).

Choosing the boundaries for this study is difficult since no natural boundaries exist.
In this study, three separate boundaries will be used. The first is the county, itself.
Because a number of county towns have nearest neighbors outside the county or are near
the county edge, two additional study areas will be used. The second study area has a
boundary created by drawing a line halfway between the edge towns and the closest town
outside the county. This method approximated the hinterlands of each town (Hammond
and McCullagh 1978:276). Since change over time is this issue under investigation here,
a single boundary will be utilized. This boundary is measured from the furthest extended

91

towns for each side of the county. This system allows for the greatest possible area to be
used in the calculations.

The third study area utilized is a circle extending out from the center of Lowndes
County. The edge of the circle was subjectively chosen to include Lowndes County and
all nearest neighbors to Lowndes County towns. In the four years studied below, a
nearest neighbor of all towns fell outside the boundary only once. The use of a circular
area, which is common in nearest neighbor analysis (Getis 1964), also enhances the
comparability of this study with Swedlund's (1975) test of Hudson's model.

Swedlund's study also examined the changing distribution of towns.

In order to support Hypothesis 9, a ratio (R) falling close to 1 should be the result of
the nearest neighbor calculation on Lowndes County towns. Between 1836 and 1839,
which includes the boom period after both the Chickasaw and Choctaw land sales had
begun, there were six nucleated towns in Lowndes County. These included Columbus,
Caledonia, Nashville, West Port, Plymouth, and Colbert.

The R value for the above six towns is 1.02 and .84, utilizing the county borders and
the mid-points as the boundary, respectively. An R value of .95 was calculated from the
nine towns in the circle. The three additional towns are the Pickens County, Alabama
river towns of Pickensville and Memphis, where were founded circa 1819 and 1830,
respectively, and Starkville, the county seat of Oktibbeha County (Figure 5.2). The R
values from the county and the circle tend to confirm the hypothesis, while the R value
from the mid-point area does not. This last value suggests a clustered pattern, which is
due to the close proximity of three towns, Plymouth, West Port, and Columbus, on the
river in the center of Lowndes County. The wider boundaries of the mid-point area is the
reason that its R value is less than the county area. Which one of these methods is a more
accurate representation of settlement patterns, or whether one is better than another, is
unclear. Given the requirement of a uniform study area for Hudson's model, a clustered

pattern is not unexpected given the presence of the Tombigbee River. The mid-point area

92

method may be more accurate. The circle includes a larger area in which the relative
importance of the Tombigbee River is slightly reduced.

The third hypothesis related to town development in the boom is Hypothesis 10,
which states that during the boom of the 18303, the town hierarchy should have been
relatively simple and with a dominant "Frontier Town," in terms of size and services,
which is located in the earliest settled part of the region. The first test implication of this
hypothesis is that the sizes and services of the boom phase central places should indicate a
hierarchy with only a few different levels.

A variation of the central place classification system proposed for the Upper
Tombigbee Valley by Weaver and Doster (1982) will be utilized here. Weaver and
Doster's central place classification system was based on both the range of services
offered by a center and the size of its hinterland. A four level hierarchy resulted: 1) a
regional center; 2) subregional centers (including other county seats and sorrre larger trade
towns); 3) local centers (including other trade towns); and 4) neighborhood centers
(consisting of rural hamlets) (Weaver and Doster 1982:92). On purely functional
grounds, however, there is a problem in Weaver and Doster's lumping of the county seats
with the larger trade towns in the subregional level. While the economic hinterlands of
many county seats and larger trade towns rrury have been similar, the important
administrative functions of county seats were not present in the trade towns. Therefore,
these will be split into subregional administrative and subregional trade centers.

Another change from Weaver and Doster's system is the addition of another central
place level between the regional and subregional centers -- the super subregional center.
As will be shown below, one town greatly surpassed all other towns, other than the
regional center, in size, services, and hinterland. The classification system here is
directed toward plantation regions where little or no industrialization occurs. The
differences between communities is often one of scale rather than absolute function, since

with the exception of county seats, all were trade communities.

93

The central place hierarchy utilized here is somewhat of an ideal. More discussion of
variation within levels will be provided as the study continues. Comparisons of the
Lowndes County and Upper Tombigbee settlement hierarchy and the settlement aspect of
the Casagrande eta1.'s (1964) model will also be provided in the discussions to follow.

Within Lowndes County during the middle to late 18303, central place sizes, services,
and hinterland size suggest that there were three different levels of central places within
Lowndes County: a regional center county seat, local centers (nucleated towns), and
neighborhood centers (rural hamlets). The regional center and county seat, Columbus,
with a population of 1,623 by 1835 and about 2,000 by 1840, contained more people
than all other Lowndes County towns combined and was much larger than any other
regional towns (Doster and Weaver 1981:80). The presence of the federal land office,
commission merchants, four banks, five churches, two newspapers, a wide variety of
specialized stores and services, and county government separated Columbus from other
county and regional towns. As the discussion below will demonstrate, Columbus
qualified as a "Frontier Town" in the Casagrande et al. (1964) model discussed in Chapter
2.

The local centers of the county during the boom, Caledonia, Colbert, Plymouth,
Nashville, and West Port, were all relatively similar in size and functions. These towns
generally had p0pulations of roughly 100 to 150 persons, and contained a post office, a
warehouse, a school, a church, a blacksmith shop, a carpentry shop, two to four general
merchandise stores, and a voting precinct (Elliott 1978a; Rodabough 1985; Wood 1925).
The main variation between these towns is their location on or off the Tombigbee River.
Only Caledonia was off the river, but it's location on the junction of a major road, with a
short road connection to a river landing, and its services, which were similar to the other
nucleated towns, suggests that it is approximately the same level as the river towns.

These towns match Casagrande et al.'s (1964) "nucleated settlement" which is defined

as a smaller (than the Frontier Town) central place which contains a cluster of

94

households, a few small stores, a church, and a school. These communities only provide
goods and services to their immediate locate (Casagrande et al. 1964).

The third level of central places in Lowndes County at this time were neighborhood
centers or hamlets such as Waverly, Lowndesville, Mayhew, Swearengens Moore's
Bluff, Cedar Creek, and Dailey's Crossroads. These communities generally contained
one general merchandise store, a gin or mill, a warehouse, a blacksmith shop, and
perhaps a physician, and were fairly dispersed in their layout (Weaver and Doster 1982).
These communities match Casagrande et al.'s (1964) semi-nucleated communities level,
which are defined as a small cluster of houses or buildings, one of which is used as a
store. The store usually serves only a small hinterland. In some case, a rrrill, a school,
or a church may also be present.

The central place system in Lowndes County at this time contained three levels. This
pattern is simpler than the system found after the railroad arrived (see below). The first
test implication, therefore, is supported.

If the study area is expanded to the entire Upper Tombigbee region, one additional
level should be added. This includes subregional-administrative centers, the other county
seat towns, which should be placed at a level between Columbus and the local centers.
The administrative functions of the county seat towns separate them ficm other nucleated
towns, even though they generally contained only 100 to 200 people, like the nucleated
towns (Mitlin 1875; Weaver and Doster 1982). None of these other county seat towns
were comparable to Columbus in size or variety of services.

Two towns, Cotton Gin Port, and Aberdeen, in Monroe County, were somewhat
larger than the other nucleated towns in the region. Each contained 200 to 400 people by
the end of the boom. The types of services in these towns, however, were generally the
same as the other nucleated towns of the boom, so they will be kept at the local center
level. The regional central place hierarchy during the 18303, therefore, consisted of four

95

levels and was simpler than that found in later periods, when at least six levels can be
identified. Thus, the test implication is still supported.

The second test implication for Hypothesis 10 is that there should be one town during
the boom period of the 18303 which was much larger and had a dominance in stores and
services in relation to other communities in the county or region. From the above
discussion, it should be apparent that the most dominant town in the county and region
was Columbus. This dominance should be reflected in a much larger population than in
other towns and a great concentration of merchandise sold during the boom. The
merchandise sold by all stores in the county is given in the property tax rolls. The
location of each store was determined through census and dad research as well as the use
of numerous secondary sources or reminiscences, including Elliott (l978a, 1988), Evans
(1979), Lipscomb (1909), Prout (1973), Rodabough (1971-1975, 1985), and Wood
( 1925).

Columbus' development into a regional center or "Frontier Town" can be observed in
a great population increase between 1832, before the western lands were open, and 1835,
after the Choctaw sales began. Between these three years, the population of Columbus
increased 237%, from 481 to 1,623 W1. September 25, 1856). The
number of stores and shops increased from three or four in the late 18203 to 28 in 1836
(Lowndes County Property Rolls 1837; Monroe County Property Rolls 1827-29). The
population of Columbus at this time was more than that of all other towns in Lowndes
County combined, and much more than that of any town in the region. The next largest
towns in the region, Cotton Gin Port and Aberdeen, only had populations of about 200 to
400 people by the late 18303 (Evans 1979). The other county seats only contained 100 to
200 people at this time (Mitlin 1975; Weaver and Doster 1982).

The dominance of Columbus in merchantile activities within Lowndes County can be
seen by examining the concentration of merchandise sold during the boom period.
Between 1833, after the southwest side of the river had opened, and 1838, 72% to 87%

96

of the merchandise sold in Lowndes County was sold by Columbus merchants (calculated
from Lowndes County Property Tax Rolls 1834-1839) (T able 5.1).

Figure 5.5 illustrates the changing proportion of Lowndes County merchandise sold
in Columbus. As can be seen, while Columbus' proportion remained high, it declined
somewhat between 1834 and 1836. This corresponds with the growth of the other
nuclear towns, particularly the speculative towns whose proportion of sales increased
from 9% in 1833 to between 14% and 22% in 1834-1836. In 1837, Columbus'
dominance within Lowndes County increased. This was the year of the financial panic,
the Panic of 1837, precipitated by Jackson’s Specie Circular. The smaller towns,
especially the speculative ones, were more severely impacted by the crisis than
Columbus. The sales in the speculative towns dropped from 9% to 5% of Lowndes
County's total sales between 1836 and 1837. In 1838, the economy improved and the
sales in the speculative towns increased to 7% of the county sales. By 1839, the effects
of declining cotton prices were beginning to effect the pattern of sales. More discussion
on these changes will be given in the Bust phase section below.

Since, by definition, the importance of a Frontier Town should extend beyond a
single county's boundary, a larger sample is needed to better examine this test
implication. The sample is enlarged by adding merchantile data for Monroe County
stores. Monroe County is located just north of Lowndes County and was the most
populous county in the Upper Tombigbee Region. Significantly, Monroe was the only
other county in the region with towns of any size. These towns included Cotton Gin
Port, which was a rival of Columbus in the 18203, and Aberdeen, which was the most
successful of the Black Prairie towns.

From 1833 to 1838, the proportion of sales in Columbus ranged from 53% to 69% of
the two county region (Table 5.2). The next largest proportion of sales was 25% for
Cotton Gin Port in 1833, before western Monroe had opened to Euro-American

settlement. Figure 5.6 illustrates changes in the proportion of sales in Columbus, Cotton

97

Table 5.1. Lowndes County Merchandise Sold.

 

 

 

m Total Columbus ‘70 Columbus Speculative ‘70 Spec.
Lowndes Co Sales Sales are of towns sales town sales are
Sales whole county of whole
sales county sales
1834 152585 130118 85 10984 7
1835 290052 208752 72 41222 14
1835 366135 268191 73 32139 9
1836 631292 481842 76 61500 9
1837 596220 517430 87 27450 5
1838 551212 443712 80 38700 7
1839 468636 402936 86 33000 7
1840 357169 317492 89 22299 6
1842 302855 273723 90 25859 6
1850 537131 468220 87 2500 .4
1852 689374 596282 86 4000 .5
1856 709466 596722 84 0 0
1858 814602 633851 78 1467 .2

 

 

98

Table 5.2. Lowndes and Monroe County Merchandise Sold.

 

 

 

YEAR Total Columbusj: Col Cotton W W‘
Lowndes and Sales Sales Gin sales Sales sales
Monroe Co are of Port are of are of

Sales two (CGP) two two
(combined) county Sales county county

reg'gn region refl
1821 47004 19754 42 20500 44 O 0
1822 52525 27334 52 19082 36 0 0
1823 74533 30827 41 41000 55 0 0
1824 68675 38075 55 23400 34 0 0
1826 79634 27604 35 22240 28 0 0
1827 6581 1 34122 52 18562 28 0 0
1828 48317 19159 40 16732 35 0 0
1832 236867 152517 64 54328 23 0 0
1833 243529 1301 18 53 60398 25 0 0
1834 402828 208752 52 70498 17 0 0
1835 496825 268191 54 75342 15 0 0
1836 860369 481842 56 107919 12 56750 6
1837 768381 517430 67 49678 6 53725 7
1838 645794 443712 69 8055 1 37500 6
1839 499375 402936 79 2058 .4 9800 2
1840 421062 317492 73 6434 1.5 24586 6
1852 1447024 596282 41 14951 1 603464 42
1856 1 189603 596722 50 53730 4.5 381745 32

 

 

 

 

 

 

99

 

n:.o-Ezurxnuxv
Sbg‘

 

.Nvémwfi .838. o>=a_:ooam e5 mans—300 52am me 225 .m.m Semi

«vow ova. 000' .00. know .00. 00.. (now 000'

P P b t. b p p b b
1 1 J 1 d d d d ‘0

g...

..o«
..on

..oq

.10.

 

100

Elm»: fem EC .5330 5832?. £583.00 duo—am we 22m 6% 2:9..—

80v .00. 000p hoop .0.- 000' 000' 00.. «on. cue. know 0gp vflop auo. «flop wuop

o o p b o o o e lo 0 e o 0 90

l 1 I O O

:2
A10“

:70“

are.

 

.3988. : 2

 

15:09.0 9. 3

30:38.0

 

 

 

101

Gin Port, and Aberdeen. The dominance of Columbus was maintained throughout the
whole boom period; while the proportion of sales which occurred at Cotton Gin Port
declined greatly. The largest jumps with regards to Columbus were in 1837, the year of
the panic, and in 1839, the beginning of the cotton price decline and the bust. The greater
proportion of sales in Columbus in 1832 is due to the fact that the western side was yet to
open. The dominance of Columbus' proportion of sales between 1833 and 1838 reflects
the earlier opening of the Choctaw lands of western Monroe, as well as the more
prosperous plantation nature of Lowndes County. Lowndes County overall has better
soil than Monroe County.

It is interesting to observe the proportion of sales in Columbus and Cotton Gin Port in
the 18203 (Figure 5.6, Table 5.2). The competition for supremacy between the two is
clearly visible. At this time, the Upper Tombigbee region was on the outer edge of the
frontier, and neither town met the criteria of a Frontier Town. By 1832, Columbus began
to exert its dominance. As the western lands were opened during the 18303 boom, the
proportion of sales in the two towns diverged greatly, as Columbus was firmly
established as the regional center, or Frontier Town, for the Upper Tombigbee Valley.
Cotton Gin Port's relative decline, again, was related to its location further north in the
less navigable reaches of the Tombigbee River in an area which contained less rich

agricultural area.

W

The analysis now shifts to the bust period. As was discussed in Chapter 3, the bust
began with a drop in cotton prices from 13 cents a pound in the winter of 1839 to 9.1
cents a pound in the fall of 1839 (Gray 1933:1027). The price of cotton generally

continued to decline, until 1846 when, with the exception of late 1848, prices began a

102

gradual improvement (Gray 1933:1027). Two hypotheses related to town development in
the bust and depression period will be examined

The first hypothesis related to town development in the bust (Hypothesis 11) states
that during the bust of the 18403, poor economic conditions should have increased
competition between towns and resulted in the decline or extinction of most speculative
towns and resulted in a more evenly dispersed town settlement patterns, as compared to
that of the 18303. The decline or extinction of towns should be reflected in a decline or
loss of stores and services and in the increased forfeitm'e of town lots through tax
payment delinquency.

The number of stores in the four Lowndes County speculative towns; West Port,
Colbert, Plymouth, and Nashville, declined from a high of eleven in 1836 to five by 1842
(Lowndes County Property Tax Rolls 1837-1843). West Port and Plymouth seemed to
be especially hard hit during this period. The close proximity of these two towns,
especially West Port, to Columbus undoubtedly hindered their viability and caused them
to decline earlier than the other river towns. By 1843 each of these towns had only one
store. In 1841, West Port had lost its post office and by 1842 it was no longer a voting
precinct (Elliott 1978az7). Plymouth had lost its voting precinct by 1842 and its post
office by 1845 (Elliott 1978az23). Between 1840 and 1843, 25 town lots and four town
blocks were sold at Sheriff Sales in Plymouth (Prout 197 3:106). Numerous lots in West
Port were also sold at Sheriff's Sales in 1842 (Kaye 1984). The last reference to a town
lot being sold in either town was July 1847 (Elliott 1978a). By the middle 18403 both of
these towns had been reduced to more hamlets.

Colbert and Nashville were able to hold out somewhat longer. Their positions relative
to Columbus probably made them more viable. The merchants in these two towns were
severely strained by the depression, however, and some stores failed. By the middle
18403, Nashville only had one merchandise store, while the number in Colbert was
reduced from a high of five stores to two (Lowndes County Personal Tax Rolls 1843).

103

Between 1840 and 1843, 60 town lots were sold at Sheriff's Sales at Colbert (Clay
County Deed Book D:446-459).

The final blow to most of the speculative river towns in Lowndes County and indeed
the entire Upper Tombigbee Region came with the devastating flood of December, 1847.
This flood completely inundated what was left of West Port, Nashville, and Colbert. It
also damaged many other landings and the lower portions of Columbus. The degree of
impact to Plymouth is unclear, but its position sixty feet above the flood plain may have
protected it. Nashville never recovered its status as a nucleated town after this flood
(Rodabough 1985:29-30). Interestingly, although Colbert was also devastated by the
depression and this flood, it was, in a sense, reestablished in 1848 as the town of
Barton, on a bluff less than a mile to the north. Why Colbert-Barton survived as a
nucleated river town while the others did not is not completely clear, but its distance from
other viable towns, most particularly Columbus and Aberdeen, was certainly a major
factor. The Colbert-Barton area is 23 miles north of Columbus and 28 miles south of
Aberdeen, in river miles. West Port and Plymouth were only one and six miles,
respectively, above Columbus. Nashville, however, was 28 miles below Columbus, but
it was only 11 miles above the early Alabama town of Pickensville. This close proximity
to Pickensville may have reduced Nashville's hinterland relative to that of Colbert.

By the end of the 18403 depression, all of the speculative towns in Lowndes County
except Colbert-Barton had been reduced to hamlets or even simple river landings. The
central place network of the county at this time, therefore, consisted of the regional center
and county seat (Columbus), two local centers, Colbert-Barton and Caledonia, and a large
number of river and interior hamlets. The number of central place levels within the
county was the same as that of the late 18303.

The degree of uniformity in the town settlement will again be investigated through the
nearest neighbor method. A settlement pattern approaches uniformity when R is between

1 and 2.15. If the town settlement pattern changed toward a more evenly dispersed

104

pattern during the bust, as Hypothesis 11 states, then the R value for the 18403 should
have increased toward uniformity from the 18303.

The R values for circa 1848 are 1.48, 1.21, and 1.29 for the county area, mid-point,
and circle, re3pectively. The circular area is changed by the addition of one local center
(trade town), Palo Alto, which was founded in 1846 (Figure 5.7). All of these R values
illustrate a substantial change toward uniformity (.34 to .46 increase) when compared to
the circa 1839 figures. The much larger R values for the county area occurred because all
of the town extinctions represented in any study area were within this smaller area. The R
values for all three areas support the above test implication and hypothesis.

The R value for the end of the bust (1847—48) is 1.37. The value represents a
relatively large change (.30) toward uniformity from the 18303. This, therefore, supports
the above test implication and hypothesis.

The second bust hypothesis (Hypothesis 12) states that during this period, the
Frontier Town, because of its size and multiple functions, should have weathered the
harsh conditions better and increased its dominance in size and services relative to the
smaller towns. The test implications for this hypothesis are that the proportion of
merchandise sold in Columbus should have increased during the bust period, which again
began in the second half of 1839, and continued until the late 18403. Unfortunately, no
population figures are available for Columbus or other towns during the bust period.

Figure 5.5 above illustrates the proportion of Lowndes County merchandise sold
within Columbus. In 1839, there was already a noticeable increase of over 5% from
1838, to 85.9%. Although the price of cotton did not decline until Fall 1839, the
presence of a change in sale concentration this early is not surprising since most
merchandise was sold in the fall (Atherton 1949). This proportion was increased in 1841
and 1843 to 88.9% and 87.6%, respectively. The proportion of the four speculative
towns was 7% in 1839 and 6% in 1843.

105

 

 

_. \ \
lg \
curcusrw/ / ’ , \
. , / ’ \
el¢>\!Al’to um .

 

      

“I l IBENA

  
   

MIDPOINT
BOUNDARY

 

 

°F
37

U
2

20M

Figure 5.7. Towns in Lowndes County and Surrounding Area, circa 1848.

106

Figure 5.6 (and Table 5.2) presents data for Monroe and Lowndes counties
combined. This sample shows a similar pattern, with Columbus increasing its proportion
of merchandise sold in 1839 by 12%, to 80.7%, and continuing a high proportion in
1840, 75.4%. The figure also documents the continued decline of Cotton Gin Port and
fluctuation of Aberdeen. The only two depression years in which both Lowndes and
Monroe County data were available were 1839 and 1840. These results support the test
implication and illustrate, along with the previous discussion on speculative towns, that
Columbus was able to better weather at least the early part of the depression and increase

its regional and county dominance.

WW

By the late 18403, the price of cotton began to move upward, and this, coupled with
more efficient production methods, resulted in increased property for Lowndes County
and the Upper Tombigbee Region. Two hypotheses will be examined for town
development during the recovery phase of the late 18403 to 1860.

The first hypothesis (Hypothesis 13) to be examined states that drning the recovery
period, frontier conditions should have subsided, and competition will have led to a more
uniform settlement distribution than previously. As the central place system becomes
more uniform, it approaches the K—3 principle, or marketing principle of Christaller's
classic Central Place Theory. This pattern, which ideally would reflect perfect uniformity
(R = 2.15), is generally found in only mature settlement conditions in uniform
environmental conditions (Vance 1965). Using the nearest neighbor method, an R value
of greater than the 1.48, 1.21, and 1.29 found in the bust period should result from this
analysis if the hypothesis is supported

107

At the beginning of the recovery, Lowndes County contained only three communities
which could be considered nucleated towns. These were Columbus, Caledonia, and
Barton, which replaced Colbert after the flood of 1847. In the early 18503, another
interior town, Crawfordville, developed This town was located in the southwestern part
of the county (Figure 5.8). There is no evidence that Crawfordville or Barton were
promoted like towns in the 18303. Both had small plats and populations of about 100 to
150 people (Way and McBride 1983; Wood 1925).

Nearest neighbor R values of 1.86, 1.52, and 1.46 for the county area, mid-point,
and circular area resulted from the measurement and calculations of the circa 1856 data.
This indicates a change toward greater uniformity from the late 18403 for all study areas.
The change was due to the founding of Crawfordsville, which filled a void in the
Southwestern part of Lowndes County. The greater R value for the county area is due to
the fact that Crawfordville, which represents the only change in circa 1856, was within
Lowndes County. The smaller area was more dramatically affected by this addition. All
three study areas support the above test implication and hypothesis.

The major recovery period change to the central place network of Lowndes County
and the entire region did not occur until the late 18503, however, when the Mobile and
Ohio Railroad entered the region. This railroad line first entered Noxubee County and
southwestern Lowndes County in 1857 and it reached the northern part of the region a
year later. The railroad cut through the Black Prairie about ten miles west of the
Tombigbee River and missed all of the established towns (see Figures 5.9 and 5.10).
Given the unreliability of the river as a transport route the central place distribution was
fragile and subject to change. In fact, the irrrpact was almost immediate. By 1858 or
early 1859, three towns, West Point, Artesia, and Crawford, and two small depots,
Mayhew Station, and Tibbee Station, had been established on the rail line in Lowndes
County. Four of these five communities were originally hamlets which moved to the rail

line. The other, Crawford, was basically the transported town of Crawfordsville. Within

1()8

\ "" \

     
  

/
l/rCHlCKASAU / / l
/ 1

/ 1

Pl Alt
a\0 : /o “R“ f _ /1
Caledonia _- ‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

// , Barton; // “A l
I \ é ( .. . FAYETTE
’ \‘ - l
. | ,
l g /
\ ’/_/" : /
/
I /
Starkville .. I
9 prcxsus
1 . \ /
l I Louuoas .; /
.' I. , l 5 /
. I ‘ ‘ /
I
: Crawfordsvi 1 1e l ,5 3 /
oxrrsae HA 7 /
Mmpom—r } ‘ -" “NOXUBEE Ii/Pickensville
BOUNDARY J'
1!

Henphis

10 20 M

°F

Figure 5.8. Towns in Lowndes County and Surrounding Area, circa 1856.

109

—~

/ I \\
mucus / /
I I

 

 

 

 

 

  
   

 

Palo Alto Caledonia};
I Uest mPoint{'
/ g men:
I :25 5/
1 g; “k g, [I
E g .Coluvbus 2]]; I
Starkvi 1 to o PICKENS
" g LMDES /,
1 r 3 /
ll

      
   
 

“MODEM /
Carrol lton
O

 

  
   
 
 
 

 

—WEE} ’,'/ Pickensvill

MIDPOINT‘
BOUNDARY

  

z

 

71

10 20 M

Figure 5.9. Towns in Lowndes County and Surrounding Area, circa 1865.

 

    
    

. } K

‘ l ) ‘_ '1/
.1J .)HL/E.3mw';]“|.\' T' “' 1Q:

      

   
 

      
 
    

 

- u, uh. l Iu-n'
\' 2", . / L'lhjmu‘J Rah
. 7 _“ ;.~ . (“C ~.
' f 5'" ‘ 1” /‘,B"m-r(3 11.: n4
.1 .- . ”yuan“; V35“. .11.- ,“ _ .1 I /
k i fll‘rnyullr, .
3. . u
u lyn. .u /.A\‘-;:{., \ ’~1‘ H.111 ‘{
' \

   

“ ‘3": fl- . 1.1 I. '7‘ Men i?
K.) '43’11’, \.~ 7‘. ‘

 
 
 
  
  

. ' 'L.’. ._I‘ I
\
-“v1‘l:\~‘?’l”. I
, _ , . , ~
‘ tine I‘ 2)
3 1 .
\ 1
v 0

‘rzrnrk .‘v '
rs: .
.' V5???

 

‘ x’ ’5
...... Vél’clvrlh" 1'

z
' ~<‘-’“b\
l . X
.

      

  
 
 

    

..... \‘r mi..-

1
' eta/11' a?)

    
   
 
  
 

   
 
 

 

/ .
fltrvBr rug-1 -——-\

.- X Oman“... L
"la‘dlu'nnll-V .

w?" "P'pomfilenux.
\

L

  

 

 

 

Figure 5.10. The Upper Tombigbee Region, circa 1865.

111

the circular study area, one railroad town, Brooksville in northern Noxubee County, was
established in 1858-59.

The establishment of the rail line and the towns and stations along it was very
detrimental to the river communities. Barton was especially hard hit. 1t lost most of its
Prairie customers to West Point almost overnight. Barton's business establishments were
severely impacted in the 1858-1859 season (Way and McBride 1983:52). By 1858
Barton had lost its post office, by 1861 it had lost all of its stores, and by 1862 it had lost
its designation as a voting precinct (Elliott 1978az67; Way and McBride 1983:52). By the
early 18603 Barton had been reduced to an agricultural community with a ferry and
steamboat landing. The Pickens County river town of Memphis had also been reduced to
a hamlet by the early 18603.

The smaller river hamlets and landings also lost business to the railroad. Some, such
as Lowndesville, Plymouth, and Moore's Bluff had completely disappeared by the early
18603 (Rodabough 1985:29-30).

Even mighty Columbus was in danger from the railroad. The city leaders quickly
realized this fact, however, and began construction of a spur line to Artesia. When this
was completed in 1859, Columbus' predominant position in the county was secured
(Rodabough 1985:28; Doster and Weaver 1981:98).

The R values for circa 1865 are 1.86, 1.53, and 1.52 for the county, mid-point area,
and the circular area, respectively. The county and mid-point area reflect very little
change, if any, from circa 1856. This is somewhat surprising and is related to the close
placement of Crawford, Artesia, and Brooksville. The close placement Of these
communities reflects the presence of town speculation along the railroad. The greater R
value change in the circular area is related to the demise of Memphis and the new closer
neighbors for Starkville and Palo Alto.

When this study is compared to Swedlund's (1975) similar study of Massachusetts
towns, the R values for Lowndes County increased much more rapidly. In the circular

112

area, which is more comparable to Swedlund's data, an R of 1.37 was reached only ten
to fifteen years after the western side of the Tombigbee was opened. It took Swedlund's
region over 60 years to reach this level. Swedlund's region took over 160 years to reach
an R of 1.52, which was reached in this Mississippi study area only thirty years after the
western lands were opened and about fifty years after any settlement began.

The Boom-Bust type of settlement and the nature of the local or regional economy of
the Upper Tombigbee are certainly factors in the rate of change. In a highly
commercialized cotton region like the Upper Tombigbee, very little agricultural
diversification was present. This would lead to less functional differentiation between
towns, and hence increased competition, than would be found in more diverse regions
(Adkins 1972; Earle and Hoffman 1976; Weaver and Doster 1982). The speculative
nature of the boom followed by the hardship of the bust created a situation of heavy
competition and high town extinction since many towns were not adequately located.

The second recovery period hypothesis (Hypothesis 14) states that during the
recovery phase of the late 18403 and 18503, an increasingly complex urban system
should have evolved and the size and service dominance of the Frontier Town should
have been reduced relative to other towns. The first test implication is that there should be
more central place levels during the recovery than in earlier periods.

Within Lowndes County, there was not an immediate change in the town hierarchy in
the 18503. Columbus maintained its dominance with a population of 2,611 in 1850
(U .8. Census 1854). The total number of towns in the early and middle 18503 was
actually less than that in 1836. The other three towns in the county, Caledonia, Barton,
and Crawfordville, all contained about the same services and could all be considered local
centers. At this time, Crawfordville contained three stores, a school, a post office, and a
voting precinct (Lowndes County Property Tax Rolls 1851-53; Wood 1925:12; WPA
Lowndes County n.d.:11-12). In the middle 18503, Barton contained four to five stores,

a blacksmith shOp, a hotel, a school, two warehouses, and a post Office (Elliott 1978az57-

113

59; Lowndes County Property Tax Rolls 1851-59; Way and McBride 1983). Barton was
incorporated in 1854 (Laws of Mississippi, 1854). Less is known of Caledonia, but it
also possessed two stores, a bank, a post office, and a voting precinct at this time
(Lowndes County Property Tax Rolls 1851-1859; Wood 1925:12).

A number of river and inland neighborhood centers or hamlets existed and prospered
before the railroad came into the region. Much cotton was stored and shipped out of the
warehouses of these communities, and the stores in such hamlets as Waverly, Vinton,
and Swearengen's did a relatively large business in the 18503 (Lowndes County Property
Tax Rolls 1851-1859).

The hierarchy of towns in Lowndes County did not really change until the railroad
arrived. The changes in transportation created another town level. For the first time, a
second real city, West Point, was present in the county. West Point went from a hamlet
in 1857 to a town of 1,000 people in 1858 (WPA Clay County n.d.:17). By 1859 West
Point had seven stores, a school, an Ambrotype gallery, a church, a tin shop, a
blacksmith shop, and a post office (Doster and Weaver 1981:198; Lowndes County
Property Tax Rolls 1859). West Point should be placed in the subregional- trade center
level because of its size, services, and hinterland. As noted above, the growth Of West
Point led to the swift decline and finally extinction of Barton.

Two other Lowndes County railroad towns were established in 1858. These were
Crawford and Artesia. Both of these fall into the local center community level (Lowndes
County Property Tax Rolls 1859; Wood 1925: 12). Hamlets or neighborhood centers
extant in the late 18503 included two small railroad depots, Mayhew Station, and Tibbee
Station, a number of river landings, Waverly and Vinton being perhaps the most
prominent, and some interior crossroads communities.

SO, within Lowndes County, the central place network did not increase in complexity
until the arrival of the railroad. This opens up interesting questions as to what may have
happened to the central place network had the railroad not arrived when in it did. It is

114

especially interesting to speculate on what would have happened to Barton, the only river
town in the county other than Columbus. Barton likely would have grown to a degree
that it could be considered a higher level community than Caledonia or Crawfordsville.
But, it is very unlikely that it would have come close to West Point's growth. The more
diffuse trade on the river, where steamboats would stop at any landing, would probably
have inhibited the degree of growth.

To better observe Columbus' decline as a Frontier Town and regional changes in the
Central Place Network, it is necessary to examine the central place hierarchy of the Upper
Tombigbee Region. In the whole region, changes in the central place system are visible
by the early 18503. The most dramatic change was the rise of Aberdeen in Monroe
County. By 1848, Aberdeen, which was a speculative town established on the west bank
of the Tombigbee in 1836, was designated the seat of Monroe County and should be
designated a subregional administrative center. The town grew rapidly after this. In the
early 18503, it had a population of over 2,000 and rivaled Columbus in services (Doster
and Weaver 1981:81-82). In 1852, Aberdeen had more merchandise sold ($603464) than
Columbus ($596,282) (calculated from Lowndes County Property Tax Roll 1853,
Monroe County Property Tax Roll 1853). So, by the early 18503, there were, in effect,
two regional centers in the region, competing against one another. This situation indicates
that Columbus had lost its position as Frontier Town. This marks the end Of a Frontier
Zone and perhaps the end Of the frontier in the region.

Other changes during the 18503 included increased differentiation between county
seats and between other trade towns. None of the other communities reached super
subregional administrative centers or subregional trade centers, however, so other than
Aberdeen, the levels represented were the same. The ranked population pattern probably
showed a more even progression from top to bottom than before.

The arrival of the railroad resulted in the establishment of more central place types and

a resolution of the Aberdeen and Columbus battle for dominance. West Point, Tupelo,

115

and Okalona experienced rapid growth and fell into the subregional trade center level.
Local railroad towns included Artesia, Egypt, and Crawford. Railroad hamlets included
Tibbee Station, Mayhew Station, Prairie Station, and Loohatten (see Figures 5.9 and
5.10).

The construction of a spur from Columbus to Artesia in 1859 secured Columbus'
position as the largest town in the region and the single regional center. It never regained
its Frontier Town dominance, however. Aberdeen, on the other hand, failed to connect
to the rail line before the Civil War. This hurt Aberdeen's growth and relegated it to a
super subregional status. It never again challenged Columbus as the regional center.

The above results generally support the hypothesis on increased social structural
complexity and reduction in the dominance of the Frontier Town from the bust to the
recovery. Within Lowndes County, these changes did not really occur until the arrival of
the railroad and West Point. Although this change represents the addition of only one
new level within the county, this new one was highly significant because of its size and
effect on marketing within the county (see below).

By 1860 the hierarchy of the region was even more complex, with the addition of
subregional-trade towns along the railroad. At this time, the system consisted of the
regional center (Columbus), a super subregional center (Aberdeen), some subregional
administrative centers (county seats), some subregional trade centers on the railroad,
numerous local centers, and many neighborhood centers.

When compared to more Northern regions, this hierarchy is still relatively simple. NO
large m'ban centers developed and little absolute functional differentiation was present.
Other than type of transportation and political or administrative designation, the main
difference between these towns was one of size and scale rather than type. The
uniformity in agricultural production and lack of industrialization limited functional

differentiation in the region. The presence of plantations, the marketing system, and the

116

limited processing and storage requirements of cotton limited the size of communities in
the region (see discussion in Chapter 3).

The second test implication for Hypothesis 14 is that the proportion of merchandise
sold in Columbus should be reduced in the 18503. The reduction in concentration should
also be reflected in the proportional growth of the next largest center. Within Lowndes
County, the proportion of merchandise sold in Columbus did not decline significantly
until 1858 (Figure 5.11). In the early and middle 18503, Columbus sold between 84%
and 87% of the county's merchandise. This lack of change parallels the discussion above
and reflects the lack of a second significant town in the county. In 1858, the share Of
Columbus drops to 78%, due primarily to the rise of West Point, but also due to the
growth of the other railroad towns, Crawford and Artesia. In 1858, $60,233 of
merchandise (or 7.4% of the county's total) was sold in West Point. This was the highest
percentage sold by any single town (other than Columbus) in Lowndes County since
Plymouth's boom days of the middle 18303. The 78% sold by Columbus was its lowest
proportion since 1836.

When the proportion of merchandise sold in Columbus is examined for the two
county region, Columbus' relative decline is earlier and more dramatic (Figure 5.12).
Between 1840 and 1852, Columbus' proportion of sales decreased from 75% to 41%.
Unfortunately, there are no matching years between 1840 and 1852 in which both
Lowndes and Monroe counties have existing tax records. This inhibits an understanding
of the rate of change between these two years. Aberdeen certainly began its ascent by
1848, if not before. In this year, it became the Monroe County seat and sold $340,714
worth of merchandise (Evans 1979). This was far greater sales than occurred in any
other town in the region, except Columbus. As is visible in Figure 5.12, Aberdeen's
sales were actually greater than those of Columbus in 1852. Columbus, however,
recovered its lead in 1856. The two towns probably fluctuated back and forth until
Columbus got a railroad connection in 1859.

117

coop

000'

.xmw_-~§ 33538 8.8 no 22m .:.n 23E

«on. coop «v0.

:3
foo

.voo

 

11.90

118

.cnévw— fen— E0 8ch accuser. Jeans—OD £25m Ho chasm .N~.m oSwE

000- «0.. cc.—

 

 

 

 

 

1.55.83.-

2532.0
352848..

 

 

 

 

118

.cmévw— £3; £0 c250 .5092? £295.30 62% .0 Beam .NHfi Oeswi

Don' «00' 0‘. —

 

 

 

 

 

3.9380!

45.0... to a .0
(hp—log‘

 

 

 

 

119

The above analysis generally supports the test implications and therefore, Hypothesis
14 on changes which occurred in the central place hierarchy during the recovery period.
The central place system became somewhat more complex in this period and the
dominance of Columbus was reduced. These changes were earlier and more dramatic
when a larger region is examined. Within Lowndes County, the system did not really
become more complex until the railroad entered in 1858.

The relative decline of Columbus in the region during the late 18403 and 18503
follows closely the predictions made by Casagrande et al. (1964) in their colonization
model, and suggests that by this time the Upper Tombigbee Valley was no longer a
frontier. The loss of Columbus' position as a Frontier Town and the increased
complexity of the central place system of the region indicates that it had become a more

mature antebellum plantation society.

Three hypotheses (15, 16, and 17) were stated in Chapter 3, which dealt with these
topics. As was noted in that chapter, these hypotheses cannot be formally tested because
of inadequacies in the historic record No records exist which give the complete range of
store or shop types, or services, present in the smaller towns of the boom and bust
periods. The Dun and Company Agents' Reports of the 18503 do give more detail on
stores and services of the recovery period, but since there is no comparable information
for the earlier periods they are not very helpful.

What can be examined generally, however, are the types of goods carried in the
general merchandise stores from the 18303 to the 1850. Because the sample of store

records is small and of questionable representativeness, this investigation will not be a

120

formal quantitative test, but rather a more informal investigation. The data sources to be
utilized in this examination are store bills and inventories from the towns of Colbert and
Barton. These store records were recovered from estate files and Circuit Court case files.
They therefore represent unpaid bills or store inventories at the death of the customer or
store owner, or disputed bills in law suits (Lowndes County Chancery Files; Lowndes
County Circuit Court Files). The four store inventories are all from Colbert. These
towns were chosen because they were intensively investigated, both using documentary
and archaeological data, as part of Michigan State University's Tombigbee Historic
Townsites Project between 1979 and 1983 (Cleland and McBride 1983; Minnerly 1982a,
1982b). Colbert (1835-1847) is a good representation of a speculative boom and later
bust nucleated town, while Barton (1848-ca. 1862) is a good example of a recovery
period nucleated town. These towns are also the main source of archaeological material
discussed in the next chapter.

In relation to store goods, Hypothesis 15, 16, and 17 stated that the variety of goods,
especially luxuries, in the smaller nucleated towns (as opposed to Columbus) should be
greater in the boom than in the bust or recovery, and the variety should be greater in the
recovery than in the bust.

For the boom period, one store inventory and three store bills were located. The store
bills each represent the account of one customer over a period of days or months. The
Keese and Barton store inventory of 1837 illustrates that this store contained a great
variety of merchandise: including 82 different categories of cloth and padding; numerous
items of clothing, including shirts, coats, vests, hats, caps, bonnetts, stockings, and
gloves; a large variety of men's, women's, and children's boots and slippers; numerous
types of buttons and buckles; a variety of handkerchiefs, cravats, and ribbons; a variety of
ceramics, tableglass, and table utensils; a variety of harness equipment; and numerous
sundries and miscellaneous items including pocket knives, combs, pencils, thimbles,

scissors, and brushes. The store bills which date from 1836 and 1837 and come from the

121

stores of Joshua Robinson and Calvin McCracken, list fewer, but similar items. Goods
in these store bills not found in the Keese and Barton inventory include cognac, whiskey,
and a sword cane.

Luxury items from the 18303 records include the following: expensive cloth such as
Super Drab cloth,-Black Bombazine cloth, Superior English Merino Wool cloth, Broad
Cloth, Silk velvet, and Silk vesting; long white kid gloves; black silk gloves; silk
handkerchiefs; silk hose; fine linen shirts; Valencia vests' double breasted vests; fur seal
caps; fur capes; gilt buttons; ladies silk hats; fine hats; Tuscan bonnets; Morocco shoes;
silver thimbles; tortoise shell combs; silver pencils; silver plated table utensils; expensive
watches; and the sword cane. Most of the items listed were in the Keese and Barton
inventory. Little is known about this store, other than this inventory, although it appears
to have been rather short-lived under Elijah Keese and Absolam Barton. This store does
not appear in the property tax rolls under Keese and Barton, but it does appear in these
records in 1836 and 1837, under the name of Barton's previous partner, E. P. Borden
(Lowndes County Property Tax Rolls 1837-1838). In these two years, the store sold
$5000 and $2500, respectively, worth of merchandise, which suggests it was a medium-
sized store, given that the mean sales for Colbert stores in 1836 and 1837 were $3750 and
$4560. The Robinson store seems to have also been a medium-sized store, selling $4000
worth of merchandise in 1837 and 1838, while the McCracken store was larger, selling
$9,350 worth of merchandise in 1837 (Lowndes County Property Tax Rolls 1838-1939).

The above store entries suggest that a large variety of goods, including luxmies were
carried at at least some Colbert stores. The three stores represented seemed to carry
similar general merchandise or goods, though some seemed to carry groceries such as
coffee and liquor, while Others did not.

For the 18403 depression, there is a large collection of store bills and inventories.
Only one inventory, however, is of comparable length to the Keese and Barton inventory.

This is the Reuben King inventory of 1845. This store seems to have carried

122

approximately the same type and variety of goods found at the Keese and Barton store.
The King inventory was 20 pages long and had 636 separate entries, while the Keese and
Barton store inventory was 22 pages long and had 749 entries (Lowndes County Circuit
Court Files). The King inventory included 113 different categories Of cloth and padding,
as well as a large variety of clothing items, shoes and boots, table ware and utensils,
tools, hardware, harness equipment, and sundries. The variety of ceramics and tableglass
was even greater than at the Keese and Barton store. The more expensive items, which
would be considered luxuries, are of a similar type as those present at the Keese and
Barton store. Within the largest category of items present at either store, textiles, the
Keese and Barton store did have a higher proportion (24%) of expensive cloth (price >
$1.00 per yard) than the King store (15%). The significance of this difference is not
clear, but what is clear is that there was a greater quantity and variety of luxury items in
the King store during the depression than would have been expected from the model,
especially given the findings of Margolis (1979). This does not necessarily disprove the
hypothesis, however, since the overall quantity of luxuries available during the 18303
than 18403 cannot be measured. Significantly, in 1837, the year of the Keese and Barton
inventory, that store, later named Borden and Barton, had the lowest sales (2500) of the
five Colbert stores listed in the tax rolls, while in 1842 the King store had the greatest
sales ($10,000) of the three Colbert stores listed (Lowndes County Property Tax Rolls
1838-1843). It is unfortunate that no inventory was found for the McCracken store,
which had the largest sales in 1837.

The other two inventories from the 18403 were much shorter (four and five pages)
and suggested that these stores, Bolinski's (1846) and Angle's (1847) were not very
large. The variety of goods, particularly luxuries, was not as great in these stores. NO
expensive cloth was present in either store, but a few luxury items, including silk
handkerchiefs, German Silver butter knives, Fine ivory combs, German silver pencil

cases, a Silver watch, a French Fancy watch, and a brass clock were listed in the

123

inventories. Although there was a low frequency of luxuries in these stores, some pretty
fancy items were present.

A total of 23 store bills were located which data between 1840 and 1847. These
suggest an overall pattern of merchandise similar to that found in the King store. These
bills are from the stores of Peter Warren, Joel Leftwich, M.S. Jones, Reuben King, and
James Curtis (Lowndes County Chancery Files; Lowndes County Circuit Court Files).
Expensive items in these bills include Fancy silk handkerchiefs, seal shoes, Fancy
cravats, Black Merino wool cloth, a Fashion silk hat, silk mittens, and Fine Morocco
shoes.

Although the extant store inventories and bills from the bust period cannot be used to
completely verify or refute Hypotheses 15 and 16, because of problems of comparability
and representativeness, they do indicate that a wide variety of items, including some
luxuries, were available and sold in the Colbert stores. This suggests that a demand, or
suspected demand, for these goods still existed in the 18403. The presence of a large
number of planters and larger farmers in the Black Prairie, where most of Colbert's
customers came from, probably helped maintain some demand for these goods during the
depression.

For the decade of the 18503, numerous store bills are extant for the Barton stores.
Unfortunately, no store inventories or account books have been located The Barton store
bills, however, indicate that a similar variety of goods were carried in these stores Of the
18503 than the Colbert stores of the 18303 and 18403. All of the seven stores represented
seemed to have carried general merchandise, and cloth seems to have been the most
commonly sold, and probably carried, merchandise. The luxury goods present in the
store bills are similar to those at Colbert and included silk handkerchiefs, Fancy cravats,
Fine silk, Fine hats, satin vests, Fine kid gloves, silver thimbles, a gold ring, and a gold

pin.

1 2 4
Nothing quantitative can be said about the Barton merchandise in relation to the
merchandise at Colbert. All that can be said is that all of the recorded stores sold general

merchandise that consisted of a variety of goods that were similar to those found in both

periods at Colbert.

CHAPTER 6.
ECONOMIC CYCLES AND CONSUMER BEHAVIOR IN LOWNDES COUNTY

The study will now tum to an investigation of the effects of the different cycles of the
Boom-Bust-Recovery context on consumption patterns in Lowndes County and in
particular, examine Hypothesis 18 and 19, stated in Chapter 3. These hypotheses will be
examined both with documentary data and archaeological data. The documentary data to
be utilized in this investigation will be merchandise sales, which will be analyzed per-
capita and per-acre. This analysis will give an indication of overall merchandise
consumption at the county level. The archaeological investigation, however, will focus
on consumption patterns of a particular category of goods, refined ceramics, at the
household level. By examining consumption patterns at this level, the effects of a number
of variables besides consumer cycles, particularly socioeconomic status, can be evaluated.

Surprisingly, little analysis of the effects of economic cycles, particularly in the
Boom-Bust settlement context, has been done within historical archaeology. Most studies
of consumer behavior within that discipline have been directed toward correlating
consumption patterns, especially of refined ceramics, and socioeconomic status or class.
In fact, in a recent volume on the archaeology of consumer choices (Spencer-Wood
1987a), economic cycles were only mentioned in one article as a possible major influence
on consumption (Henry 1987). But, even in that article, the effects of economic cycles
were only given a cursory examination and the site situation, Phoenix, Arizona in the
early twentieth century, did not fit the Boom-Bust model of the present study. Those
studies which have dealt with consumption patterns on frontiers generally have examined

more isolated contexts and have investigated the impact of transportation variability on

125

126

consumption patterns (Lees and Kimery-Lees 1981; Miller and Hurry 1983). The present
study, therefore, is to some degree breaking new ground.

This chapter will be divided into two sections. The first section will present
background information of the archaeological investigations at the extinct towns of
Colbert and Barton. These two townsites will provide the basis for the archaeological
examination of Hypotheses l8 and 19. This section will give a brief history of each site
and their occupants, a description of the excavations, and a discussion on the chronology
of each site and features within that site. The second section of this chapter will be the
explicit examination of archaeological and documentary test implications generated from

the two hypotheses under investigation.

Between 1979 and 1980 archaeological investigations were conducted at the extinct
towns of Colbert and Barton by Michigan State University, as part of the Tombigbee
Historic Townsites Project (Minnerly 1982;1983; Cleland & McBride 1983, Figure 6.1).
This project was funded by the US. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District as part of
the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway Project. Additional archaeological investigations
were also carried out at Colbert in 1983 by Mississippi State University in response to
private development by Simmons Building Systems (Marshall 1988).

The Michigan State University investigations at Colbert involved two phases, an
initial discovery and testing phase and a more intensive excavation phase. Two
nineteenth century sites at Colbert were located and partially excavated during this project
(Polk 1982). A third site was later located in the southern half of old Colbert and

127

 

It 25
cows or ENGINEERS
aouuoanr ——-—

   
  

VINTON

 

 

 

 

TJSS.
TJTS.

 

 

 

 

COLBERT
MTE

 

 

TO'IIIYI
LOCAYIOII

 

 

 

 

 

6“, .- . PREE‘I
2
a:
O
L
I
ORAWN= we. LOLLAR 8/18/80 I
I J fl
0 5 l M

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 6.1. Tombigbee Townsites and Vicinity

 

128

excavated by Mississippi State University archaeologists (Marshall 1988). These sites,
which all appear to have been primarily domestic occupations, are the sample sites from
Colbert.

At Barton, twenty-three sites were identified and tested and eight of these received
more intensive excavation. The twenty-three sites located included 4 stores, 13
housesites, a hotel, a blacksmith shop, a school, a warehouse, a brick kiln, and one
unidentified site (Allen 1983a; McBride 1983). Six housesites, the hotel, and the
blacksmith shop received more intensive excavation (Allen 1983b; McBride and McBride
1983). Five of the six housesites make up the Barton sample for this study.

In the discussion below, the results of the excavations at the three Colbert sites and
five Barton sites will be summarized. First, a brief history of Colbert and Barton is

presented.

W

Colbert was a typical boom town of the 18303. It was, along with West Point and
Plymouth, one of the three most ambitious towns west of the river (see Chapter 5).
Colbert was founded and platted in the height of the boom, late 1835. It had a very
ambitious plat which contained over 100 blocks, which were subdivided into lots and
covered the entire Fractional Section 6 (Figure 6.2).

The first known public sale of Colbert lots occurred in November 1835 (Elliott
1978az49). The town was vigorously promoted, as can be seen from an 1836 newspaper
advertisement which announced the sale of "valuable lots in the business part of town,
with a number of large and beautiful lots admirably suited for family residences"
(Columbus Democrat, August 6, 1836).

Colbert grew quickly after these initial sales. In the spring of 1836, an election

precinct was established at Colbert and petitions were produced to establish more roads

129

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

so 57 ea 34
57 56 41 3a
[,0 SS ‘11 37
41 54 45 35
(«I 53 1111 as
03 5; 45 34
Jefferson.
64 57 96 33
Jackson
05 so 47 3L
Franklin
('5 ‘11 ‘13 31

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Allen Site

 

Cherry Site

 

 

 

 

 

. Barren Site

 

 

 

 

 

.25M

 

 

 

 

Figure 6.2. Colbert Plat, with Archaeological Sites.

130

connecting Colbert with major roads and towns (Lowndes Co. Board of Police Minutes,
April 1836). Also, in that year, Dr. Edwin F. Watkins was given permission to operate
the ferry at Colbert (Elliott 1978a:50). At least three stores were established in town
during 1836.

By late 1836, Colbert was a flourishing river trade town whose economy revolved
around cotton and cotton planters. It contained six stores (which sold $21,800 in
merchandise), craftsmen, physicians, at least one cotton warehouse, and the Colbert
Female Academy (Clay County Deed Books D:459; F:214-215; Elliott 1978a:50-51;
Lowndes County Property Tax Rolls 1838). In 1838, Colbert acquired a post office and
a militia troop, the Colbert Troop, was chartered (Laws of Mississippi 1838).

It is diffith to estimate the population of Colbert at any point in time. An
examination of the 1837 Mississippi State Census and the 1840 Federal Census suggests
that probably 20 to 30 households were present in Colbert. The initial growth and
prosperity of Colbert continued for only a few years, however. By late 1839 and 1840,
the severe depression and associated drop in cotton prices began impacting the town. By
1839 to 1840, the number of merchants in Colbert had been reduced to two or three and
the value of merchandise sold was reduced to between $8000 and $9400 (Lowndes
County Property Tax Rolls 1841, 1841).

The severity of the depression is perhaps seen best in the town deeds. In March,
1844, over 60 Colbert lots were put up for auction because of unpaid taxes in 1842 and
1843. These lots brought an average price of only 40 cents a piece (Clay Co. Deed Book
D:446-464).

Although the town was severely impacted by the depression, it survived and by 1845
was beginning to rebound. The number of stores increased to four and by 1846, to five
(Lowndes County Estate Files 474, 507, 557, 913). In 1846, Colbert was finally
chartered and the first election of town officers was scheduled for the first Monday in
May of that year (Laws of Mississippi 1846).

131

This renewed growth was also short lived, however, for in December 1847, Colbert,
like other low lying Tombigbee River communities, was completely devastated by the
great flood of that year. Many structures were evidently swept away by this flood
(Rodabaugh 1985:32). Colbert never recovered from this flood. In April 1848, the
Colbert Post Office was moved to the newly established and more topographically
elevated town of Barton, and in March 1849, Colbert's voting precinct was also moved to
Barton (Elliott 1978a:54). By 1848, most individual town lots were viewed as worthless
and by 1851 the old town lots were consolidated into agricultural sized holdings (Clay
Co. Deed Book D:541; Lowndes CO. Estate File 557).

W

By 1848, when Barton was founded, it was the only true nucleated river town left in
Lowndes County other than Columbus. By February 1848, a ferry was chartered at
Barton by Hendley S. Bennett and Agur T. Morse (Elliott 1978a:57). Many of Barton's
early residents moved up from Colbert (Way and McBride 1983:12-15). As Way and
McBride (1983:22) stated, "To a very considerable degree, Barton was conceived and
emerged as a reincarnation of Colbert, albeit without the grandiose "boom town" illusions
that accompanied the settlement of the earlier community." The lack of these illusions is
illustrated by the much smaller plat (30 versus 100 Blocks) laid out for Barton (Figure
6.3).

Barton's economy, like that of Colbert, revolved around cotton and cotton farmers.
The town provided storage facilities and access to Mobile steamers that shipped cotton
down river and goods up for the towns hinterland of cotton producers. Indeed, by the
middle 18503, there were four warehouses or sheds and three landings at Barton (Way
and McBride 1983:25).

132

 

~ ..I\

 

. .A, ..:.d 31.. .
.-1; .l
a... , .q . a
.4... p 1.

 

11111111111111-1111! .111 1
89-32:! 60:00 3 ela—

 

> :m¢w>.23 u p(hm 246—15!

p‘qa 4‘0.»UI»O&>2 (

 

 

. 3:sz

.eotam “a 83m 3328me

 

 

.3 23E

 

 

 

 

133

The town prospered in the early and middle 1850s. The services provided at Barton
were typical of small inland towns in the cotton south. By 1850 Barton contained five
merchantile establishments which sold $15,950 worth of merchandise. The sales were up
to $22,413 by 1852 (Lowndes Co. Property Tax Rolls 1851, 1853). Other services at
Barton are reflected in the presence of a tavern and hotel, a church, a school, a blacksmith
shop, and briefly, a daguerreotype studio. A physician, a lawyer, a few carpenters, a hat
manufacturer, and a few planters also lived in Barton. During its peak in the middle
18505, Barton probably included fifteen to twenty households or 75 to 150 people (Way
and McBride 1983:15). Barton was incorporated in 1854 (Elliott 1978a:58).

Barton's success was very much dependent on the navigability of the Tombigbee
River. At best, river traffic through Barton was seasonal, concentrated in the high water
months between late November and April. In some years, when enough rain failed to
appear, the low water all but prevented crops moving out and supplies in.

The completion of the Mobile & Ohio Railroad into the Upper Tombigbee put an end
to the transportation problem of the region. Organized in 1848, the M and O reached
West Point in northwestern Lowndes County on Christmas Day, 1857 (Elliott 197 8az59;
Way and McBride 1983:26). This completion led to a massive reorientation of trade and
traffic flow in Lowndes County. The railroad spelled disaster for many river
communities, Barton among them. Barton quickly lost business to the new rail town of
West Point, which was located in the center of the Prairie to the west of Barton (see
Chapter 5). The decline of Barton was fairly rapid. In April, 1858, the Barton Post
Office was moved to the nearby hamlet of Vinton (Elliott 1% 8a). By 1860 only one
merchantile business was operating in Barton, and the overland feeder roads in the town
were diverted to West Point (Way and McBride 1983:27). Most of the inhabitants in
town in 1860 were involved in agriculture (U .8. Manuscript Census, Lowndes Co.,

1 860).

134

Although there were no battles fought at or near Barton, the Civil War certainly
impacted the town. There were both Union and Confederate soldiers in the area,
particularly late in the war, and livestock, cotton, and other goods were confiscated.
Trade was certainly disrupted by the war. By 1865 to 1870, Barton was occupied by
only a few scattered inhabitants who were involved in agriculture (U .8. Manuscript
Census, 1870,; Way and McBride 1983:27). The Barton ferry was the only distinctive

aspect left of the community.

WEE

Him

This site was situated within lots 6 & 7 of Block 11 of Colbert townsites and therefore
was the residence of John and Margaret Allen, the founders of Colbert (Figure 6.2) (Clay
County Deed Book P: 291-295). Margaret Colbert Allen was allotted all of Fractional
Section 6, the entire Colbert townsite, as part of the 1834 Treaty of Washington (Elliott
1978a). Whether the Allen's moved to this lot during 1834 or shortly after is unclear, but
a note signed by John Allen and dated "Colbert, December 1835" suggests that they were
probably living in Colbert by that date. They were definitely residing in Block 11 in 1839
when a deed of trust mentions the Allen's dwelling house, kitchen, and tailor shop in lots
7, 6, and 2 of Block 11, respectively (Clay County Deed Book P: 291-295).

When the Allens moved from this block is uncertain, but their position in the 1850
U.S. Census suggests that they were living on their lands on the east bank of the
Tombigbee River and by 1851, the Allen's were living in Perry County, Mississippi,
(Clay County Deed Book D: 538; U.S. Census, Lowndes County, MS, 1850: 200).
John and Margaret sold their lots in Block 11 with the remainder of their Colbert holdings

135

to James Hilliard in 1851 (Clay County Deed Book D: 538). It is most likely that this site
was abandoned soon after the December 1847 flood.

John Allen was a moderately prosperous planter, businessman (he owned a steam mill
on the east side of the Tombigbee), and along with Margaret, an entrepreneur. Besides
their extensive Colbert holding, the Allens also owned by the late 18303, 720 acres of
land and 10 slaves (Lowndes County Property Tax Rolls 1839).

Emation

Historic materials were located at this site during the initial backhoe trenching phase of
investigation. Soon afterward, a program of unit excavation was established to
investigate this site. Two phases of investigation brought the total excavation area to 56
square meters plus the backhoe trench (Figure 6.4). All units were excavated in 10

centimeter levels and all soil was sifted through one quarter inch mesh hardware cloth.

Eeaum
Nine cultural features were identified at the Allen Site. These included two large trash

filled pits or cellars (Features 3 and 16), three post holes with molds (Features 14, 15,
and 17), two pier remnants (Features 12 and 18), one small pit (Feature 1), and a pair of
possible wagon ruts (Feature 11) (Figure 6.4).

The only features which are of particular interest in this study are the two large pits or
cellars. Feature 3 was roughly square and measured 2.2 meters by 2.2 meters and was
75 centimeters deep (Figures 6.4 and 6.5). Whether this feature was dug specifically for
trash disposal or served an earlier purpose, such as a cellar, is unclear, but its square
shape and the presence of adjacent posts or piers suggests that Feature 3 was originally a
cellar. It was filled with a considerable quantity of domestic refuse.

The exposed part of Feature 16 closely resembles Feature 3. It had relatively straight
sides and was 72 cm deep. The fill of this feature contained many artifacts (Figure 6.6).

136

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F11
u 2m
F1
_— (F14
_________________________
8 F1% F3
F16 On o //
/7 («If
F15, 17 Q
F18
.1130
£320

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 6.4. Colbert Site A, Excavation Plan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

137

€23 < 25 2860 .m 238m .3 2&5

£309 on o

.aouaacu ;u_a neon cacao ;a_:od.o» «\ma»o_
ucam czoan ;m_>aau Jana ~\«x»o.

ucum cacao xaao n\«¢>op

ucom czoam xaaa M\m¢»oF

team cxoLm ;m_:o__o> xaaa «\¢¢>o—
co_uugucouc0u .aouancu new xupgm

neon czoam ;m_:o..o> mxmg»o.

ucum czoaa amaze..o» oxmu»op

neon czoam zm_:o..o» gang «\n¢»op

mass: xucam czoam :u_>aau xaao >ao> ~\mx»op

 

 

(muowmux—o-a

>wx

 

OFMm
0M2

opnw
NM:

d_u3 an»:
an .Fv name:

.223 < ea :83 .2 238m .3 23mm

neon cacao gu_3o_.o» Juno oxwa>op

neon cacao Juan nx¢c>op

.3826 5:. 3.32. atom c395 foo Q35.

.3035 5:. e322. neon >3; 55.5 5.26:...» {an inch:
.QOugogu gum: no.uuoz ucom cacao so.:o_.o> mace oxem>op

Pam bzm 52¢ f3 22::

ncom cause gu_3o..o> oxma»op

team cacao za.3o..o> exm¢>op

team >u._m cacao ca.10..o> xaan exmu»op

mass: xucam cacao :u_>ouc xeoo >Lo> ~\n¢>op

Eur.

 

Dc:
(cucumbers—a

>wu

 

 

138

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

__a3 “we: .doz zuaom
no u_c: no awe:

 

139

Although the overall size of this feature is unknown, its form and depth suggests that it

may also have been a cellar. It was filled with a moderate amount of refuse.

WM

Excluding brick and the mineral/miscellaneous category of items, 10,154 artifacts
were recovered from this site. The most common artifact types are refined ceramics,
followed by nails. A large collection of bottle glass, faunal materials, and table glass,
was also recovered. Diagnostic ceramics, including transfer printed, floral painted, and
shell edged wares, and diagnostic bottle glass, including roughly applied lips and
empontilled bases, support a middle nineteenth century date for this site. A relatively high
frequency of early decorative styles on ceramics, such as broad-brush stroke floral
painting (77% of painted), suggest that much of the occupation occurred before 1845 or
1850 (Cleland 1983: 30, 33; Lofstrom 1976: 29-32). The presence of pearlware in
significant quantities (10% of refined earthenware), which was manufactured from the
late 1780s to at least the middle 18403 (Miller 1980:3) also supports the documented dates
for this site. The presence of flow blue transfer printed wares do indicate that some
occupation occurred after 1840 (Cleland 1983: 36; Lofstrom, Tordoff, and George 1982:
9; Miller 1974: 201). The data range of the ceramic marks (Table 6.1) also supports the
documented middle nineteenth century occupation of this site. In fact, two of the
manufacturers, Copeland and Garrett and Francis Dillon, suggest occupation dates closely
corresponding to the documenwd dates of the site and town.

In order to examine chronological variation within the site, the frequency and
percentage of pearlware and broad brush painted decorative type are presented for Feature
3 and Feature 16 in Table 6.2. These results suggest that Feature 3 contains materials of
an earlier age than was found in Feature 16. Since some early types are within Feature

16 and six flow blue sherds (1840+) were within Feature 3, some mixing of boom and

140

Table 6.1. Ceramic Maker's Marks from the Allen Site.

 

 

 

Manufacturer N Date Range Median Provenience

Date
W. Adams and Sons 3 1800-1864 1832 Gen. Level
S. Alcock and Co. 1 1828-1859 1843.5 Feature 3
Copeland and Garrett 3 1833-1847 1840 Gen.Level,Feat 3
Davenport 3 1805-1860 1832.5 Gen. Level
Francis Dillon 1 1834-1843 1838.5 Gen. Level
S. Tams and Co. or 1 1820-1850 1835 Gen. Level
Tams, Anderson, & Tams

 

 

 

 

 

Source: Godden 1964; Williams and Weber 1986.

Table 6.2. Diagnostic Ceramics from the Allen Site.

 

 

 

PEARLWARE BROAD BRUSH PAINTED
sherds vessels sherds vessels

N % of N % of N % of N % of

retired refitted painted painted

ceranics ceramics ceranics cannic

Gen. Lev 2931 7.7 21 14.4 488 76 36 80
F. 3 107 14.1 25 25 157 83 23 78
F. 16 1 1.4 1 . 5.2 9 50 2 50

 

 

 

 

141

bust purchased materials occurred in each feature. The data in Table 6.2, however,

suggest a distinctive difference between the two features.

W

Him

This site is located in the northeastern comer of Fractional Block 21 of Colbert
townsite (Figure 6.2). This block was purchased by Joel Cherry sometime before 1843
(Clay County Deed Book D: 45). Unfortunately, a more precise initial purchase date for
this parcel cannot be attained because of incomplete deed preservation. It is likely,
however, given the overall purchasing pattern of Colbert lots that it was purchased in the
middle to late 1830s.

Little is known of Joel Cherry except that he owned three other lots in Colbert (lots 1
and 2, Block 21, and lot 2, Block 36) before 1843 and that he owned one slave in 1840
(Clay County Deed Book D: 45; U.S. Census, Lowndes County, MS, 1840: 199). In
1840 his household consisted of himself, and his wife. He may have been related to one
of the early Colbert shareholders, Willis W. Cherry, but no evidence of this has been
located. In 1843, Joel Cherry lost all of his Colbert property due to back taxes.

Fractional Block 21 was purchased at a sherifi‘s sale in March 1844 by Joel Leftwich,
an early Colbert Commissioner and holder of many town lots (Clay County Deed Book
D: 45). Given Leftwich's extensive earlier holdings, many near the center of town, it is
unlikely that he ever resided in Fractional Section 21. He certainly may have rented out
the property, however.

After Joel Leftwich's death in 1846, all of his property passed to his brother,
Littlebury. Littlebury sold a large part of Joel's old property, including Fractional Block
21, to John Hutchins in May 1847 (Clay County Deed Book D: 502). It is improbable
that Hutchins, who was a large prairie planter, ever lived at Site B after this date and it is

142

uncertain whether anyone else ever did either for this is the last mention of this parcel as a
separate town block. Seven months after this sale, Colbert was destroyed by the
December 1847 flood, and most of its former lots were combined into agricultural
holdings.

The most likely scenario for Fractional Block 21 is that it was lived on by Joel Cherry
from the late 18305 until 1843. After this date, it was probably abandoned or occupied by
renters or relatives of the owners, particularly Joel and Littlebury Leftwich.

Emticn

Site B (the Cherry Site) was located during the backhoe program at Colbert. A dense
concentration of nineteenth century artifacts and a feature (Feature 7) were uncovered in
the southern half of a north-south trench (Unit 40) (Figure 6.7). A total of nine 2 x 2
meter squares was excavated at this site. All units were excavated in 10 centimeter levels

and all soil was sifted through one quarter inch mesh hardware cloth.

Beam

Three cultural features were located at the Cherry Site. These included a post mold
(Feature 8), a small refuse pit (Feature 9), and a large refuse filled pit or cellar (Feature 7)
(Figure 6.7). Only Features 9 and 7 are of relevance to this study.

Feature 9 was an irregular shaped refuse filled pit 120 centimeters long (north-south)
by over two meters wide (east-west) and 30 centimeters deep (Figure 6.8). This feature
could have been purposely dug for refuse disposal or it could have served an earlier
function as a small root cellar. Because of its irregular shape it is also possible that this
feature was a natural depression which was later filled with refuse.

Feature 7 was a large cellar-like feature which was at least five by two meters in
horizontal area and 45 centimeters deep (Figure 6.9). Whether a structure, or simply

boards covered this feature before it was filled is unclear. Given the unsubstantial nature

143

.55 cougauxm .m cam ton—00 6.0 cuswE

m~mw
nwcz

T

 

km

 

H:
."///l///‘.
/.. /
y

 

 

 

 

, on opnw

ommm
cos: .

ooqz .

 

Om
or;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

605:8 m ozw ton—00 .0 233m .wd oSwE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2am c395 530:0» ecu c395 {on $330: $95.. nan 35.3—
new... 595 526:: 29:6.
.33 68m :39... 5.3:: f3 Q28. 3 29:9
«.25.. ac. .53 58.. £295 {8 23:2
Ex
c:u.gu n.
4 1 .
4
1 I,
1 J
nu ”v
r/Ill\\\\llll\‘ ‘
. at (it
-mw V. 4A 3:.

s... a

In: awam
so .cv mu_e:

‘QUO

145

.328 m 2a :38 s 238m .3 23mm

EuO— m o

r . H. B: 595 .338. .12; a
38 595 5:33.: 29:2 93

uim 52. p.355. 8:8:

.35 >38 v3. oxmfim.~ 8.22.

ucam 58. ‘23:: 29:2

23 3:“ So: 526:: f8 12::

35: 6:3 52.. £195 {8 t: NEE:

 

‘QUDW

>wx

   

.Em: “mo: v
3 :5 _
:3. “ma:
~m :c:

146

of much nineteenth century architecture in this region, the lack of foundation remnants is

not necessarily significant (Wilson 1975).

Atfifaataandfihmmlnax

A total of 4,271 artifacts (excluding brick and mineral/miscellaneous items) was
recovered from the Cherry Site. Nails are by far the most common artifact type
recovered. Refined ceramics, bottle glass, and faunal remains are the next most common
items. Diagnostic artifacts such as decorated refined ceramics and bottle necks and bases
suggest that the Cherry Site was occupied during the middle nineteenth century. The
presence of pearlware and the high proportion of broad-brush painted (50% of printed)
suggest that some occupation pre—dating 1850 occurred (Cleland 1983: 30, 33; Lofstrom
1976: 29-32). The presence of thirteen plain and molded ironstone sherds, however,
indicates that some occupation likely occuned after the middle 1840s (Miller 1980: 4).
The two identified maker's marks from the Cherry Site (Table 6.3) suggest an occupation
ranging from the 18305 to at least 1855.

Evidence for post 1847 occupation on this site is somewhat surprising given the
documentation and considering the overall history of Colbert. One possible factor in the
apparent post-Colbert occupation of this site is its location in the far northeast corner of
Fractional Section 6. This area was adjacent to the last Colbert Ferry (1845 - 1851), very
close to the later town of Barton, and only a few hundred feet south of Jackson Spring
(later Barton) Ferry established in 1851 by James R. Hilliard, James H. Griswold, and
others (Elliott 1978a: 53). The later use of this site by ferry operators would not have
been unlikely.

The later occupation of this site presents analytical difficulties for the investigation of
consumption patterns. The total Cherry Site collection certainly cannot be used to
represent only Colbert period activities. The features (7 and 9), however, do not contain

any definite, or even likely, post-Colbert artifacts. Table 6.4 shows the proportion of

147

Table 6.3. Ceramic Maker's Marks from the Cherry Site.

 

 

Enoch Wood and Sons, J
and J Jackson, John and
Will Ridgeway, or Ralph
Stevenson and Williams
(Harvard Pattern)

 

 

 

 

Manufactmer Number Date Range Median Provenience
Date

1. Clementson (Dallas 1 1855-1864 1859.5 Gen. Level

Shape)

Ralph & James Clews, 1 1818-1846 1832 Feature 7

 

 

 

Source: Godden 1964; Larsen 1975; Wetherbee 1980.

Table 6.4. Diagnostic Ceramics from the Cherry Site, Features 7 & 9.

 

 

 

PEARLWARE BROAD BRUSH PAINTED
sherds vessels sherds vessels
N % of N % of N % of N % of
refined refimd painted [minted
ceramics ceramics ceramics ceramic
'fl
Feat. 7 & 9 3 2.4 3 6.8 10 50 4 50

 

 

 

148

pearlware and broad-brush painted ceramics, which suggest that these features are
comparable to Feature 16 at the Allen site. The Harvard pattern from Feature 7 also lends
support for the earlier date for this feature. Only the materials from Features 7 and 9,
therefore, will be utilized in the consumption analysis presented in the next chapter.

W

Him

This site was situated within what were lots 7 and 8 of Block 14 in Colbert townsite
(Figure 6.2). These lots contained the residence and store of Peter Warren, his wife Ann,
and their five children. Warren bought these lots from Agar T. Morse in 1838. The
Warrens occupied these lots until January 1848 when they moved to Barton (Clay County
Deed Book H: 23).

Peter Warren, who was originally from Rhode Island, owned and operated a general
merchandise store in Colbert throughout his residence there. His store sold between $600
and $3000 worth of merchandise every year between 1837 and 1842 (Lowndes County
Property Tax Rolls 1838 - 1843). Peter Warren owned six slaves during this period, and
he was taxed for a $10 watch in 1843 (Lowndes County Property Tax Rolls 1838 -

1 843).

Excavation

Archaeological examination of the Warren Site was perfomred over three phases by
Mississippi State University. The first phase involved clearing, disking, and surface
collecting the site. A grid consisting of ten feet squares was laid over the whole site and
utilized for control. Once the surface collections were complete, a program of mechanical
stripping was performed. Finally, excavation units and further mechanical stripping were

completed in areas of refuse and feature concentration.

149

In the end, 47,800 square feet of area was surface collected and north-south strips
were mechanically excavated at approximately every 20 feet across the site (Marshall
1988). Three areas of artifact and/or feature concenu'ation were located during the first
two phases of investigation (Figure 6.10).

In the East feature area. 1050 square feet was excavated to approximately 16 inches
below surface (Figure 6.11). In West Feature Area 1, 190 square feet was excavated to
approximately 12 inches below surface while in West Feature Area 2, 345.5 square feet
was excavated to approximately 16 inches below surface (Figures 6.10 and 6.12). While
most of this excavation was completed by hand, additional mechanical removal of soil

was performed in the lower levels of many excavation blocks.

Beam
All of the features identified on the Warren Site were either in the East Feature Area or

in West Feature Area 2 (Figures 6.11 and 6.12). West Feature Area 1 contained no
discrete features and it has been interpreted as a marshy area which received occasional
dumping (Marshall 1988:71). The East Feature Area contained 21 feattues, all of which
were the remnants of posts or piers (Figure 6.11). Three clusters of brick rubble were
also identified in this area although no feature numbers were assigned. The majority of
the post remnants were of the same shape and size, and are probably fence post remnants,
though the east-west posts could be the remains of a simple poled structure such as a barn
or shed. The four larger post holes or piers (Features 2.4.10, and 11) do seem to be the
remnants of a small structure. The large square post mold/hole to the south of this four
post structure is probably related to that structure. The function of the small structure is
difficult to determine, especially since the large and varied artifact collection from the East
Feature area suggests that it was used for general refuse dumping (Marshall 1988).

The significance of the three brick rubble clusters is difficult to assess since,
according to Marshall (1988: 34—37), much of this rubble was somewhat displaced

150

m

.co—

ewe =25: 52: .5: 2a €235 uses; {an 53 05mm

m omu<
muzummm ummz

\

A mmu< H mmu<
musumwm ummm wusummm umwz

_
_

A

w .om m .c 3 3 .om 3 .co. 3 .Om—

 

:.oo~

.co_m

.Om m

.0m 2

2 8N

151

02w

ovm . t

op;
03

.933 :23: :55 a 82 238m .5 do 5: .26 2am

:3

re

 

 

 

 

 

>@
be @tr

:@@U

3:93:35 BMW
wo_uo

 

were

«5% Wm...

b~ co.uouac0ucou WV

u_uu

«Pair. 3
{W/w.w. \

 

\

 

L...

 

 

 

 

I‘lt '1‘ I'll

.:.rosu

an

 

 

 

 

ll"! It‘ll.

 

152

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

80W 75W 7?W Gill 60W 55W
I 605
,4PEESJL
.'Z/’ , \\
r * \ A655
/’i E70 \
a" -
oQ/ F6 h\\
43’ ( " .' \
I ,- \ 705
I [-12 \ a
z I . - tr-
9 1 . , . , \ §
.2 (L, . -'. a? ‘ 8
3 0’ A h ‘ ‘ g
6 L 3 ' ‘1'sz ’3 t
,J F4 o, T 755
tr ‘1 " 0 l
t l .3 : \
E ’ .‘3‘. \
a0. 4
o. .t: 805

2"

 

 

 

 

j
sh

SCRAPER SET 3
4

 

 

PATH

 

 

l

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 6.12. Plan of West Feature Area 2 (from Marshall 1988).

153

during the clearing of this site by heavy machinery. Marshall (1988: 36) does seem to
think, however, that the most southeastern cluster was less disturbed and probably is in
its original location.

Seven feattnes were identified in West Feature Area 2 (Figure 6.12). These consisted
of the overall midden deposit (Feature 1), a circular burned area (Feature 2), a pit or post
hole filled with brick (Feature 3), two linear dark stains (Feature 4 A and B), a
concentration of brick rubble which may be the remnants of a brick walkway (Feature 5),
a series of parallel linear stains (Feattne 6), which have been interpreted as garden
spading (Marshall 1988: 64), and finally a post mold or hole (Feature 7).

The features and refuse recovered in West Feature Area 2 indicate that it was utilized
for heavy refuse disposal and burning. The area also seems to have been utilized as a
garden, which is not surprising given the richness of the midden. The presence of the
probable brick walkway is somewhat surprising, but it may have been constructed simply
to facilitate the hauling of trash over the sometimes muddy terrain. The precise function

of the posts is unclear.

Artifactundfihmmlm

The Warren Site contained 4,443 artifacts. Refined ceramics and nails were the most
common artifact type recovered. A large quantity of faunal material was also recovered.
All diagnostic artifacts recovered from the Warren Site date to the middle nineteenth
century. The ceramic maker's marks recovered at this site support a pre-1850 date for
this site (Table 6.5). Like the Allen and Cherry Sites discussed above, the presence of
pearlware and relatively early decorative types, such as broad-brush painted, and the very
low proportion of generally later wares, such as plain and molded ironstone (0.5% of
refined earthenware) (Table 6.6) suggest that this site was probably not occupied after the
flood of 1847 .

154

Table 6.5 Ceramic Maker's Marks from the Warren Site.

 

 

 

Manufacturer Number Date Range Median Provenience
Date

Francis Dillon 1 1834-1840 1837 West Feature
Area 2

American Manuf. Pottery 1 1833-1850 1842 East Featrne

Co. Area

J. and W. Ridgeway 1 1814-1837 1826 West Feature
Area 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sources: Godden 1964, Lehner 1988.

Table 6.6. Diagnostic Ceramics from the Warren Site.

 

 

 

PEARLWARE BROAD BRUSH PAINTED
sherds vessels sherds vessels
N % of N % of N % of N % of

refined refined painted pa'mted

ceramics ceramics ceranics centric
E. Feat. 31 2.5 9 5.6 50 64 24 62
Area
W. Feat. 16 10.9 5 14.3 22 78 8 67
Area 1-2
Gen Lev 57 6.2 11 9.1 35 69 2 50

 

 

 

155

Although the East Feature area and the two West Feature areas of the site have the
same range of diagnostics, the proportion of pearlware and earlier (broad-brush painted)
wares suggests that West Feature Areas 1 and 2 date somewhat earlier than the East
Feature Area (Table 6.6). The presence of identical decorative types and two cross-
mends between the East and West Feature Areas, however, indicates that some temporal
overlap is present, but there is a definite trend toward earlier ceramics in the West Feature
Areas, which will be used with Feature 3 of the Allen site to represent earlier Colbert
occupations. The East Feature Area will be used with Allen Site Feature 16 and the

Cherry Site to represent somewhat later Colbert occupations.

BamnExcavaticns

At Barton, eight of the sites located were subjected to intensive excavation. These
included housesites 5442, 5444, 5445, 5447, 5448 and Cedar Oaks, the hotel site
(5443), and the blacksmith shop (5446) (Figure 6.3). These sites were chosen for further
excavation because of their integrity, documentation, function, and representativeness.
The first five excavated housesites will be described in more detail below since their
assemblages will be utilized for further analysis later in this chapter. These descriptions
are taken to a large degree from McBride and McBride (1983). The collections from the
tested sites are too small for detailed consumption analysis, and therefore will not be
described further.

The assemblages from two of the excavated domestic sites, the hotel and Cedar Oaks,
will not be utilized for further analysis either, but for different reasons. The different
function of the hotel makes it difficult to compare to the housesites, while the mixed
nature of the Cedar Oaks' deposits make analysis of particular time periods impossible.
No significant deposits of middle nineteenth century material could be identified within

strata or features at Cedar Oaks. The failure to identify exclusively middle nineteenth

156

century deposits at Cedar Oaks is unfortunate, since it was the home of James Collins,

Barton's wealthiest merchant.

Site 5442

DIII'°IIEI'1D .

Site 5442 is one of the Barton house sites with a long sequence of occupations.
During the period Barton functioned as a riverport town, this house site was the home of
three merchants, one of whom was also the Barton mayor. This site is located within the
reconstructed plat of Barton in Block 16 (Figure 6.3). Hendley S. Bennett, trustee for
the town of Barton, first sold this block to Agur T. and Grace G. Morse on 3 June 1851
(Clay Co. Deed Book D:548-549). Morse bought other property at this time, later acting
as a Barton trustee, and there is no reason to believe he ever occupied this land. Soon
after acquiring Block 16, Morse sold it, along with the east half of Lot 5 of Block 7, to
Robert McGowan for $50.00 (Clay County Deed Book D:554).

It is likely that Robert McGowan was the first resident of this town property. He was
one of the earliest Barton merchants, and he probably built his house on Block 16, while
the east half of Lot 5 of Block 7 was his store property. In the 1850 census, the
McGowan household included Robert: his wife Nancy, children Robert, and William,
and Fletcher Scott. Scott was listed in the census as a clerk, and numerous receipts from
McGowan's business establish him in this capacity, if not as a partner

Judging from his business receipts, McGowan had been at Barton at least since 1849
and remained in business until 1853, when he moved to Vinton During his tenure at
Barton, he did a good business, and his sales of $8,000 in 1851 were more than the sales
of all other Barton merchants combined. In 1852, he again sold $8000 of merchandise.
According to the 1850 census, he had three slaves, and in 1851 he was taxed for one
clock and three slaves along with his store sales. In 1852 his taxable property had

157

increased by one slave and the addition of a $130 clock or watch. In 1850 his real estate
was valued at $4,000 (Lowndes Co. Property Tax Rolls 1851-53; U.S. Census,
Lowndes Co., 1850).

The next inhabitants were the family of Dr. William Rainey, who was McGowan's
successor in business. Their household in 1850 in Monroe County included William
Rainey, his wife Eliza A., and a daughter. By 1852 he was living in Lowndes County,
where he was taxed for one carriage, one watch, one horse, and one slave. He may
already have been living in Barton, but he was definitely there by 1853, when he was
taxed for one caniage, watch, and slave.The Raineys appear to have been forced out of
business in Barton by 1856 by suits brought against them and possibly an overextension
of credit.

The next occupants of this site was Augustine R. Duling and Mary R. Duling. Rainey
sold the property on 15 February 1856 to Mary R. Duling, for $1,000-indicating at least
one substantial structure and probably both a house and store building (Clay Co. Deed
Book F:493). The Dulings had been in the general area since at least 1845 and had
owned considerable property at Colbert. Augustine was elected mayor of Barton (which
also meant Justice of the Peace) in 1857 and 1859, and his son, Augustine H., was
elected Barton constable in 1857. Although some of the older children may not have been
living with their parents by 1856, the household in 1850 consisted of Augustine B.,Mary,
William, Augustine H., Lucretia, and Rosa. Augustine R. was taxed in 1857 for one
slave, and his son A. H. was taxed for his poll only. A. B.'s real estate had been valued
at $4,000 in 1850 and was valued at $1,000 in 1860, along with $1,000 in personal
property. Duling was listed in the 1850 agricultural census as having 200 acres of land
worth $2,000 (Lowndes Co. Property Tax Roll 1857; U.S. Census, Lowndes Co.,
1850, 1860).

It seems likely that the Dulings did not reside long on Block 16, for they sold it in
February 1857 to William J. Futrell for $600 and moved next door to the old Warren

158

house on Block 18 (Clay County Deed Book F:518-519). Futrell also purchased the
adjoining Block 9 from E. A. and M. Atkinson (Clay County Deed Book F:530-531).
The Futrell household in 1860 consisted of W. J. Futrell, Mahala, and two children
Also residing with them were L. L. Kelley, and Parthena Kelley. Both William J. Futrell
and L. L. Kelley were listed as farmers, and William J's son, William V. was listed as a
student (U .8. Census 1860). William J.'s real property in 1863 was valued at $3,000,
his personal property at $1,000, high in comparison to most Barton residents at that time.
Throughout the 1850s , however, he was taxed only for his poll and sometimes for one
clock. In the 1850 agricultural schedule his land was valued at $1,000,. In 1860 his
farmland consisted of 50 improved and 10 unimproved acres worth $300.00.

We do not know how long the Futrell family resided in the house on Block 16. By
1863, William J. Futrell was dead and by 1866, his wife had married E. V. Gaston (Clay
Co. Deed Book Ez6l3-614). Neither Mrs. E. V. Gaston nor her son, W. V. Futrell,
appear in the 1870 Federal Census in the vicinity of Barton or Vinton, and by 1872
William V. had definitely established himself in Aberdeen, where he ran a variety store.
It is unclear who, if anyone, lived on this property between the late 1860s and 1900. The
property was owned by the Richardson family until 1879, when it was sold to Mary E.
Coltrane. It is unclear, however, if any of these people resided in Block 16 (McBride and
McBride 1983:142).

This block remained in the Coltraine family until 1919, when Mary Coltrain's
daughter sold it to M. W. Atkins (Clay Co. Deed Book 47:228). It is unclear whether
any of the Coltraines lived on Site 5442, however. By 1900, the house was rented to
Frank C. Andrews and his family. The Andrews family apparently lived here until the
1910s (McClurken and Anderson 1981).

The next residents of Site 5442 were the Keller family. In about 1915, Thomas and
Francis Keller and their five children moved into this site. Thomas and Francis'

daughter, Nancy, and her husband, Sandord Harvell, lived in this house in the 19208,

159

and are the last known occupants of the site. All of the later residents were involved in

agriculture (McClurken and Anderson 1981).

Ematicn

A total sample of 371 square meters was excavated at this site, the largest at Barton
(Figure 6.13). The excavation procedures during the testing and data recovery phases
were similar in that units were excavated in arbitrary 10 cm levels dining both phases.
However, the method of soil removal differed. In Phase I the soil was shoveled out and
passed through a quarter-inch mesh wire screen. During Phase III the soil was removed
by careful troweling, and not passed through a screen. Some artifacts were piece plotted.
Excavators attempted this latter procedure in the hope of obtaining more data on the

association of artifacts and features.

Warm
The dwelling at site 5442 was represented archaeologically by a brick chimney base,

three brick piers, three post holes, and a brick walkway. Also, on the western, northern,
and southeastern sides of the chimney base are driplines (Figure 6.13).

The chimney, comer pier, and northern dripline indicate that the structure was about
36 ft long (11 m). Assuming that the chimney was in the center of the south wall, the
structure was about 20 ft wide (6.3 m). Whether there were two or three rooms (or more)
in this house is unclear. Oral testimony is inconsistent on this issue. If piers were placed
at the corner of each room, as Weaver and Doster (1982:86) suggest, evidence indicates
that the structure contained three rooms or two rooms with a dogtrot in the middle, each
about 12 x 20 ft. This suggestion is based on the assumption that there was a
northeastern pier in the vicinity of the northern dripline. If we assume there were only

three piers on the western side (which is unlikeIY). the structure had probably two 12 x 20

160

 

 

top of slope
C222] ’35 <::3ea\\‘ 1
chrapc myrtle

‘1... s/ ‘

[i 'F6 H ““0

tree

 

 

 

 

   
 

 

Olyrtlm

toothache tree
I

 

 

 

Hidden

 

10m

Figure 6.13. Site 5442, Excavation Plan.

 

161

ft rooms. The western driplines (Areas 1 and 2) certainly suggest the presence of a porch

on this side and the northern dripline (Areas 3) may indicate a porch also.

cheLEeatnres

Two refuse filled features were also found at this site. One was a deep well and the
other a small trash pit. These features will provide the data base for the consumption
analysis to follow. The stratigraphy within the well was very complex and consisted of
medium thick to very thin lenses of sandy loam, charcoal, and ash (Figure 6.14).
Unfortunately, wall slumping made it impossible to complete the profile map for the
lower 1.6 m of this feature. The trash pit (Feature 8) was roughly oval, 100 cm by 80 cm
in area, and 25 cm deep (Figure 6.15).

W

Excluding brick and artifacts of the mineral/compositel- miscellaneous category
(which were cataloged by weight), 26,701 artifacts were recovered from this site. The
majority were metal (primarily nails) or glass (nearly half window glass). Ceramics made
up the only other material found in significant quantities. The well (Feature 55)
contained 7,833 artifacts, including a tremendous amount of nails, ceramics, bottle glass,
miscellaneous metal, and faunal remains. The large frequency (4,714) and location of cut
nails on the outer edges of the feature suggest that a wooden lining had once been present
The remaining artifacts were likely the result of secondary deposition.

The small refuse pit (Feature 8) contained 116 artifacts, excluding brick fragments.
The most frequent artifacts in this feature were nails, ceramics, animal bone, and bottle
glass, suggesting secondary refuse.

The artifacts from site 5442 support the historically documented occupation dates.
(Table 6.7) Artifacts such as transfer printed, hand painted, and shell edge decorated
ceramics, as well as applied bottle lips, support the middle nineteenth century beginning

162

Vast Prom.
US$0.24
am 3a
(200 (ZN
1, Base of Laval 4 i

 

 

 

Limit of___,
Excavation ‘__ Lumt of

E Icavatron

 

 

‘ Such
a Corona:

a “"01
was

A - IOYR 414 Dark Ybltoaioh Drown RottonWood
l

B- 10 YR 513 Brown Sandy Loam hlottlad With
IO YR 613 Polo Brawn Sandy Loan.

c- 7.5 YR 512 Strong Sroan Sandy Clay Uatttod
Wlth 10"! 713 Very Polo Brown Sandy Loan.

0 - IOYR 211 Black Charcoal

E- tOYR 413 Dark Brown Sandy Loan

F- IOYR 514 Yaltaatah Smn Sandy Loan
6- IOYR SIS Palo Brown Sandy Loan

IOYR 412 Dark Graytah Bro-n Sandy Loam
Wlth Charcoal Flochs.

 

‘H

at Mapping

‘
--

r

l ,
1 Ltttttt
1
l

\ Unmoppad

‘ /
1- 10 YR 512 Groyroh Brown Sandy Loam Iottlad
With 10 YR 412 Dark Grayldt Brawn Sand

J- IOYR 313 Dark Brown Sandy Loan

K- IOYR 812 Whito Sandy Loam

-----—-—---—---
I
I

.-
p-—"-

Lttnit of
Excavation

Figure 6.14. Feature 55 (well), Site 5442.

 

163

 

erross Section

 

 

 

 

 

c- Ceramic Zonal 5YR 518 reddish yellow sandy clay (Bi Horizon)

in Battle Zone 2 IOYR 514 yellowish brawn clayey sand (some dark)
8- Bone Zone 3 lOYR 312 very dart: grayish brawn sandy loam throw
0' Brick rnattiing)

"F Metal Zone 4 IOYR 413 dark brown clayey sand

it - Hinge

Figure 6.15. Feature 8 (pit), Site 5442.

164

Table 6.7. Ceramic Maker's Marks and Labels from the McGowan Site.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m Maxim—W
Earnings

James Edwards (&son?) 2 1842-1882 Feature 55
James Edwards (registry) 1 1851 General Level
TJ and J Mayer 1 1843-1855 General Level
Alfred Meakin 1 1875-1897 General Level
Sebring Pottery Company 1 1887-1940 General Level
Vodrey 1 1872-1885 General Level
Glass

Ball Mason 2 1895+ General Level
Coca Cola 3 1915+ General Level
Mentholatum 1 1889+ General Level
Patent Date 1 1906+ General Level
Patent Date 1 1925+ General Level
Mml

J B Williams Co 1 1918+ General Level

 

Sources: Fike 1987; Gates and Omerod 1982; Godden 1964; Toulouse 1969.

 

165

date for this site. A high frequency of late artifacts such as machine-blown bottles and
wire nails support the early to middle twentieth century end date.

More specific chronological information from maker's marks and labels is given
below in Table 6.7. An examination of diagnostic artifacts by excavation level indicates
that the midden deposits over the site were mixed. The only contexts which date
exclusively from the Barton town period 1848—ca. 1865) were Features 8 and 55. The
middle nineteenth century position of these two features is supported by the presence of
diagnostic ceramics (transfer printed, painted, shell edged, and sponged whiteware) and
glass (empontilled bottle bases and roughly applied bottle lips). The low proportion of
broad-brush painted whiteware vessels (33% of painted) and absence of scalloped shell
edged whiteware and pearlware in these features support the primarily post 1850 use of
these features, while the lack of late nineteenth century bottle glass and ceramic decorative
forms supports a circa 1860-1870 terminal date for these features. The date range of the
two James Edwards ceramic marks found in Feature 55, 1842 to 1882, nicely brackets
the existence of Barton as a town. No chronological difference between Features 8 and
55 could be ascertained from artifact analysis. Because of the chronological complexity
of site 5442, only materials from Features 8 and 55 will be utilized in the analysis
presented below.

SITE 5444

QIH"IIEI'1D .
On the reconstructed plat of Barton, this site is in the south half of Block 10, a
residential area south of the hotel (Figure 6.3). In 1851, James Collins bought Block 15,
just south of Block 10, and may have lived there until he bought Cedar Oaks in January
1852 (Clay County Deed Book D:584). In May 1852, Collins bought several lots in
Block 10, including the south half (Clay County Deed Book D:584). The use he put this

166

site to is unknown, but he never lived there. This is the only documented transaction of
this property, and its occupation is sketchy.

The 1855 Lowndes County land roll indicates that a John Adair owned this property,
which was valued at $100. While this valuation is hot high, it is not so low as to preclude
the presence of a small dwelling. Little is known of Adair. In 1850, he was 19 years old
and in 1851 he was taxed only for his poll. He was a carpenter by trade, and by 1860 he
and his family were living in Holly Springs (Lowndes Co Property Tax Roll 1851; U.S.
Census, Lowndes County, Mississippi, 1850; U.S. Census, Marshall County,
Mississippi, 1860).

In 1857 this property was owned by James Griswold, who lived on the south half of
Block 13 (Lowndes County Land Roll 1857), No value for this property was listed. It is
possible that James Griswold's brother Fedum lived on this site. In 1860 this house site
was occupied by the W. J. and Betsy Rodgers family (U .8. Census 1860). They had
lived in Mississippi since at least 1840 and in 1850 resided about five miles west of
Barton. By 1860, when they were living in Barton, William J. was listed as a Negro
manager with $100 of personal estate and no real estate. Their household consisted of
William J ., aged 50; Betsy, aged 52; their children John, aged nine; Martha, aged seven;
Margaret, aged six; and Susan, aged four; and W. R. Siles, aged 20 and listed as a farm
laborers Nothing more is known of the family, and they seem not to have remained in
Barton through the 18608 (U.S. Census 1850, 1860). Little is known of this site after

this time.

Em

Seven units (28 square meters) were excavated here during Phases I and II. These
were placed in a dispersed fashion over the site, and three features, a chimney base and
two post holes, were located. The Phase 111 sample frame (100 square meters) was
designed primarily to investigate the area immediately surrounding the chimney base with

167

a goal of locating additional structural features (Figure 6.16). Units were also placed in
the general yard area to the north, west, and south to investigate refuse disposal patterns
and find additional features. All units at this site were excavated in arbitrary 10 cm levels,
and all of the soil was excavated with shovels and passed through a quarter-inch mesh

wire screen.

Warner

The only feature definitely associated with the dwelling is a chimney base (Feature 16)
one course thick and measuring 1.34 m (EJW) by 90 cm (N/S) (Figure 6.17). It has a
single firebox at the southern end. Fom' post holes in fairly close proximity to the
chimney are roughly rectangular and approximately the same size (20-24 cm in diameter).
The location of these posts suggests the presence of a room or shed on the north side of
the dwelling. Another possible structural feature, Feature 48, was located in the south-
central portion and consisted of a large (2 m x 2 m) pile of brick rubble (Figure 6.16).
This feature may have been a brick dump, but it may also have been part of a chimney
fall, possibly associated with a chimney at the southern end of the house.

Artifactaandshmnalm

A total of 5,319 artifacts (excluding brick and mineral] composite] miscellaneous) was
recovered from this site. This assemblage contained a very high percentage of metal
(primarily nails, 57.5%) and a low proportion of ceramics, due to the location of the
excavation sample primarily in the area of the structure (Figure 6.16). It is interesting that
the great frequency of nails is not matched by the other major structural artifact type,
window glass (5%), which may suggest a low frequency of glass panes in this structure.

Like at site 5442, the diagnostic artifacts (including a lack of pearlware and scalloped
shell edged whiteware) from this site suggest that its occupation occurred primarily during
the 18503 and 18605. The presence of a Thomas Booth ceramic mark (T able 6.8) and the

168

 

 

"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I

I... .0-
. .

I”
I-Z- 2-t
O'l' a n 1'.

\

Feature ee

nssq

0“-
E
a s a-
Site 5444
0 Hidden

0 Brick Scatter

 

Figure 6.16. Site 5444, Excavation Plan.

 

169

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

Area 6
.1.
D E
Area 2
Area 4
Feature )6
Area 3 ' . ‘ ‘-
& Area l
Area I lOYR 613 pale brown sandy loam 0' 20' cm

Area 2 7.5 YR 4/6 mottled with IO YR 614 (AZ-BI Horizon interface)
Area 3 IO YR 614 light yellowish brown sandy loam (A2 Horizon)
Area 4 7.5 YR 416 strong brown sandy clayi Bl Horizon)

Area 5 some as area 2

Area 6 2.5 YR 316 red silty clay ( 82 Horizon)

Feature 16 brick foundation .
Feature 19 post hole IOYR 614 light yellow brown sandy clay

Feature 20 post hole )0 YR 614 light yellow brown sandy clay

Figure 6.17. Feature 16 (chimney), Site 5444.

170

Table 6.8. Ceramic Maker's Marks from the Adair-Rogers Site.

 

 

 

 

m Hummi—M—W W
James Edwards (& Sons?) 2 1842-1882 1862 Gen. Level
Thomas Booth & Co 1 1868-1872 1870 Gen. Level

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sources: Godden 1964.

token stamped "Reissued June 20, 1868" indicates that this site was occupied into the
very late 1860s or 18708. This probably reflects the continued use of this site as a
residence for farmers or tenants, a pattern which began as early as 1860 with the Rogers

family.

SITE 5445

 

This house site was the residence of two Barton merchants, Peter Warren and A. B.
Duling, and their families. Both families moved to Barton from Colbert. A. B. Duling
was the last mayor of Barton, and he and his family are also associated with site 5442.

Peter Warren was born in Rhode Island around 1780 and was living in Colbert by
1837. In 1839 he married Sarah Ann McBee, daughter of Vardry McBee. Both Sarah
McBee and Peter Warren had come to Mississippi from South Carolina, where Peter left
several grown daughters.

Peter, who had a small mercantile business at Colbert , moved to Barton in 1848 and

continued a moderate business on Lot 1, Block 2, until 1853 (Way and McBride 1983).

171

His sales were $2,000 in 1851 and $1,500 in 1852, but there was nothing listed
thereafter. The Warren household in 1850 consisted of Peter, aged 70, his wife Ann
(Sarah Ann), aged 60, and his daughter Sarah, aged 37 (U .8. Census 1850). At
Warren's estate auction in 1857, J. M. Collins purchased his store lot for $117.25 and
gave it to the Barton Christian Church trustees (Lowndes County Property Tax Rolls,
1851-2; Lowndes County Estate File 913; McBride and McBride 1983).

In the 1850 census, Peter's worth was listed at $800 of real estate and eleven slaves.
In 1851 he was taxed for two carriages, one watch, and nine slaves; by 1852 his slaves
had increased to ten and in 1853 to eleven. Estate appraisers valued the Warren house
and Block 18 at $400 in 1857; they were sold to Mary R. Duling, wife of Augustine B.,
at auction for $300 (Clay County Deed Book F:592-593). Warren had paid $50.00 for
Block 18. In the agricultural schedule of the 1850 census he is listed as having a farm of
ten improved acres and sixty unimproved acres, worth $100 (Lowndes County Property
Tax Rolls 1851-53; Lowndes County Estate File 913).

In 1857, the Dulings moved from site 5442 to this site. In 1858, Augustine B.
Duling was mayor and his son Augustine H. constable of Barton. In the 1860 census,
they were listed as having $1,000 of real property and $1,000 of personal property. The
Duling household in 1860 consisted of Augustine B., then aged 49, his wife Mary, aged
48, son Augustine, aged 23, and daughter Mary, aged 17. There are no further
transactions at the townsite for Mary R. Duling, and she does not appear in the 1870

census as living there. Sometime between 1860 and 1870 this site was abandoned.

mutton

During Phases I and H, 15 units (60 square meters), evenly dispersed over much of
the site, were excavated (Figure 6.18). Unfortunately, only one feature was uncovered, a
refuse pit. A total of 132 square meters was excavated during Phase III, bringing the total

to 192 square meters, Excavation methods for the testing and data recovery phases were

172

 

z—"

:22:
IOm

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘ uzsog
§\\\ E360 I 1
' I
I! ’ N
I
I r
m , ,
’21 I I
H , .
CZ] :— I l
l I
I
‘1 ,1 . [:1 a
I
I

D P— '—-i I : D
—— h—i I .
1... L1 ‘ ,'

 

 

 

 

 

 

& midden

 

Figure 6.18. Site 5445, Excavation Plan.

173

basically the same. During both, units were excavated in arbitrary 10 cm levels, and all

excavated soil was passed through quarter-inch mesh wire screens.

Ecamres
The only features discovered at this site were an irregularly shaped trash pit (Feature

21) located at N236 E346, approximately 2.5 m in diameter and 32 cm in depth and a
brick-lined well (Feature 30) (Figure 6.18). The shape of the pit suggests it was a natural
depression rather than an excavated pit. The well, which was located southeast of Feature
21, was about 15 ft deep and brick-lined.

W

The site produced 11,458 artifacts, excluding brick and
mineral/composite/miscellaneous items. These included a large number of cut nails,
ceramics, and bottle glass. The refuse pit (Feature 21) contained 1505 artifacts, including
a large quantity of bone and shell, bricks, bottle glass, ceramics, and machine cut nails.
Although no structural features were located, a large concentration of window glass in
Unit 59, approximately 20 m north of the well, suggests that the dwelling was located in
this area, possibly under the present road.

The diagnostic ceramics and glass from this site supports its documented middle
nineteenth century date. The low frequency (two) and percentage (2.3% of shell edged)
of scalloped shell edged whiteware, and the low percentage of broad-brush painted
whiteware sherds (39% of painted) support the ca. 1848 beginning date. The presence
but low frequency (six) and percentage (6.8% of shell edged) of painted-only shell edged
whiteware supports the early to middle 1860s and date (Miller n.d.). The date ranges of
the three identified ceramic manufacturer's marks also support the general middle
nineteenth century date range (Table 6.9).

174

Table 6.9. Ceramic Maker's Marks from the Warren-Duling Site.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mannfamrcr alumna: gum; Medan meeniencc
James Edwards (& Sons?) 2 1842-1882 1862 Gen. Level
TJ and J Mayer 1 1843—1855 1849 Gen. Level

 

Sources: Godden 1964.

SITE 5447

Gill'llll'lfl .
Site 5447 was a house site occupied first by a physician and then by a lawyer.

Located on the reconstructed plat of Barton in the north half of Block 13, north of site
5448, this block was first sold by H. S. Bennett, trustee, to Martha L. Debrill in February
1852 (Clay County Deed Book D:576-577) (Figure 6.3). The 1850 census suggests that
Martha and Matthew had been living at the site since 1850. This later recording of the
land transaction was a common pattern at both Colbert and Barton. Matthew was listed as
a physician with $900 worth of real estate. The other members of the household included
his wife Martha L., and William Leftwich Capshaw, aged seven and born in Mississippi.
Matthew was not listed in the 1851 Lowndes County Personal Property Roll but Mrs.
Debrill appears in 1852, being taxed for one poll for the household; neither appears in
1853. It is likely that Matthew Debrill died in the early 18508, as he was not a party to the
1852 deed mentioned above. (Clay County Deed Book:D.576-577; U.S. Census 1850).
During of shortly after 1852, Martha L. Hill Debrill married James M. Capshaw.
After their marriage, Martha and James probably resided in the house on the north half of

175

Block 13; James Capshaw had other property in Barton but no other parcels in the
probable residential areas. He was assessed in the property rolls for one watch, one
clock, one piano, one slave, and one poll in 1853, and in 1857 for the same property plus
the addition of another slave. He is thought to have continued his law business in Barton
and may also have acted as a cotton agent. By 1859 Martha and James Capshaw had
moved to Texas, and James's partner, Benjamin F. Capshaw, had moved to West Point
(McBride and McBride 1983).

Little is known of the next owners, Caroline S. and George W. Gage. By January
1864, when Caroline Gage sold the site, she was living in Monroe County and signed the
deed as C. S. Freeman, her married name before her marriage to G. W. Gage (Clay
County Deed Book E:567). It is not known whether the Georges ever resided on this
site. During the latter half of the 18608, this block changed hands a number of times, but
given its description and Value it is unlikely that it was used as a residence or even

contained a house. (McBride and McBride 1983:217).

Emma

A total of 114 square meters was excavated (25 2 x 2 m units and three trenches) at
this site (Figure 6.19) . Unfortunately, no structural or refuse filled features were found
through excavations, although a dense sheet refuse area was found on the eastern slope of
the site. Excavation methodology remained consistent throughout the testing and
mitigation phases; all units were excavated in arbitrary 10 cm levels, and all soil was

passed through a quarter-inch mesh wire screen.

Ecatures

The only feature located at this site, Feature 31, was a brick-lined well. This well is
20 ft deep. Whether it is associated with Site 5447, 5448, or was used by a number of

sites simultaneously is unclear.

176

SE Seesaw seen 2% .2e 23E

 

 

5%; \\

as + D
8»:
D 3.03 33.6.

§ D E.
D 0

im... as S a

age a

s\\‘
8%

So. n o

 

 

 

l 7 7

W28!

Excavations at this site produced 3,041 artifacts, the lowest number of any Barton
site. These artifacts included a large proportion of ceramics, nails, window glass, and
bottle glass. The window glass was concentrated in two units in the west central side of
the site, which may have been the locale of the dwelling.

The diagnostic ceramics, again including transfer printed, floral painted, shell edged,
and slipped whitewares; and glass, including roughly applied bottle lips and empontilled
bases, support the site's middle nineteenth century position. The presence but low
frequency (three) and percentage (15% of shell edged) of painted-only shell edged wares
supports a late 18508 or 18608 and date for this site. The percentage (36% of painted) of
broad brush painted whiteware sherds is similar to the other Barton sites and lower than
the Colbert sites, and therefore supports the documented beginning date for this site.

Unfortunately, no ceramic maker's marks were recovered from this site.

SITE 5448

Gill'llil'lfl .
This siteislocatedinthesouth halfof Block 13 of the Barton plat (Figure 6.3).

During the initial sales of blocks and lots in 1851-1852, trustee Hendley S. Bennett sold
this half block to James H. Griswold in November 1852, along with Block 20 and Strip
1. Griswold retained the property until January 1858, when he was known to be
"planting" about five miles from Barton, and this site was probably his residence from
1852 to 1858. He had married Anna M. Young, the daughter of nearby planter Wade
Young, in 1850, and James and Anna were said to have had considerable property in
slaves through Wade's estate (Clay County Deed Book F:462-3; Monroe County
Marriage Book 1850:10).

178

Griswold was originally from New England. In Barton, he took over the business of
Robert McGowan and with his brother, Fedum Griswold, expanded from a single store
to a daguerreotype studio, mill, blacksmith shop, and ferry. James owned various
parcels in the business district and some land on the east bank of the river across from
Barton (Dun and Co Agent's Reports, Vol. 14:8, 37).

James Griswold was probably one of the wealthier Barton residents. In 1851 he was
taxed for one carriage, one horse, one piano, and eight slaves; in 1852 he was also taxed
for the Barton Ferry, valued at $750; merchandise sales for that year were about $6,000.
There was little change in 1853, when the personal roll listed his sales at $5,000. By
1854 R. G. Dun and Company estimated the sales at $7,282. In 1857 Griswold was still
taxed for one carriage and one piano, hi8 slaves had increased to nine (Lowndes County
Property Tax Rolls 1851-3, 1857; Dun and Company Agents Reports, Vol 14:8).

The Griswolds sold the south half of Block 13, along with Strip 1 and Block 20, to
Mary E. Hanks in January 1858 for $400 (Clay County Deed Book E:462-463). Mary
Hanks had just sold the hotel property to E. A. Atkinson, and she probably moved her
family to this residence. Her household in 1860 consisted of herself, two daughters and a
son. She is listed in the 1860 census as having $200 worth of real estate and $200 worth
of personal property. Agrissa Hanks had been taxed in 1857 for one piano, one clock,
and two slaves. In 1859 Mrs. Hanks was taxed for one piano and two slaves. In
January 1860 she sold this site and several other parcels for $210 to Robert Ussery and
seems to have moved back to the western side of town (Clay County Deed Book E:462-3,
510; Lowndes County Property Tax Rolls 1857, 1859).

Robert Ussery appears in the 1860 census on the eastern side of Barton. In 1860 he
was 56 years old, and minister of the Christian Church. The Ussery household included
Robert, his wife Betsy, and three children. They were listed in 1860 as having $100
worth of real estate and $1,500 of personal estate. By 1864, when he sold his Barton
property, he was living in Monroe county (Clay County Deed Book E:578).

179

Robert Ussery sold the south half of Block 13, along with Black 12, Block 20, Block
29, and Strip 1, to Susan Littleton in February 1864 (Clay County Deed Book E:578).
The price for this land, which must have been about 15 acres, was $800. Susan Littleton
was married to Tatum Littleton, and by 1860 site owned and was running the Barton
Ferry, having purchased it from J. Hicks after the dispute and court case of 1858-1859
(McBride and McBride 1983:225).

Tatum and Susan may have moved to Site 5448 in 1864, but most likely they only
used the house during times of high water, living most of the time at the ferry house as
later operators did. The Littleton household in 1860 consisted of Tatum, Susan, and two
children. They had one slave. By the time Susan bought site 5448, however, Tatum was
dead. Two months after she purchased this block, Susan Littleton married N. J. Yates,
and they continued to live near and run the Barton Ferry. Little is known about Yates
before his marriage to Susan. In 1870 N. J. Yates was listed in the federal census as the
ferryman and Susan as keeping house. She was listed with $1,000 of real estate and
$3,000 of personal estate. Susan's children Montie and Ada were living with them as
were N. J. and Susan's two children. Susan sold the Barton ferry and property in 1894,
having held it for 34 years. She was then 64 years old (McBride and McBride 1983:226;
Clay County Deed Book 24:593).

From the Littleton period until the 19308, Site 5448 was always associated with the
Barton Ferry property. From 1895 to the 19308 the Ferry went through a number of
owners, including F. A. Sharp (1895-1906), Daniel and Annie Cogdell (1906-1913), Jan
Uithoven (1913-1919), and Zack Ellis (1919+). During this period the house on Site
5448 seemed to have been utilized intermittently a8 a haven from high water by the ferry
operators, or rented to farmers. Some of the known occupants include March
Montgomery (ca. 1900), Barney Cogdell (ca. 1909), Tom and Flora Keller (ca. 1920) and
Joe Harris (ca. 1925). The house evidently collapsed between the late 19308 and early
19408 (McClurken and Anderson 1981).

180

Excavation

This site was one of two sites (including Cedar Oaks) chosen for intensive testing
during the first two phases of the Michigan State University project. By the end of Phase
II, 108 square meters, or 29 units (25 2 x 2 m units and four 1 x 2 m units), had been
excavated. In Phase III, an additional 720 square meters was excavated.

Excavation methods at this site were significantly different during the testing and data
recovery phases. During Phases I and II, excavation was done by natural or cultural
stratigraphic levels. Although this method was used successfully at Cedar Oaks , the
stratigraphy at the Highwater House did not have the integrity of the Cedar Oaks
stratigraphy because of heavy cultivation. The only remaining cultural middens were
located just east of the chimney base and on the eastern ridge edge near Feature 1 (Figure
6.20). Because of the greater effort involved and limited results of this method, it was
not continued in Phase III. At this time, excavation was done by arbitrary 10 cm levels.
In Phase III, as in the previous two phases, all excavated soil was passed through

quarter-inch mesh wire screens.

W
The only archaeologically visible remnants of the dwelling at this site were a chimney

base (Feature 2) and 18 charred board remains (Feature 4) (Figures 6.20 and 6.21). The
chimney base was fairly large, measuring 1.7 m (E/W) by 1.4 m (N/S) and seven courses
in height. It is unique for Barton since it had two fireboxes, one on the north and south
ends, respectively. Oral testimony indicates that this chimney was located in the center of
the structure, the usual placement for a "double" or "stack" chimney (McClurken and
Anderson 1981) This type of dwelling is usually referred to as a saddlebag house (Wilson
1975:44). Unfortunately, there were no piers or driplines to aid in the reconstruction of

the dwelling size, but the structure does appear on 1937 U.S. Army Air Service aerial

181

 

N250

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

£600 1
max. Feature 1, Hearth
l .
l ' : ,
":3" \ "
'I' ' .I
‘ r54
rt.
- r2
l
Ridden 233+
to in

Figure 6.20. Site 5448, Excavation Plan.

 

182

 

 

IOYR 313 mottled with
IOYR 614 satay loam rem 5/3 my loan IOYR 614 sandy loam

 

 

m & I [-3
11111111211141» .....
I e:- %’ a WWW

 

Figure 6.21. Feature 2 (chimney), Site 5448.

 

183

photographs. From these photographs, it appears that the structure was approximately 36
ft (N/S) by 13 ft (E/W).

This site is the only Barton site, other than Cedar Oaks, which contained definite
archaeological evidence of an outbuilding. This structure (Feature 1), located on the
eastern edge of the ridgetop, consisted of a rectangular recessed area (4.1 x 2.3 m and 20
cm Mp) with a deep (32 cm) brick-filled depression (Subfeature 10) on its northern end.
It was surrounded by four post holes (Subfeatures 4, 5, 7, and 9) and a brick wall
remnant. A linear scatter of brick to the east also was associated with this structure
(Figure 6.20). The exact function of Feature 1 is unclear, but the artifact assemblage and
structure configuration are not inconsistent with a smokehouse. The high quantity of
bone is especially suggestive of some kind of food preparation or processing, and the
brick-filled depression to the north is probably the remains of a smudge pit for smoking.

cheLEeatnres
A deep unlined well (Feature 3) was discovered approximately 6 m north of the

dwelling (12 m north of the chimney) (Figures 6.20 and 6.22). At its top the feature was
roughly oval and measured 2 m by 1.8 m. Excavation continued until 5.5 m below
surface, although this was not the base; excavation was stopped due to constricted space
and danger of collapse. Caring determined that the well extended another 1.04 m, for a
total depth of 6.54 m (21.5 ft) below surface.

W

A total of 38,605 artifacts were recovered from this site, the largest density of any
Barton site. Of these, 19,792 were nails, not surprising since this house burned down
and an outbuilding was also present. The proportion of refined ceramics is very low,
although there frequency is high (1634). The number of unmodified bone (979) are high;

the majority of these were recovered from Feature 3 and the "smokehouse" area. The

184

I27. .
sen West her-re North Drotue sea
s

I IN
. ‘ usso use 4

' I S" I '7‘
\¢ i '

 

 

r
‘Iries I l o
0"“ t
cure-re
‘Ietttsetess

 

 

SOILS
I o l

A-DYR 413 Don Ira-n Sandy Learn
and Remus
l-DYRSMYIlo'ish SrwnSondyLearn ?
C- DYR 614 Light Yetta-rah Iron Sandy

l
Lon-ruins With 7.5YR4163treng K
Ire-n Sandy crey

D-DYR 414 Dara Yeas-lee rerun Sandy L
Lee-i

r
l- 7. 6 YR 416 Strong Ira-n Sandy Clay x

to SYN SIS Yellaeleh Rea Silty Clay 6
F- IOYR 313 Oars are-n Sandy Learn

and Charcoal

6- tOYR 314 Oars Yetta-ran Ira-n Sandy
Learn

H- lOYI4/6 Valle-id Irawn Sandy Clay

I- raves/s Very Pele Ire-elite“ heeled)
m L600 '1'. 7.3V. SIC Strain Ira-n
Sandy Clay Mattias.

J- 25 "51‘ Red Silly Clay

R- IOYR 412 Dan Creyieh Drawn Sandy Learn
L- ISYRI/I hoaaisn Yele- Sllty Clay

P
r

 

llll

 

 

 

 

Limit et
(Mien

Figure 6.22. Feature 3 (well), Site 5448.

185

amount of bottle glass and table ware is also dense, especially outside the features. The
earlier bottle fragments and ceramics tend to be concentrated on the eastern slope, the
"smokehouse" area, and in the lower levels of Feature 3.

The diagnostic artifacts recovered from Site 5448 support its documented middle
nineteenth to early twentieth century occupation. The marked or labelled artifacts, which
are listed in Table 6.10, suggest a date range from the middle nineteenth century to 1933.

The long occupation of this site, like that of site 5442, presents problems for
consumption analysis. Strata within units and features were examined to determine if
shorter, and particularly middle nineteenth century, deposits could be identified. This
analysis resulted in the identification of three areas of middle nineteenth century deposits:
1) the Feature 1, including the eastern slope, below Level 1; 2) Feature 54; and 3) Feature
3 below Level 17.

The well, Feature 3, seemed to have been filled primarily in two phases in the middle
nineteenth century. First, in the middle nineteenth century, the lower three and a half
meters of the well were filled with refuse and soil and capped with hard packed silty
loam. Later, in the early twentieth century, well fill evidently sltu'nped and another meter
of refuse and soil was added. The break between the two deposition episodes is very
distinct, both in terms of stratigraphy and material culture.

The three middle nineteenth century deposits were identified by the presence of
diagnostic ceramics (transfer printed, floral painted, sponged, shell edged, and slipped
whiteware), and glass (roughly applied bottle lips and empontilled bases). The ceramic
maker's marks from these three deposits also supports roughly middle nineteenth century
designation (Table 6.11), as does the Louisville Glass Works bottle (Table 6.10). No
definite chronological difference could be seen between these three areas or features, so

they will be utilized together as the sample from this site for the consumption analysis.

186

Table 6.10. Ceramic Maker's Marks and Labels from the Griswold Site.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

M WWW
Qmmics

Booths 2 1891-1906 Feat. 3, Level 9, 13
James Edwards & son 2 1842-1882 Feature 55

John Edwards (registry) 2 1880-1900 General Level
Jacob Fumival & Co 1 1845-1870 Feature 54

Edwin M. Knowles 1 1900-1948 Feature 3, Level 9
Homer Laughlin 1 1873+ General Level
Homer Laughlin 2 1933 General Level

J. W. Pankhurst 1 1850-1882 Feature 3, Level 45
John Wedge Wood 1 1841-1860 Feature 3, Level 51
film .
Louisville Glass Works 1 1855-1873 Feature 3, Level 39
Owen's Bottle Co 1 1911-1929 General Level
Swayzee's Improved Mason 2 1894-1903 Feat. 3, Level 9, 12
Metal

Stamped Buckle 1 1879+ Feature 3, Level 12

 

 

Sources: Gates and Omerod 1982; Godden 1964; Toulouse 1969, 1971.

 

187

Table 6.11. Ceramic Maker's Marks from the Early Griswold Site.

 

 

James Edwards (& Sons?) 2 1842-1882 1862 Feat 1, Lev 2,
E. Slope, Lev. 6

Jacob Fumival & Co 1 1845-1870 1857.5 Feature 54

J W Pankhurst 1 1850-1882 1866 Feat. 3, Lev 45

John WedLeWood 1 1841-1860 1850.5 Feat. 3, Lev. 51

 

 

 

Sources: Godden 1964.

W

The first hypothesis (Hypothesis 18) to be tested in this chapter states that because of
economic prosperity (higher income), easy credit, and optimism, much more lavish
consumption of material goods, especially luxuries and durables, both absolutely and
relative to socioeconomic status should have been present during the boom period of the
18308 compared to the depression or even the recovery phase. The second hypothesis
(Hypothesis 19) on consumption patterns states that while consumption of material
goods, particularly of luxuries an durables, should have increased during the recovery
period relative to the depression, the consumption level should not be as great as that of
the boom for most citizens. These hypotheses will first be examined with documentary
records and then with archaeological data.

188
C . [5 ll 1 1'

The sales of merchandise in Lowndes County will be utilized as the first examination
of the above hypotheses. This test cannot examine the consumption of specific types of
goods or consumption patterns relative to socioeconomic wealth, but rather consumption
of all merchandise by all people. This examination, therefore, is not as precise an
examination as would be liked, but it should give an overall illustration of changes in
consumption patterns.

Both per-capita and per-acre measures of consumption will be utilized in this analysis.
The per-acre measurement is used in order to examine consumption by wealth. Acreage
is commonly used as a proxy for wealth, given the agrarian values of antebellum
Southerners (Wright 1978, see also Chapter 4 above). Slaves, the other common
measure of Southern wealth, will not be used in this case since slaves were also
consumers. The first test implication for the consumption hypotheses is that the per-
capita and per-acre expenditures on merchandise in Lowndes County should be greater in
the boom of the 18308 than the bust of the 18408. The second test implications is that the
per-capita and per-acre expenditures on merchandise should be greater in the boom of the
18308 than the recovery of the 18508. The third test implication is that the per-capita and
per-acre expenditures on merchandise in the recovery of the 18508 should be greater titan
that of the depression of the 18408. Per-capita expenditures will be calculated for the total
population and the free population. Both of these are calculated since, even though slaves
rarely bought merchandise, a certain amount of merchandise, particularly clothing and
cloth, was bought for slaves.

The 1836 and 1837 Lowndes County Tax Rolls and the 1837 Mississippi State
Census are utilized to calculate per-capita and per-acre consumption during the boom
years of 1836 and 1837. The 1840 Federal Census and the 1840 Lowndes County Tax
Roll are utilized to examine the bust of the early 18408 (1840 and 1842). The 1850

189

Federal Census is used for the early recovery years of 1850 and 1852, while the 1860

Federal Census was used to compare to the 1858 merchandise sales.

Table 6.12 presents the per—capita and per-acre consumption of merchandise in

Lowndes County for selected years. The per-capita and per-acre ratios strongly support

the test implications that there was a greater expenditm'e on merchandise in the boom of
the 18308 and the recovery of the 18508 than in the depression of the 18408. The drop

between 1837 and 1840 was particularly exaggerated The lower rate in 1837 relative to
1836 is certainly related to the Panic of 1837, which occurred in the latter part of that

year. The comparison between the 18308 and 18508 also supports the test implication

that there was more per-capita and per-acre expenditures during the boom than the

recovery. The great difference between the 1836 and 1837 pre-acre ratios and the others

suggest a much greater level of merchandise consumption relative to wealth in the boom.

Table 6.12. Purchasing Patterns of Lowndes County Merchandise.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Merchandise Population Per-capita Acres Per-acre

YEAR Sold expenditure

1836 631,292 12,864 49.07 42,934 14.7
1837 596,220 12,864 46.35 46,338 12.87
1840 357,169 14,513 24.61 203,040 1.76
1842 302,855 14,513 20.86 203,040 1.49
1850 537,131 19,544 27.48 293,310 1.83
1852 689,374 19,544 35.27 293,310 2.35
1858 814,602 23,625 34.48 330,925 2.46

 

Sources: Lowndes County Property Rolls, 1836-1859; Mississippi State Census, 1837;
U.S. Census of Population and Agriculture (1840, 1850, 1860).

 

190
El I'lE ..

This study now turns to the archaeological testing of Hypotheses 18 and 19. As was
noted above, the archaeological data can present a picture of individual household, at at

least site, consumption patterns, which is unavailable in the county tax rolls.

Work

The artifact group utilized to test these hypotheses is refined ceramics. Ceramics
possess a number of characteristics which makes them particularly appropriate for this
analysis. There is a great range in price among ceramics of different decorative and paste
types. The more expensive varieties, such as porcelain and certain decorated
earthenware, can certainly be classified as luxuries.

Ceramics are particularly useful for consumption and status analysis because they fall
not only within Binford's (1962) technomic category, but also within the sociotechnic
sphere. The form, decoration type, and even paste or glaze type of ceramics can convey
information about social status. In fact, some ceramic forms (i.e., tea services) were used
explicitly as status display items (Roth 1961).

There are also three very practical reasons why ceramics lend themselves well for
archaeological analysis of consumption. First, as can be seen in the above site
descriptions, they are found in large quantities. Other luxury artifacts, such as personal
adornment items (rings, earrings, brooches, etc.) were not found in a large enough
quantity for meaningful analysis. Second, ceramics can be dated relatively well, and
third, through the research of George Miller (1980; 1991) the prices of different ceramic
forms and decorative types are known for various years within the nineteenth century.

Miller has taken the ceramic price data from potters' price lists, bills of lading, and
importers' account books and created relative price index values for the different

decorative and paste types by year. These index values illustrate the relative cost

191

differences of the different ceramic types. The average relative value for archaeological
assemblages then can be calculated to create a mean ceramic price index value (Miller
1980; 1991). Calculating these mean index values allows sites to be sealed in terms of
expenditures on ceramics. Variation in ceramic consumption patterns can then be
investigated relative to factors such as socioeconomic status or wealth, ethnicity,
transportation, economic conditions, etc. Previous studies have demonstrated a close
correlation between mean index values and socioeconomic status (see Spencer-Wood
1987a). Archaeological studies have also correlated mean index value variability with
market access (Lees and Kimery-Lees 1984; Miller and Hurry 1983). This ceramic price
index will be utilized to examine consumption at Colbert and Barton.
Miller defined four main price groups for refined white earthenware. These are, from
cheapest to most expensive:
1. Plain, Cream-Colored ware (CC)
2. Minimal decoration - shell edged, banded, sponged, and slipped
3. Painted Floral or Geometric Motif
4. Transfer Printed
The price differentials between these groups can be considerable, with transfer-printed
being up to five times as expensive as C.C. ware (Miller 1980:30). For sites occupied in
the middle nineteenth century and later, white granite or ironstone, should be added as a
fifth group. It was generally at a price equal to that of transfer-printed white earthenware
(Miller 1980:4). A sixth group of refined ceramics, porcelain, should be added as the
final and most expensive group.
Since the price of different decorative types relative to CC changes over time, the
index year chosen can be very important to the analysis. What one is trying to identify is
the year closest to the purchase date of a majority of a given ceramic assemblage. The

most common date chosen is the mean documented date of the site in question (see

192

Spencer-Wood 1987a, 1987b). This is the system utilized here. The mean date for
Colbert i8 1841.5 while the mean date for Barton is ca. 1855.

In Miller's (1991) revised and expanded index, which is used in this study, three
years approximating Colbert's existence, 1833, 1838, and 1846, have relatively complete
index values. The 1838 date falls closest to the Colbert mean date and this index will
therefore be utilized. The 1846 index will also be utilized to examine the Colbert features
which appear to have been deposited primarily in the latter half of the town's existence.
For the Barton sites, the 1855/1856 index was used since it falls near the mean data of
the town.

These dates are likely a good approximation of the purchasing dates for the ceramics
of the two towns. Although some time-lag between purchasing an deposition certainly
occurred, it is probably not great enough to bias the results. For instance, the very high
proportion of whiteware (85—97% of sherds, 75-95% of vessels) as opposed to
creamware and pearlware at Colbert suggest that most of the refined earthenware was
bought after 1830 (see discussion on site chronology above). The fact that the 18208 and
early 18308 was a recession and that many Colbert residents travelled long distances in
their move to the town suggests that only a small proportion of these ceramics would have
been purchased before the middle 18308.

The same pattern was probably true at Barton, although supporting data is not as
strong. The very low proportion of scalloped shell edged whiteware at Barton (0-20% of
shell edged sherds), when compared to even the later Colbert deposits (where it made up
70 to 100% of the shell edged sherds), suggests that most ceramics were probably bought
in the late 18408 or 18508 (Miller 1991). The fact that none of the ceramic maker's
marks from the Barton assemblage are present in the Colbert assemblage also suggests
that limited overlap in purchasing occurred between these two assemblages. This makes

sense since Colbert residents moving up to Barton likely lost much of there ceramics in

193

the flood of 1847, given its severity. New migrants into the area probably also bought a
large proportion of their ceramics after their arrival at the town.

Ceramic vessel counts will be utilized in this analysis since they present a more
accurate reflection of the ceramics used than do sherd counts (see Spencer-Wood 1987b).
Shard counts tend to greatly overestimate the number of undecorated ceramics, since even
many decorated vessels contained mostly undecorated surfaces.

Minimum vessel counts were calculated primarily through the use of rim-sherds.
Some body or base—sherds were also utilized, however, if their decoration precluded them
from matching up with any of the rims. Since many of the sherds recovered from these
sites were very fragmentary, close comparisons with a comparative collection of middle
nineteenth vessels were conducted to identify vessel forms.

A few compromises or approximations were also made with Miller's values. For
plates and cups, he lists numerous values for each year based on such factors as vessel
size, thickness, shape, and whether they had handles. Since these could usually not be
determined from the sherds, these values were simply averaged together. This adjustment
is a common means of using this system (Garrow 1987; Spencer-Wood and Heberling
1987; Spencer-Wood 1987b). Also, on some forms or types, no value was given for the
years utilized. In these cases, the value was interpolated using the yearly value closest to
it or by using some general conclusions made by Miller (1980). These latter conclusions
include the statement that ironstone was usually at a price about the same of transfer
printed and that flow printed was usually about 20% more than regular transfer printed
(Miller 1980:32). Again, these are estimations utilized in previous studies (Garrow 1987;
Spencer-Wood 1987b).

In his original article, Miller (1980:11) found that the price of CC ware was relatively
stable throughout the first half of the nineteenth century. This meant that index values
(which are set relative to CC) for different years and site dating from different periods,
could be compared without complications. His most recent analysis (Miller 1991) has

194

shown that the price of CC ware did fluctuate over time. In general, the price of CC
declined from the early to middle nineteenth century (Miller 1991: 2-3). One must
therefore remember this and maintain caution when comparing the ceramic values for
widely separated years. Given the price decline, the ceramic price indexes for the earlier
Colbert deposits probably underestimate their difference from the later Colbert and Barton
deposits since for all index years, the price of CC is held constant.

One problem with the testing of the boom-bust-recovery hypotheses is the need for
short, tightly dated deposits. It is fortunate that most sites at Colbert and Barton had
relatively short occupations (10 to 16 years). Even this length of occupation causes
problems, however, particularly at Colbert which spanned both the boom and the bust.
Fortunately, there are two features at Colbert, Site A (Allen Site): Features 16 and 3, and
three feature areas at the Warren Site (East Feature area and West Feature Areas 1 and 2)
which tend to date somewhat later and earlier, respectively, than the overall site deposits
(see above). These features and feature areas will be compared to each other to examine
changing consumption patterns at Colbert. Since the feature areas of the Warren site, and
the Allen features, are undoubtedly somewhat mixed with 18308 and 18408 purchased
materials, these comparisons should be viewed as consumption trends from the boom to
the end of the bust rather than absolute boom and bust differences. Comparing a "bust"
deposit with Barton material will therefore be especially problematic.

The first test implication is that a higher ceramic price index should be present in the
generally earlier Colbert deposits (Feature 3, Allen Site; West Feature Areas 1 and 2,
Warren Site) than at the later Colbert deposits at these sites (Feature 16, Allen Site; East
Feature Area, Warren Site). Also, the difference in the index values from the different
deposits within each site should not be better explained by other variables, such as the
turnover of these properties to a person of a lower socioeconomic level.

Tables 6.13 and 6.14 present mean ceramic index values. Table 6.13 presents the

mean ceramic index values for the separate deposits at the Allen and Warren sites, using

195

Table 6.13. Mean Ceramic Index Values of Separate Colbert Deposits.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Provenience Date Range Mean Ceramic IndEx
Value

Allen Site (Feature 3) 1836-ca.1842 7.65

Allen Site (Feature 16) ca. 1840-1847 2.31

Warren Site (West Half) 1837-ca. 1849 2.53

Warren Site (East Half) ca. 1842-1847 2.06

 

Table 6.14. Feature 16 and Warren Site, Mean Ceramic Index Values (1846).

 

venience I Date Range Mean Ceramic Index
Value

Aflen Site eature 1 [ca 1840-1847 I272 l
I Warren Sue (East H3) lca. 1840-T847 | 1.8T ]

the 1838 indexes (see Appendixes for actual calculations). The index value for the later

 

 

 

Allen feature, Feature 16, is 12% lower than the value for Feature 3. The East Feature
Area of the Warren site is 18.6% lower than the West Feature Area of that site. These
results strongly support the first test implication. The strength of this difference in index
values is especially impressive since all of these deposits are somewhat mixed. In Table
6.14 the mean index values are calculated for the two later Colbert deposits using the
1846 index. Using this index creates even greater difference from earlier deposits.
Although it is impossible to determine the exact date range for these features, the 1846
index is probably more accurate for the later features than the 1838 index.

Assessing the significance of index value variability has not received much
discussion. One scholar, Shepard (1987: 175) required a level of difference equal to at
least 5% of the total range of index values for the scale year utilized. For the 1838 scale
used here, there is a total range of 3.8, so a difference of 0. 19 would be needed for
significance if Shepard's criteria is utilized. This would mean that the differences

196

between Feature 16 and Feature 3 would be significant. At the Warren site, the difference
between early and late deposits would also be significant.

Most studies utilizing Miller's indexes, however, are not so explicit in assigning
significance. Also, a number of studies (Garrow 1987; McBride and McBride 1987;
Spencer-Wood and Heberling 1987) have found what appear to be significantly different
index values, when compared to documentary records, that are less than 5% of the total
index range.

Since both the Allen site and the Wanen site had the same occupants in the 18308 and
18408, and neither occupant changed occupation, the change in economic conditions
seems the best explanation for this ceramic index decline. Complicating factors,
however, will become more important during the recovery period comparisons, and are
discussed below.

The exact nature of the bust impact on these consumers is difficult to measure. It
likely lowered their expectations for the future, which probably affected their
consumption patterns. The bust most probably lowered the income of the households.
Income cannot be measured for John Allen, but Peter Wanen's income can be roughly
examined by examining his merchantile sales. These dropped fiom a high of $3000 in
1837 to a low of $600 in 1840. Surprisingly, Warren's sales were back up to $2000 in
1842 (Lowndes County Property Tax Rolls 1838, 1841, 1843). Unfortunately, no tax
records for the middle 18408 are available, so whether Warren's upturn was an anomaly
or a general pattern is not known. Caution must be used when utilizing these sales
figures, however, since it is not known how much of these sales figures were profit and
whether the profit rate remained stable or fluctuated greatly. But, the sales figures do
suggest that Warren suffered some business decline, though it was probably short lived.

Another factor that could have affected consumption patterns in the bust were changes
in the availability of goods, particularly more expensive goods. This question was
investigated in the last chapter, and while the quantity and variety of goods available could

197

not be accurately measured, Colbert store bills from the 18408 and from the Reuben King
inventory of 1845 indicate that luxuries were still available in the bust. In fact, the King
inventory listed expensive ceramics, including blue transfer printed ware and gold edged
porcelain (Lowndes County Circuit Court File 6619).

Before the boom and recovery comparisons are made, other variables which might
affect the consumption patterns should be evaluated. These evaluations are needed since
the test implication for this comparison will compare separate sites occupied by different
people. The variables or factors, other than economic cycles, which seem most relevant
to the study of consumption patterns at these sites include socioeconomic status, life-
cycle, and site occupation length and tum-over. The first two variables are commonly
discussed in the historical archaeological literature and seem to be relevant here. The
third variable is important, since, as will be shown below, some Barton sites had

considerable turnover.

5' 'S

The first variable to be investigated i8 socioeconomic status. Some socioeconomic
ranking must be determined to make the Colbert and Barton site comparisons valid. Also,
whether socioeconomic status, rather than economic cycles, explains the Colbert and
Barton differences needs to be examined. Generally, archaeologists have found a strong
correlation between Miller's mean ceramic index values and socioeconomic status
(Spencer-Wood 1987a, Shepard 1987). Tables 6.15 presents the wealth holdings of the
Colbert site residents.

The Colbert data suggest that the John Allen household was considerably wealthier
than the other two Colbert residents. Allen's land holdings alone put him in the upper
20% of Lowndes County landowners in 1840 (see Chapter 4). The relative status of the

other two households, Warren and Cherry are more difficult to assess. They each owned

198

Table 6.15. Wealth of Colbert Site Residents.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

'Resident Town Holdings Slaves Farm Other Wealth
Land
Allen Originally one 9-11 720 acres East side, and later
(planter- quarter of the town. entire Colbert Ferry,
miller) Later 5 blocks and 28 Steam Saw Mill (value
lots, dwelling, kitchen $11,500)
and tailor shop (value,
at least $5000)
Wanen Two lots, dwelling and 6 0 0
(merchant) store (value $900) $600
to $3000 worth of sales
annually
Cherry Three lots and one 1 0 0
(unknown fractional block,
occupation) dwelling (value
unknown)
Source: Clay teo. Deeds, Lowndes County Tax R0 8, U.S. Census, Lowndes Co., MS:

 

 

about the same amount of town land, but Warren owned significantly more slaves. Also,
Warren's occupation, merchant, and amount of sales, probably placed him above Cherry
in status. Although Cherry's occupation is not known, he was probably not a merchant
or an attorney, at least a prominent one, since he was not mentioned as such in any
documents. The fact that Cherry lost his town lands due to back taxes also suggests a
somewhat lower economic position, at least by 1843.

These results suggest a two or three tiered ranking of these sites with the Allen's, who
could probably be designated an Upper-Middle Class household. Below the Allen's are
the Warren's, who given Peter's moderate sized merchant status, could certainly be
designated roughly Middle Class. Cherry should be placed in the same general level as
Warren or slightly below him.

The wealth of the Barton residents is given in Table 6.16 below. Since there was

more tumover at the Barton sites, the wealth of individual households is organized by

199

Table 6.16. Wealth of Barton Site Residents.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Site Resident ToTvn Holdings Slaves Farm Other Wealth
Land
5442 McGowan Three lots, one fractional 4 480 acres 0
(merchant- block, dwelling and store (value
fame) (value $1000). $8000 worth $3000)
of merchandise sold annually.
5442 Rainey One fractional black, one lot, 1 360 acres 0
(machant- dwelling and store (value (value
farner) $590). $913 to $4500 worth $760)
of merchandise sold annually.
5442 Duling One fractional block, one lot, 4 192 acres 0
(merchant- dwelling and store (value (value
farmer) $1000). $700 worth of $704)
merchandise sold annfllly.
5442 Futrell One fractional block, one 0 60 acres 0
(farm) whole block, dwelling (value (value
$700). $300)
5444 Adair One half block, dwelling 0 0 0
(carpenter) (value $100)
5444 Rodgers 0 0 0 0
(tenant farmer)
5445 Warren One black, one lot, dwelling, ll 70 acres 0
(merchant- store (value $800). $1500 to (value
father) $2000 worth of merchandise $100)
sold annually.
5445 Duling Four blocks, one strip, 4 640 acres 0
(merchant— dwelling, store (value $503). (value
fame) $700 worth of merchandise $2000)
sold annually.
5447 Debrill One half block, one lot, 0 0 0
(physician) dwellingI office (value$900)
5447 Capshaw One block, two lots, 2 0 0
(lawyer-cotton dwelling, and office (value
agent) $610)
5447 Gage One block, two half blocks, n.d. n.d. n.d.
(occupation ?) dwellingfllue $804.63
5448 Griswold One black, one half block, 9 648 acres Mill (value
(merchant, etc.) four lots, two strips, (value unknown)
dwelling, store, blacksmith $4000)
shop, photographic studio,
Barton Ferry, warehouse,
(value, at least $1810).
$5000 to $7282 merchandise
801d annually
5448 Hanks Two and one half blocks, one 2 0 0
(occum' n ?) strip: dwelling (value $450)
5448 Ussery Two half blocks, one strip. 1 0 0
(minister) dwelling (value $8M)

 

Source: Clay Co. Deeds, Dun & Co. Reports, Lowndes County Land Rolls, Lowndes
Co. Tax Rolls, U.S. Census (Agriculture, Population, & Slaves), Lowndes Co. , MS.

 

200

site. The figures given are an approximation of the wealth held by these households
during their occupation of that particular site.

In order to better interpret this data in terms of site ranking, the mean value of the
different wealth categories, weighted by length of occupation at that site, are given for
each site in Table 6.17. The sites are ordered in this table by town holdings. The data
from the two tables suggests that these sites should be ranked into three levels. The top
level consists of site 5448, primarily the home of James Griswold. The second level
includes sites 5442, 5445, and 5447. These were primarily the residences of rmdium and
small merchants and professionals. The earliest resident of site 5442, Robert McGowan
was somewhat wealthier than the other residents of these sites, but his wealth was
overshadowed by the later residents of this site because of McGowan's relatively short
stay (four years). These sites generally represent middle class occupations. The third, or
bottom, level of ranking includes site 5444. The known occupants of this site were a
carpenter, who evidently did not own his own shop, and an overseer. Neither of these
households owned much wealth. Other residents of this site are an enigma, but they most
likely would have consisted of renters, probably craftsmen, clerks, laborers, or farmers.

Table 6.17. Mean Wealth at Barton Sites.

 

 

 

 

 

Site Town Slaves Farm Land Merchandrse'
Holdings Sales
(merchants
only)
Group A
5448 $1327 5.7 $2286 $5146
Group B
5447 $ 778 1.0 0 --
5442 $ 756 1.3 $1011 $4423
5445 $ 678 8.1 $882 $1400
Group C
5444 $ 50 0 0 --

 

 

 

 

 

 

201

When the Colbert sites and residents are compared with the Barton ones, the three
level rankings seem comparable. The Allens, who were probably among the wealthiest
residents of Colbert, fit in the upper rank close to Griswold, although the Allen's may
have been somewhat wealthier. The Colbert Warren site should be comparable to the
middle level sites at Barton. The placement of the Cherry site is again difficult. His
household and site could be placed with the middle ranked sites or with the lowest ranked

site.

1.54:] )1 IEO .

Table 6.18 presents information on life cycle and length of occupation. Studies on
consumption within economics and archaeology have suggested a number of patterns
associated with these variables. With regards to life cycles, it has been suggested that as a
family passes through the different stages of the household or family life cycle, its
consumption of luxuries increases. This occurs until retirement, at which point the
consumption rate declines (Henry 1989:8-9; lee Decker 1987:240; Schiffer et a1.
1981:82). The life cycle stages used here are as follows: single unmarried, newlywed,
family with children, older couple (age 50+) with children, older couple without children
or with adult children, and widowed (Henry 1989:8-9).

Archaeological studies have also found that the longer a household remains at a
residence, the more items it accumulated (Schiffer et al. 1981 :78). Although shorter
occupation might reduce ceramic accumulation, overall, exactly how it relates to the
consumption of different ceramic types is unclear. But, it could have reduced the
consumption of expensive ceramics if the residents had some prior notion that they would
soon leave.

Generally, the life cycle information presented in Table 6.18 fits closely with the

socioeconomic status. The two wealthiest households, the Allens and Griswolds, were

202

Table 6.18. Life-cycle and Occupation Span at Colbert and Barton Sites.

 

 

 

SIIE MEANT LIEEflQlJi XEARSDE
W

Colbert- A Allen Older couple- no children 11
Don's Landing Warren Older couple-adult children 1 1
Colbert-B Cherry Newlywed ?
Barton 5442 McGowan Family with children 4

" Rainey Older couple- adult children 5

" Duling Family with children 1

" Futrell Family with children 7
Barton 5444 Adair Single or newlywed ?

" Rodgers Family with children ?
Barton 5445 Wanen Older couple-adult children / 10

Retired

" Duling Older couple-adult children 7
Barton 5447 Debrill Couple-no children 4

" Capshaw Farmly with children 4

" Gage ? ?
Barton 5448 Griswold Older couple-no children 8

" Hanks Widow 2

" Ussery Older couple-children 4

 

 

203

both older couples (adults over 50 years of age). The middle socioeconomic level
generally consisted of older couples and families with children. An important exception
to this is Peter Warren, who moved into retirement in the last two or three years of his
occupation of site 5445 (Way and McBride 1983). The widow Mary Hank probably also
falls roughly into the middle socioeconomic level of Barton. Barton's households of
lower socioeconomic status, Adair and Rodgers, were a single male or newlywed and a
family with children.

One of the most striking differences between the Colbert sites, at least the Wanen Site
and the Allen Site, and the Barton sites is the length of occupation and number of
occupations. Sites 5445 and 5448 have occupation lengths which fall closest to the above
two Colbert sites, but both of the Barton sites did have more than one occupant.

Socioeconomic status, life cycle, and length of occupation will be utilized in the
Colbert and Barton comparisons below. The purpose of this step is to determine if the
Boom-Bust cycles are the best or dominant explanation for the patterns visible from the
analysis.

The test implication for the boom-recovery comparison is that a higher ceramic price
index value should be present in the earlier Colbert deposits (Feature 3, Allen site; West
Feature Areas, Warren Site) than at Barton sites of similar socioeconomic level. Table
6.19 presents the mean ceramic index values for the Barton sites and the early Colbert
deposits and socioeconomic rank order (see Appendix B for calculations). These figures
strongly show a pattern of overall lower luxury (expensive ceramic) consumption at
Barton than at Colbert. Socioeconomic position seems to affect the price index value
within each town but this effect is weakened when the two towns are compared. In fact,
when socioeconomic rank is considered, Colbert and Barton comparisons are most
striking. The middle status Warren site at Colbert has a mean index value much higher
than the high status Griswold site (5448) at Barton. The Warren site also has a much

204

Table 6.19. Ceramic Consumption and Site Rank, Colbert and Barton.

Ceramic
Index Value

 

higher index value of the middle, or second ranked, Barton sites, including Peter
Warren's Barton site (site 5445).

These results seem to confirm the test implication and support the stronger effect of
economic cycles on consumption patterns, compared to socioeconomic status. There are,
however, other factors relating to the nature of this sample that should be considered. A
major complicating factor at the Barton sites is their complex occupational histories. The
multiple residents and sometimes quick tumover at most of the Barton sites, and at 5442
and 5447 in particular, may have somewhat lowered their ceramic index values. Families
in residence for four to five years likely did not accumulate as many goods, and perhaps
as many luxury goods, as families in residences for eleven years.

The mixing of people of somewhat different socioeconomic levels is also a
complication. However, this is primarily an issue at only two sites, site 5442 and site
5448. At site 5442, the longest occupant, the farmer William Futrell, was of a somewhat
lower socioeconomic level that the earlier merchant households. Futrell, therefore, may
have lowered the ceramic index value for this site.

At site 5448, the eight year occupation of the wealthy James Griswold household was
followed by shorter occupations by the middle socioeconomic level residents Mary Hanks

(who was a widow) and Robert Ussery. But since the later occupants of site 5448 were

205

still of a middle socioeconomic level, the great difference between the site 5448 index
value and at least the Colbert Warren site value cannot be easily explained by the site
turnover. Different economic conditions seem to be the best explanation, especially given
the large differences in index values.

The Barton site with the longest household occupation is site 5445. This site was
occupied by Peter Warren for ten years and then Augustine Duling for seven years. At
Barton, both Warren and Duling seem to have been of a similar socioeconomic level as
Warren at Colbert. One complicating factor at site 5445 was Warren's retirement status in
the last two to three years of this occupation. This new life cycle status could have
caused a decline in consumption of more expensive items. Given that this retirement
status was for only two or three years, it seems unlikely that this, or the single turnover of
this site, was responsible for the large ceramic index value difference between this site
and the Colbert Warren site.

Because of the factors discussed above, the Colbert and Barton comparisons are not
without problems. Most of the Barton sites experienced greater and more rapid turnover
than the Colbert sites and this may partly contribute to the differences between the Colbert
and Barton ceramic index values. The degree of difference in ceramic price index values
between the Allen Site- Feature 3 and site 5448 and especially between the Warren site-
West Feature Areas and sites 5445 and 5448, however, is so large that it is probably best
explained by the change in economic conditions. A larger sample of early Colbert sites
and a sample of 18508 sites with longer single occupations would certainly make these
comparisons stronger and are probably necessary for a more complete test of this
hypothesis.

The third and final test implication for the consumption hypotheses is that a higher
ceramic price index value should be present at the Barton sites than at the late Colbert
deposits or sites (Allen Site-Feature 16; Warren Site-East Feature Area: Cherry Site,

Features 7 and 9) of similar socioeconomic level. Table 6 20 presents the price index

206

Table 6.20. Late Colbert Mean Ceramic Index Values.

 

 

 

 

m M
Allen Site, Feature 16 2.12
Cherry Site, Feature 7 and 9 1.97
Warren Site, East Feature Area 1.89

 

 

 

values for the Colbert sites. Miller's 1846 index values were used for the late Colbert
deposits since the lower proportion of pearlware in these deposits suggested that overall
they dated considerably later than the Feature 3 and West Feature Area deposits (see
Tables 6.2, 6.4, and 6.6).

The above Colbert price index values do not support the test implication. The Allen
site price index value is higher than the site 5448 price index value. The Warren-Bast
Feature Area price index value is lower than all of the middle level Barton sites, except
site 5442. But the differences in index values (.05 to .06) are not as great as expected and
are not significant using Shepard's criteria, which would require a difference of .13. The
Cherry site index value is very high relative to both the Colbert and Barton sites, and may
suggest a re-evaluation of the status of its occupants is necessary. Since this index value
is higher than all the Barton values except site 5448, it certainly does not confirm the test
implication.

While the above results appear to reject the hypothesis on bust and recovery
consumption, this comparison probably does not represent the best test since the late
Colbert deposits are somewhat mixed with Boom materials. Deposits from sites not
occupied until the 18408 would be necessary to more fully test this hypothesis. The
problems discussed above may have also acted to somewhat lower the Barton index

values.

CHAPTER 7.
CONCLUSIONS

In the previous chapters of this study, the Boom-Bust model of expansion and
economic development has been presented and then tested in the study area of Lowndes
County, Mississippi. This model was developed to explain the structure and changes
which occur when an area experiences a certain type of colonization and development,
referred to here as Boom-Bust settlement. By comparing the study area's development to
the model a broader context has been provided in which societal conditions and changes
can be more thoroughly examined and explained More generally, the presentation and
examination of this model has illustrated a type of agricultural frontier expansion that has
occurred numerous times across North America and throughout the world, but which has
received little systematic study. The detailed examination of the characteristics and
processes of Boom-Bust expansion can make a significant and needed contribution to
frontier studies, by identifying and explaining variability in the frontier process.

The topics examined in the study area included the rate and size of immigration,
socioeconomic structure and wealth concentration, agricultural production methods, town
development, town settlement system, the services and goods provided in towns, and
consumption patterns. A series of nineteen hypotheses dealing with these topics were
generated from the model and tested in the study area by the use of documentary and
archaeological data For the most part, the hypotheses were confirmed, at least in those
areas where they could be directly tested.

The examination of immigration illustrated that Lowndes County experienced a large
and rapid influx of settlers during the boom times of the 18308. The size of the 18308

207

208

immigration contrasted greatly with what the eastern half of the county experience in the
18108 and 18208, when the region did not meet the preconditions of the model. The size
of the immigrant population in the 18308 also greatly contrasted with that of the
depression of the 18408 and the recovery period of the 18508.

The tests dealing with socioeconomic structure and wealth concentration provided
some interesting results, in particular the rejection of the hypothesis on socioeconomic
simplification in the initial boom phase of settlement. The results of this test indicated that
a nearly full blown plantation society was almost immediately established in the study
area. The society contained a hierarchy of settlers from large planters to small farmers, to
landless whites, to slaves. These results also contradict the general models of Upland
South expansion. Upland South expansion, of which the settlement of northern
Mississippi was a part, was supposedly led by generalized open-range stockmanlfarmers
who, at least initially, practiced subsistence agriculture (Newton 1974; Owsley 1949;
Weaver and Doster 1982). The generalized agriculture of these settlers made them
preadapted for frontier conditions (Newton 1974). The results from Lowndes County
certainly do not support this Upland South model. Part of the problem of Southern
frontier migration studies has been the lack of pre-1850 quantitative data, such as is
presented in this study through the use of pro-1850 tax records, census data, etc..
Hopefully, more use will be made of these sources in future research.

Evidently, the simplified and generalized society often found on frontiers was not
adaptive in the study area during the boom The model preconditions discussed in
Chapter 3, such as a good transportation system, a previously established market system,
a great demand and high price for cotton, legality of slavery, and rich land, allowed a
greater variety of settlers, including wealthy planters, to enter the region with expectations
of riches. Interestingly, a more simplified society was present in part of the study area

during the 18108 and 18208, when the preconditions of the model were not met.

209

Moore (1986) and Weaver and Doster (1982) have brought another interesting aspect
of the Upland South Cultural Tradition in their studies of northern Mississippi. Both
studies suggest that between the 18308 and 1850, northern Mississippi experienced a
blending of Upland and Lowland South cultural traits in such areas as architecture,
settlement patterns, and agricultural practices. This blending was not due to an in
migration of Lowland Southerners but a diffusion of traits and ideas from the Lower
Mississippi Valley. A8 Moore (1986) states, two "cotton cultures" came together in
northern Mississippi, that of the Piedmont and that of the Mississippi Valley. This
adjustment or blending calls into question the cohesiveness and uniformity of the Upland
South tradition across the entire South, as is often implied (Kniffen 1965; Newton 1974).

The rejection of the simplification hypothesis indicates that an adjustment in the model
is necessary, at least for plantation societies. Whether the simplification characteristic
should be removed from the model completely is a question that will have to await further
tests in commercialized non-plantation frontiers. This finding also brings up the opposite
question of under what conditions does the simplification process hold. Recently, this
process has been considered almost as a universal, so that details of the process, or
variations, have not been examined as closely as they should be.

Comparisons in the concentration of land, value of land, and slaves between 1840
and 1860 closely follOwed the predictions of the model. A moderate increase in
concentration of all wealth measures occuned among the wealthy during the depression of
the 18408, while very little change occurred between 1850 and 1860 with the exception of
an increased concentration in one measure, the value of land, held by the wealthiest
citizens. The stability in the level of concentration of landholdings and slaveholdings in
the final antebellum decade suggests that Lowndes County was already moving beyond a
frontier stage by the early 18508. This conclusion is also reflected in changes in the town
settlement system (see below) and is an indication of the speed in which changes occur in
the boom-bust setting.

210

The agricultural production figures from 1850 and 1860 do indicate that some fairly
dramatic changes were still occurring in some aspects of Lowndes County society during
the 18508. The great increase in cotton production per-improved acre and per-slave
suggests that more intensive agricultural methods were being utilized at this time. This
change was predicted in the model and reflects the reduction in high quality open land by
the 18508.

The pace of change in the boom-bust context was also reflected in the examination of
hypotheses related to settlement pattern and organization. As was predicted in the model,
numerous towns were established almost overnight during the boom period. The
generally large town plats of the speculative towns illustrates the high expectations of the
period. When the bust of the late 18308 came, however, many of these towns
disappeared, or at least declined, almost as fast as they appeared

The population size, functions, location, and merchandise figures from Columbus
during the 18308 and 18408 indicates that it clearly matched the Frontier Town settlement
type defined by Casagrande et al. (1964). No other town in the county or region came
close to its size and influence once the western lands were opened. The nearly complete
regional dominance of Columbus was relatively short lived, however, for by the early
18508 a rival, Aberdeen, appeared The growth of Aber®en marked the beginning of a
somewhat more complex regional town settlement system and the end of Columbus' role
as the Frontier Town.

The rapidity of the changes in the town settlement system was also reflected in spatial
arrangement of towns. A nearest neighbor analysis illustrated a rather dramatic change
toward a more even distribution every ten years between 1836 and 1856. The pattern
toward uniformity is associated with increased competition between towns as the area
matmed. The extremely rapid rate of change in the town settlement pattern of the study
region contrasts sharply with the more gradual changes presented in Swedlund's (197 5)

study, which was used as a comparison. Swedlund's study area was one that did not

211

experience a Boom-Bust type of settlement, but rather a more gradual and less speculative
one. The Boom-Bust context of the study area resulted in an initial boom period of
exaggerated town speculation, followed by a harsh economic period characterized by
increased competition and a high rate of town decline and even extinction.
Disadvantageously placed towns, such as those near larger more established towns, were
the first to go. Competition and renewed town founding (in a more gradual way) in the
recovery period led to increased uniformity of the town settlement pattern.

The rate of change in town settlement pattern in the Upper Tombigbee area after the
boom was probably also accelerated to some degree by the presence of plantations.
Because of the multi-functional nature of plantation, the uniformity of agricultural
production, and the reduced processing and storage needs of cotton, urbanization is
usually inhibited in cotton plantation regions. The plantation nature of the region,
therefore, would have led to a greater rate of town decline or extinction in the bust and
more inter-town competition than is normal in non-plantation boom-bust cycles.
Comparisons need to be made with the rate of change in boom-bust farming areas to
evaluate the impact of plantation agriculture.

Although the hypotheses on goods available within the smaller towns of the county
could not be directly tested, store bills and inventories suggest a pattern somewhat at
variance with the model. The bills and inventories from the 18408 indicated that a wide
variety of goods, including luxuries, were still available in at least some periods of the
bust. This finding suggests that another adjustment to the model is necessary for
plantation regions, and perhaps even all temperate regions. That part of the model dealing
with luxury availability was probably overly influenced by the coffee frontier data from
Margolis (1973) where the bust was evidently more severe. Much more systematic
research needs to be done on store account books and inventories to fully test these

hypotheses.

212

The consumption analysis was in many ways the most difficult, because of problems
with both the documentary and archaeological data. The documentary tests, which were
based on analysis of merchandise sales, showed a clear pattern of decreasing expenditures
on merchandise from the boom to the bust and an increase from the bust to the recovery.
As predicted, the expenditures in the boom were also larger than in the recovery.
Unfortunately, this data gave no indication of the types of goods that were consumed, so
how expenditures varied from luxuries or durables to other products is unclear.

Overall, the archaeological examination of the boom-bust recovery hypotheses
resulted in mixed and somewhat problematic results. The boom to bust comparisons
strongly supported the hypothesis predicting reduced consumption of expensive ceramics
from boom to bust. The probable mixed nature of these deposits only strengthens this
result, since any mixing would pull the early and late price index values toward one
another.

The apparent confirmation of the boom to recovery hypothesis, which predicted
greater relative consumption of expensive ceramics in the boom, and the apparent
rejection of the bust to recovery hypothesis, which predicted greater relative consumption
of expensive ceramics in the recovery, are both problematic because of complicating
factors in both data sets. The degree of chronological control necessary to fully test this
model calls for particular types of sites or features and very precise excavation and artifact
analysis. It may be that these requirements are more than can be reasonably expected with
archaeological remains. I feel, however, that this negative conclusion has not yet been
demonstrated. A careful choice of sites with an emphasis an excavation of quickly filled
features, such as privies or refuse pits, plus very detailed chronological analysis, could
lead to more reliable and complete testing of the consumption changes predicted in the
model. The positive results obtained from the comparison of early and late Colbert
deposits is encouraging and suggests that under certain conditions, the archaeological
record can be used to address changes outlined in the model.

213

The use of ceramics to investigate changes in consumption patterns over time could
also be aided by local information on ceramic price changes. As Miller (1991) has noted,
comparisons of price index values calculated from his system become more problematic
as the temporal distance between assemblages becomes greata'. Retail and wholesale
price index values calculated from local and regional store account and wholesale account
books may give more accurate values for local or regional level analysis.

The patterns present in the early and later Colbert deposits also suggest that broader
economic conditions should be addressed in archaeological studies of consumption
patterns. This has not been done in the past. Most archaeological examinations of
consumption have focussed on variability relative to socioeconomic status (see Spencer-
Wood 1987a). While this is certainly a worthwhile topic, and many of these studies have
been successful in correlating status and consumption patterns, a deeper understanding of
the reasons behind consumption variability can only be identified if patterns are viewed in
a broader context, which includes general economic conditions, transportation systems,
marketing systems, and urban versus rural location, among other factors. The study of
consumption has recently become a major focus within historical archaeology. Historical
archaeology should be able to present a unique and significant perspective on this topic,
but we have to be more sophisticated in our treatment of context and variables. Susan
Henry's (1989) paper is a step in the right direction.

The use of a general model, the Boom-Bust model, in this study, greatly facilitated the
identification and explanation of changes within the cotton frontier of Lowndes County,
Mississippi. General models, such as the Boom-Bust model, offer great advantage in the
identification and explanation of both regular and idiosyncratic behavior. This type of
model is vital in directing broad comparisons in cultural development.

Within historical archaeology, increased testing of broad models, such as that done by
Lewis (1984) and Miller (1984), needs to be performed if the discipline is to advance and
make significant theoretical contributions. The methodology utilized in this thesis, which

214

drew upon both documentary and archaeological data to test a general model, is one way
of taking advantage of the strengths of historical archaeology, which include the presence
of two different and independent data sources.

In general, the Boom-Bust model presented in this thesis accurately describes and
explains the frontier development of the study area. This model describes an important
type of frontier development, which has occurred numerous times over time and space,
but is poorly understood. The Boom-Bust type of agricultural settlement should be
further studied and more integrated into general colonization theory. The present study
demonstrates the force of economic conditions on developmental structure and pace and
suggests that economic context should be closely examined in any colonization study.

Further tests of the Boom-Bust model need to be performed in different environmental
zones and in non-plantation as well as plantation agricultural systems to better understand
the uniformity and variability of this type of agricultural colonization. Comparisons with
non-agricultural boom-bust frontiers, such as mining frontiers, may also be constructive.
Only through the examination of different types of colonization, such as Boom-Bust, can

a more complete understanding of colonization in general be obtained.

APPENDIX

APPENDIX
MEAN CERAMIC INDEX CALCULATIONS

The calculations for the mean ceramic index values discussed in Chapter 6 are provided
in this appendix, arranged in a series of tables by sites or areas within sites. Selected
Colbert calculations are provided using both an 1838 set of index values and an 1846 set of
index values.

215

 

216

 

aim—On. 44$

SE
333

 

 

,: F F

o 00.? o

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a 28+: ow
mo : em: a
E E
SE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Seem n m w.

 

We: 3: as
5% Q
EH: Q
@ej B

 

FUD
Kw

,~,.

beer, a:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OOOOOOOOOOO

 

3.: 86m o PM
@@D
mm. .Meemwm
ME = 2. mm 5

Egg

 

 

 

o _ P o,
.96 em...

 

 

 

882.. .82. :58 .885 x85 :58 .33... .83 :58 8:85 .89: :58

 

mums

mean

mwhjm

Jana.

”33>
.33

2
Sam .89..

523.2.
2.223:
02.6:
“.253
0253
ueqq=n
03:3
3:03
38.

En...

a

.m 22:“. .< 25 .528 5323.8 .82. 2528 :32 can. E 2.5

217

F... Wu Q ”mun...”
we...“ 2

IIIIIIIIIIII

memo ea .82.

0000000000

 

 

 

 

mo :36: cm

Koxmném am 52.23
EQ 2.22.2.
. SB .0 E a QED e23:
warmed . = 2: e we: 3: a 333 2......
g Q g Q a Q ms—wdmnm 22.2.
3342 Mira E D B D EDS was.»
........... E ..........o. flame. B N. z 2. .m e 3.5..
QQ QQ EHQ .UQQ .2...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

as as o , P g . F on; x o F o .88..

3 F c e F F .e 3.. 52..
839g .89.. E38 8335 x35 :58 63.8.... x35 8300 882... .89: :58

EEO mean 3.5.: $3. ._ _

 

.9 2350“. .< 35 €2.00 £23330 x005 0.5800 coo: 08—. N.< 03a...

218

nmNN 33> .39.. ES.

mv

3.2:
3.60.. is

o 3.?
N.m Nd

v.0 Nd
N N
o N4
0 an;
o ..
o on;
w w

NmN

m.N_.

F

F010

0
o
o
c
w

o
o

N

N.

v-
OOOONoooOO

N...

V.
N

00.1
0N

_.
P

6.80... x35 :58 8.60... .89.. :58

mi 06
o 0.0
o _.
.mp 0.9
N.N MNN
o _.
90 no;
0... 3;.
mm...» oné
o w

woN

ON
dev

F

v-IOOO

NO

P

V
m

833a .89.. :58

 

 

mute

ma

mwhjn—

629,

Ed .82.

3 z

93 :5» .82.

0 mad o 523.2.
o 3..» o 2.22.2.
E. 8... N 2.32.
.2 .3 m was...
.2 3.. o .552.
o F c was.»
a a: o 3.5..
o.» 3... u 38%
o F o 88.
m... cm. n 52..
£.E=8§

.m 25 60900 .coaflaofio .39.. 25530 sac: meow n.< 03a...

219

 

$50". .33

 

37w.m m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a:
.Ndpucs 650:3 9:00 .cofloo 60.33030 .39... 0.5200 .532 08.. v.< «Bah

 

mo 38+: 9
a z 3m a
I D
'U

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wm: 3: a
g Q
B Q
Dan E
ram U

w.» Muff
P P F

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.Ezoliu
331.].

a = 2am a

flag

 

 

 

 

RN .5

 

 

 

83.05 x35 :58 «Samoa x35 :58 «Swan .89.. 8:8 8385 x09: :58

 

mmhja

g

E2» .89:

£235..
2.22.2.
.330:
3.53
32.2.
uaanza
30:3
098%
88.

c 3...

addfldddd

220

Fmod

ht.

36mm
$.25“. is

33> x35 ES.

.m. 56
o No

.2. N...”
o N
N. N...
c an;
o F
o on...
n F

832g .82: :58

fivd

.Nom

 

P

v.
mm

o
0..

.3 8.. 8..

m. 2 mm 8

3.9 0.3 3.8
v o an... o o 3 o .3 mm...
o o 3 o o a.» o tn .3
o o . o o . o o 8...
m o 3 o .3 ad. a .5. .3“
o w... a. e 3 Rd N .8 3..
. .8 N. t o . o a .
o o . o o 8.. o o as.
o o . o «.n .o. u .o. 3..
o o . o .~.. on. .m o .
m N . a N. . m. .8 3...

.885 x35 .58 832.. .83 .58 .38... x85 :58
«a $51: «and.

mums

”33>
xouE

2

En» x35

c3323
308cc:
no.3:
ca... ta
“.252.
nanazm
39.3
09.0%
898

En...

g

.9550”. 8am 650:0.— m.:oo 60223030 X3... 0.5800 .302 com. m.< 038.

221

 

 

 

«wag
EEQ
EEE
o Er..."
o W . on

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a 33% a
a. ..... “E _.........a
BB

 

 

mm: mi,

WU

flu
Emfig
EB
BE
Egg
EEQ

 

 

 

 

Pi

 

 

EVE]
gnu
Egg
FEE

1mg

 

gax 335:8 savoaxcusano 8335.8 53.58 8:33.. 0:38
mmEb

 

6.. 0530“.— .<

mica

wmhjm

mun—:0

ocean»

52a

aqua...“

ogm ton-00 50.5.3030 x22... 3:330 cqu 03. d< 030...

222

 

 

 

 

o .3: o
a m n

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a 33.0: a

Mo .33: a

 

 

Em

 

 

 

 

 

,3..er
o...“ F 9.

 

EU
Ewg rap.
2: ME «2 m

EL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E
E

960
3333
EE
3... N... . E
@233
EE
EB
F‘Eg
E!

m%

 

 

83323 .335 838 33323 .835 E38 833mm... .835 .E38 63323 .635 E38

 

ambia—

«add.

63.:
x35 .25

2
E3» .83....

52333
2.223:
3253:
385:.
32533
nuan=m
3353
09.63»
3080

523

Egg

.3 .0 K 3533.... .m 85 £3.00 60923030 .89.: 0.8800 .302 m¢ofin< 03a...

223

oNN

 

NF
w
o

v..

N0

m

o
0..

3m; 33> x35 .22 RN mN; 93

st. mp MN mm no

@533 oodm QdN mN.om Sop

$58.25
.2. aa.m v o «to o o 36 c .8 Ni
O 9N o o 5N o o SN o «N mmN
o 0.9. o o mN.m o o a; o o Ed
.3 mod m o 2.31. o .NN and m .on 3N
0 mm; o #6 0.. V Pd hoN N .No ma...
N4 N; _. .ON N; up o _. o N p
o 2... o o m; o a an; o o as;
o v; o o F: o m.N 3.. N .2. to;
o BN; 0 o F o .3 5N4 E c p
m _. m N P N NP F NF .3. av...
8305 x35 :58 8.62.. x35 :58 8335 x35 :58 8393 x35 :58
murho 9:st wmhjm mmao

.ohauflou gum .OSDCGA 9:00 60323030 x02. 0.3.6.00 80: 03—.

”33>

.805 .2...

2

E3 5?:

523.3
2.223:
3030:
“.353
3.52.
uoaa=a
30:3
«93%
8%.

52¢

dag

.m< 03¢...

224

 

 

 

o:m$n am

$33

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Foamam .89... E38 8.62.... x35 :58 832g .89.. :58 832a xouc. E38

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3? 3m m L
mflmmmam “ m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘ 622,
a x23: 3::
w «E 2

W60 _ ED» x005
@ET:: 5283..

wNNm 3.wa a” 233:0:

.mmfl .mm.m H .330:
Egg 32:...
Egg 2:53
Ersammiimw 2.3:»

Una; o. 8.83

{:i!“

Lmeer .98»

 

 

 

 

 

omFououu.

 

 

 

 

3 Fc. F a SEQ

 

gun-dud“

 

muEb

magnum

mmhjm

mama

vam_ mtm .ZOhm<m 50323030 “89.: 289.00 cues. .m< 2&3.

2225

anF 33> .82.: .95

va

FNNNN
659 .33

N.m
Fd
.oF
h.F

9F
9m
F.F

v F
6333 x35 :58

av.”
Fwd
mwd
FON
05F
FF.F
wnF
VF
NF.F
F

 

63.:

Nm.F NFF mmF ovN .39.: .25
mm mF co co z
NENV NNF omFo .evF :5» .89...
o m.N 3N F o 2..» o .8 mod n £2023

N o mN.N o .3 moN x. .3 SN NF 2.223:

F o EN o o 3.9 0 SF 3.0 m 330:

v o 34. o .3 and v .3 NaN m 3256

F o Fm.F o o FaF o m.» 3F N 0253

o .NF FF.F FF 0 F o o F o 33:»

F o FF.F c N.F VN.F F 5... ”NF F Duncan

Q o FF.F o YN VN.F N .FF 3F o 09.5%

F o F o .mF FFF. 0F c F o nix:

._ g F g... s" 33......” ,8 gm. he.“
up. mesaa mmh<eu magma aaunaaqu

muer

nvvm wtw .ZOhm<m 5233030 x09: £5800 F302 .0 F< 03m...

226

ad
a
ad
0

o
o
a

mi
oF

find
moN
mFd
moN
Fa.F

F
VNF
VNF
hFF

F

VNF

madF

OOOOv-O

v
OF

8365 xouc. :58

omN

mN
vim

Fd 09*
En had
0 had
.3. NQN
0.5 3F
c F
v.0 MNF
3.0 VQF
o F
.hF Fo.F

N
N
0

~01on

o
FF

833a Fans :58

 

Nme 33> x35 .25 SN FmF
mm o m
00.03 o¢.NF m.FF
$39.43 v.» 3am F o 2...... c

0 EN 0 ad mNN N
o mF.n o o EN 0
N..." FoN N o mNN o
NF th F o Fm.F o
o FF.F o N.N FF.F N
o 09F o o FF.F o
o F..F o F.F FF.F F
o FF.F o o F o
N F N Q F V

839a x35 :58 8:35 .82. :58
E0 mesa

ambia—

mmnq

”33>
x005 .25

2
En» .39..

5233..
2.223:
330:
no.5...
3.52.
uoaa=m
39.3
088»
can...

Eu...

adduudddd

36m mtw .zO...m<m 62.5.3030 F89: 3:330 F302 .FF< 03m...

227

SYN

Nm
.9:

09%
had
hmd
NmN
Fa. F

F
as. F
*0. F

F
Fm. F

m
0F

001006)

0
NF

8:83 xouc. :58

 

omaF 33> x22: .3: oo.N FF.F SF
8F 2.. aF «F.
8.2:" 3.3 «Fm 3.5
63.9.3. .3 3..» m o Ed a o R.» o .3
.2 Fe.“ m F. Rd o .3 mod v .9.
ta 8.» m o 3 o o a; o .FF
.mF F: o o 93 o .2 and m F.»
F.F a: F 3 F3 F FF.F F.F.F F .FF
o FF.F o .3 FF.F 3 o F o o
FF.F SF F o FF.F o c.“ «NF m in
F.F F.F F F.F FF.F F ta 32F N .2
F.F FF.F F o F o .FF FF.F 3 o
«F F «F N F m 2 F 2 .3
F883. .62. F58 5:85 .82. :58 332a x85 :58
5:5 33% $59. mmnu.

63.:

F39: 3c:

2
53 .69:

52022.
2.223:
.330:
:25...
no.5:
uona=m
333
canon»

8%.
52¢

an

mvvm mtw .zO.E<m 50.5.3030 x22... 3:800 cum: .NF< 03w...

228

”33>

 

nmm... 33> x02... 3:: mod va th ev.~.C xwuc. .25
FF a m NN Fm 2
mmde «92. 09v «NSF méh 83m .89:
$2553 0 a; o o end o fin tum F .NF mod a 523.2.
0d Fwd F «N mud F 9m mo.~ m .FF nod v 2.05:2.
F.m mF.m F 0 Na 0 o 3.9 0 m6 .3.» F F330:
as FmN n o m~.~ o mam mod N .3 mod m qucza
F.F afiF F o 2.: o 0.0 3F N m8 3F v 32.3
o FF.F o F.F FF.F F o F o o F o 023:»
o 2.: o o FF.F o o «NF o F.F 06F F 33:3
o YF o o FF.F o o vNF o mam 3F n «90%
F.F FF.F F o F o .3 FF.F NF o F o 88..
N F N F F F a F a .3 FoF 3 Ema
.885 x8... .58 F885 .82. :58 832a .82. :58 F383 .83 :58
mug 33% amid «and. :23

536 mtw .zO...m<m 50323030 xcuc. £89.00 .502 .mF< 2am...

229

”$3 722

 

Fmimon. 44$

x85 .25 fl

Nflmnmm ...... .N

flag
BU
Emma

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MN FM N,

 

 

 

.o FFNNm a
a :NN N3. .0“

 

 

mmgm ism
M.Nm.F..F.F_ :.....m
o 3L. o
a F o

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mums

g
WNmNFNWF a
3szch F;

 

 

BED
gag

 

m

 

..NF FF.F. NF“

 

 

 

F F NF

 

Saga 5!: :58 833a x09: :58 8305 .805 :58

EM.

 

 

 

@E F
~33.on N;
gfimmmmfii
Ears... N...

EB
mug}
U NF. .Fwflflm

 

 

 

 

"00 F0.—.. GP

 

632a x3... :58

 

«a

“whim

wand.

63.?
.89.: 3c:

2
Sam .89..
523.2.
3223:
F330:
32%
“.252.
uoanzm
39.3
99.8»
3qu

52a

ddduudddd

ovvm_ mtw .zO...m<m 62.5.3030 x09... £5900 cums. .vF< Sam...

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abemethy, Thomas Perkins
1965 W University of Alabama Press

Tuscaloosa.

Adams, Arthur
1936 MW. McGraw-I-Iill, New York.

Adams, William H.
1 .Soil

 

Systems, Inc., Bloomington, Indiana. Report submitted to the Heritage
Conservation and Recreation Service, Washington.

Adkins, Howard G.
1972 The Historical Geography of Extinct Towns in Mississippi. Ph.D. Dissertaton,
University of Tennessee.

197 3 The Geographic Base of Urban Retardation 1n Mississippi, 1800-1840. m
W12: 35— 49.

Allen, Leah
1983a Archaeological Investigations at the Cedar Oaks House Site (22Cl809), Barton,
Mississippi. In Archaeological Investigations at the Barton Townsite (2.2CL807),
Mississippi. In '1? .
11111 11111 ' 11.1 1.111(‘11111’1.1‘l11‘ 1111‘16
Wm edited by W. Lee Minnerly, pp. 36—109. The Museum,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.

 

1983b Summary and Conclusions of Investigations at Cedar Oaks Housesite. In final

1 .11- .11 111.4 11.1114.1 1-1111 --11111 111
O O .

11.11.111i'111111erll1 1' 1111'1."1 11 111

émjm, edited by Charles E.C1eland and Kim A. McBride, Pp. 318 366. The ‘
Museum, Michigan State University, East Lansing.

Atherton, Lewis B.
1949 WWW. L.S.U. Press. Baton Rouge.

Baldwin, Joseph G.
1853 W New York

Barney, William L
1981 Towards the Civil War: The Dynamics of Change 1n a Black Belt County. In
Orville V. Burton and Robert McMath, Class;

W. Westport, Conn., Greenwood Press, pp. 146-171.

230

231

Binford, Lewis
1962 Archaeology as Anthropology. Wm 28:217-25.

Blouet, Brian W.
1972 Factors influencing the evolution of settlement patterns. In W
Urbanism, edited by J. Ucko, R. Tringham, and G. Dimbleby, Pp. 3.15.
Duckworth, London.

Bonner, James C.

1964 W University of Georgia Press,
Athens.

1944 Profile of a Late Ante-Bellum Community. WW 49:663-
680.

Brent, Floyd V.
1979 WWW United States Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with Mississippi Agricultural
and Forestry Experiment Station, Starkville, Mississipi.

Burr, David H.
1839 W University of Mississippi.

Casagrande, Joseph B., Stephen I Thompson, and Philip D. Young
1964 Colonization as a Research Frontier. In W
,edited by Robert A. Manners. Aldine, Chicago. Pp.
28 1-325.

Clark, P. J. and F. C. Evans
1954 Distance to nearest neighbor as a measure of spatial relationships in population.

Ecology 35:445-453.

Clay County Deed Books
n.d. Clay County Courthouse, West Point, Mississppi.

Cleland, Charles E.
1983 A Computer Compatible System for the Categorization, Enumeration, and
Retrieval of Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Century Archaeological Material
Culture. The Musum, Michigan State University, East Lansing.

1988 Questions of Substance, Questions that Count. 31mm 22(1): 13-
17 .

Cleland, Charles E. and Kim A. McBride, editors

 

C O . O A O . . .
O - - F .1 . .
11 1. l 1 1111 1 ”11°11. 1 .11 1.11 . 111‘

The Museum, Michigan State University, East Lansing.

1836 Advertisement, "Sales of lots in the town of Colbert", August 6.

232

Cole, Arthur H.
1927 Cyclical and Sectional Variation 1n the Sale of Public Lands. W
Esonomfitatistics 9: 41- 53

Conrad, Alfred H. and John R. Meyer
1958 The Economics of Slavery in the Antebellum South. MW
66.

Craven, AveryO.
19261. .1: 111: '11.‘au1 11: ° .111 u1¢=11\1-a.1.1.

16(16:1_8_6Q.Urbana, Illinois.

Dacey, Michael F.
1963 Order Neighbor Statistics for a Class of Random Patterns 1n Multidimensional

Space AnnaluflheAsmiationatAmenmfieomnhm 53: 505- 515

Davis, Charles

1939 WWW Alabama State Department of Archives and
History, Montgomery.

Davis, Reuben
1891 WWW Houghton Mifflin Co.. Boston.

Deagan, Kathleen A.
1988 Neither History Nor Prehistory: the Questions that County 1n Historical

Archaeology WWZZ(1):7- 12

DeBow, J D. B.

1854 W. US. Bureau of the Census.
Washington, DC.

Doster, James F. and David C. Weaver
1981 WWW. Report submitted to the

Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, Washington.

Dun, R. G. and Co. Collection
1851-1866 Agents Field Reports, Volume 14, Mississippi. Baker Library, Harvard
University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Dunn, Richard S.
1972 '1211 :' I1. 1.":1‘ .1: .11' 1‘11' 11‘
1624:1111. W. W. Norton and Co., New York.
Eaton, Clement
1961 MW. Harper Torchbooks. New
York.
Earle, Carville
1987 Regional Econonuc Development West of the Appalachians, 1815-1860. In

. - 1 1 1 edited by
Robert D. Mitchell and Paul A. Gloves, pp. 172-197. Rowman and Littlefield,
Towato, New Jersey.

 

233

1975 The Evolution of a Tidewater Settlement System. All Hallow' 5 Parish, Maryland,
1650-1783.. . 1 10.

Earle, Carville and Ronald Hoffman
1976 Staple Crops and Urban Development' 1n the Eighteenth Century South.
Wm 10: 7-80

 

Elliott, Jack
l978a.fi1r {111.11. 1‘ 1 ‘v..'v.1 1111111111.1 11 11 .--
Volume 2. Report submitted to
the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile.

1978b Leftwick's "Cotton Gin Port and Gaines' Trace Reconsidered. Jpnmalpf
Warm 4 45 53.

1981 s 11: 1‘ .1 1.‘ 1‘ 1 9111' .:1111 : .1 11 11 ° '111'.West
Point, Mississippi.
19885.111 {‘1 1‘ u 1 .-11- u- " ‘u .1.A11' 111

Mississippi. Palo Alto Surveys, West Point, Mississippi.

Ernst, J. A. and H. R. Merrens
197 3 Camden' 5 Turrets Pierce the Skies. The Urban Process 1n the Southern Colonies

during the 18th century WW 30: 549-574

Evans, W. A.
1979 MmhmMpiii'pg. Mother Monroe Publishing Company, Hamilton, Mississippi.
398

Originally Published serially 1n the WW1. 1936-l9

Fike, Richard E.
1987 W. Gibbs M. Smith, Inc., Peregrine Smith Books, Salt Lake City,
Utah.

Fogel, Robert W. and Stanely L. Engerrnan
1974 MW- Wildwood
House, London.

Foust,James
1975 '1‘ ‘.111:1 2111.“ :11 1‘ 1‘ 1.:11 .1:1111 -1111'411.1 111.
Arno Press, New York.

Garrow, Patrick H.
1987 The Use of Converging Lines of Evidence for Determining Socioeconomic Status.
In W edited by Suzanne Spencer-Wood
pp. 217-231. Academic Press, New York.

Gates, William C., and Dana E. Omerod
1982 The East Liverpool Pottery District. Identification of Manufacturers and Marks.

Himmler 353

Getis, Arthur
1964 Temporal land—use pattern analysis with the use of nearest neighbor and quadrat

methods Warm 54: 391 -.399

234

Getis, Arthur and Barry Boots
197 8 MW. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Gibson, Arrell M
1971 W. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Godden, Geoffrey A.
1964 yfimlmmtflnnshmmdmmlmmks Bonanza Books New

Gray, Lewis C.
1933 HiWWflmW Cameige Institute,
Washington, D. C.

Goldfield, David R.
- ' i . Louisiana

 

State UniversityPress, Baton Rouge.

Green, Stanton W.

1979 The Agricultural Colonization of Temperate Forest Habitats: An Ecological
Model In W V01 2 edited by William W.
Savage, Jr. and Stephen I.Thompson, pp. 69-103. University of Oklkahomas
Press, Norman.

Gwin, Samual and Geo Dougharty

1838 It =.. o u .m .1. 11 0.21 o o .0 ,:1: ; tun: an
Arkansas. Library of Congress, Washington, D. C
Hamilton, Charles G.
1974-S Historic Monroe: An Introduction. WWW
1:3-11.

Hammond, R. and P. S. McCullagh
197 8 WWW Clarendon Press Oxford

Hallowell, Irving
1965 The Backwash of the Frontier. The Impact of the Indian on American Culture. In
W, edited by WalkerD. Wyman and Clifton B. Kroeber,
Pp. 229-228. The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.

Hardesty, Donald L.
1980 Historic sites archaeology on the western American frontier: Theoretical

Wtivcs and research Problems NonhAmedcanArclmmlogist 2(1) 67- 81

Henry, Susan L.
1987 Factors Influencing Consumer Behavior 1n Turn-of-the-Century Phoenix,
Arizona In W oditcd by Suzanne
Spencer-Wood, pp. 359-381, Plenum Press, New York.

1989 Consumers, Commodities and Choices: A General Model of Consumer
Behavior. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Historical
Archaeology, Baltimore, Maryland.

235

Hill, Sarah H.

1982 An Examination of Manufactme- -Desposition Lag for Glass Bottles from Late
Historic Sites. In. ‘ 1 . .. -
Ma, edited by Roy S. Dickens, Jr., pp. 291- 327. Academic Press, New
York.

 

Hilliard, Sam B.

1987 A Robust New Nation, 1783-1820. In W
W edited by Robert D Mitchell and Paul A
Groves, pp. 149-171. Rowman and Littlefield, Towato, New Jersey.

Hodder, Ian and Clive Orton
1979 WWW. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Howell, George W.

1971 Monroe County and Her People to 1821. Emma; Mississippi 111519121921]
Journal 4: 1-50.

Hoyt, Elizabeth
1938 W. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Hudson, John C.
1969 A Locational Theory for Rural Settlement. W
W 59:365-381.

Katzman, Martin T.
1975 The Brazilian Frontier 111 Comparative Perspective. Wain

WIT-266 -285

Kaye, Samual
1984 West Port and Columbus. W 3 March, 1984.
Columbus, Mississippi. Manuscript on file at Lowndes County Public Library.

King, H. R.
1962 A quantitative expression of the pattern of urban settlements 1n selected areas of

the United States W 53:1-7

Klein, RachelN
1990 11:11.1. Inigo ' . 11 1 .111:
W. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Kniffen, Fred

1965 F011! Housing: Key to Diffusion. W
W 55:549-577.

Larsen, Ellouise Baker

1975 WWW Dover Publications Inc.,
New York

Laws of Mississippi
1838, 1846 Jackson, Mississippi.

236

Lee, Maurice W.
1959 WWW Richard D. Irwin. Inc.,
Homewood, Illinois.

Lee- Decker, Charles H. and Terry H. Klein, Cheryl A. Holt, and Amy Friedlander
1987 Nineteenth Century Households and Consumer Behavior 1n Wilmington,
Delawam In W edited by Suzanne
Spencer-Wood, pp. 233-259. Plenum Press, New York.

Lees, William B. and Kathryn Kimery- -Lees
1984 Regional Perspectives on the Fort Townson Sutler' s Store and Residence. mains

Anthmnolozist 29:13-24.

1988 WWW Collector
Books, Paducah, Kentucky.

Lewis, Kenneth E.
1975 The Jamestown Frontier: an Archeological View of Colonization. Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of Oklahoma, University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

 

WW 2. University of South Carolina, Columbia.

1977 Sampling the Archaeological Frontier. Regional Models and Component
Analysis In WWW edited by Stanley
South, pp. 151-201, Academic Press, New York.

1984 I1 '
m. Academic Pross, Orlando.

 

Leyburn, James G.
1935 W. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Lipscomb, W. L.
1909 WWW Daughters of the
Confederacy, Columbus.

Lloyd, Peter E. and Peter Dicken

 

and Row, New York.

Lofstrom, Edward V.
1976 An Analysis of Temporal Change m a 19th Century Ceramic Assemblage from

Fort Snelling, Minnesota. W35(1)z16~47n

Lofstrom, Edward V., Jeffrey P. Tordoff, and Douglass C. George
1982 A Seriation of Historic Earthenwares in the Midwest, 1780-1870. M'mnaama

mm 41 :3-29.

Love, William A.
1903 Lowndes County: Its Antiquities and Pionier Settlers. Enhiigatinnanflhe

WW7o351-372

237

Lowery, Charles D.

1968 The Great Migration to the Mississippi Territory. 19m] Qt M" 531' 331921 HISIQDL
30: 173- 192.

Lowndes County Chancery Court
1853-1857 Estate Files 474, 507, 557, 913. Columbus, Mississippi.

Lowndes County Personal Property Tax Rolls
1830-1837, 1840, 1843, 1851-9. Lowndes County Department of Archives and
History, Columbus and Mississippi State Department of Archives and History,
Jackson.

Lowndes County Land Rolls
1853, 1857 Mississippi State Department of Archives and History, Jackson,
Mississippi.

Lowndes County Board of Police Minutes
1836 Lowndes County Courthouse, Columbus, Mississippi.

Margolis, Maxine L.

 

Community. University of Florida Press, Gainesville.

1977 Historical Perspectives on Frontier Agriculture as an Adaptive Strategy. American
Ethnologist 4:42-64

1979 Seduced and Abandoned: Agricultural Frontiers 1n Brazil and the United States.
In W edited by Maxine L. Margolis and William
E. Carter, pp.160—179. Columbia University Press, New York.

Marshall, Richard A.

 

Starkvine Mississippi

Martini, Don
1968 Mice 1n the Wigwam. the Colberts vs. historians. W
Historiealloumal 2:13-20

Mason, Roger D.

1984 II III I -|.III"'J 'I "I II II 1'!-

Wm. Publications 1n Archwology No. 2, American Archaeology
Division, Department of Anthropology, University of Missouri-Columbia.

Matthew, R. C. O
1967 W. Cambridge University Press, New York.

McBride, W. Stephen
1983 Archaeological Investigations at the Barton Townsite (22CL807), Mississippi. In

 

,I.Il U II-I IdIII\’IIIII I-.."I l' IHI ‘I."O II

W, edited by W. Lee Minnerly, pp. 111- 166. The Museum,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.

238

McBride, W. Stephen and Kim A. McBride
1983 Phase III Mitigations: Site Summaries. In Wand

.11-112- 1 {Ir-111 1 --11111 11111 11'.1 161111191111

MW edited by Charles E
Cleland and Kim A. McBride, pp. 74-135. The Museum, Michigan State
University, East Lansing.

1987 Socioeconomic Variation 1n a Late Antebellum Southern Town. The View from
Archaeological and Documentary Sources. In W
Amhmlngy., edited by Suzanne Spencer-Wood, pp. 143-161, Plenum Press,
New York.

McClurken, James M. and Peggy Uland Anderson, compilers
1981 I} r: .
Museum, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.

 

Meinig, D. W.
1986 I1.‘ 1111' 1 s11." .° ; ‘J‘JtiH -. "1~1.‘.111‘11 1U ‘.-1~ 1 ' .1u.
Yale University Press, New Haven.
M111er,GeorgeL

1974 Tenant Farmer' s Tableware. Nineteenth Century Ceramics from Tabb's

Purchase Wow): 197- 210

1980 Classification and Economic Scaling .of 19th Century Ceramics. Hiatnnaal
Archaeology 1411-40-

1991 A Revised Set of CC Index Values for Classification and Economic Scaling of
English Ceramics HistoricaLArchaeolou 25(1): 1-25

Miller, George L. and Silas D. Hurry
1983 Ceramic Sup 1y 1n an Economically Isolated Frontier Community. Portage
County of the bio Western Reserve, 1800-1825. Hiamnamm 17: 80-
92.

Miller, George, Ann Smart Martin, and Nancy S. Dickinson
1989 Changing Consumption Patterns, English Ceramics, and the American Market
From 1770 to 1840. To be published as part of the 29th Winterthur Conference.

Miller, Henry M.
1984 Colonization and Subsistence Change on the 17th Century Chesapeake Frontier.
Ph.D.Dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing.

Minnerly, W. Lee, editor

 

114112111 1.11 u 11 U1. .‘ 1 1‘ 1111'1.'-.'11 11 11

MI. Michigan State University Museum, East Lansing, Michigan.

1983 Irr- '11- I1. ,11‘1.-u :11ar1w11u1 1‘1'.I11 1 1.1.11 :11
1111; ' 31a; 1 1‘ 1111'1.'.‘ u. .11 1.11 .‘ '11'v..

191nm. Michigan State University Museum, East Lansing.

239

Mitlin, Lucielle L.

19751111112] [I ”1.51." N....ES ll
' . Unpublished M.A. thesis, Mississippi State University,

Department of Geology and Geography, Mississippi State, Mississippi.

Moore, John H.
1988 Iheflmmmtmefiomfinmmmmma louisiana State
University Press, Baton Rouge.

1986 Two Cotton Kingdoms. Wm 60:1-16.

1958 AgricnlnmnAmehellmnMississinai Octagon Books, NY.

Morgan, Edmund S.

1971 The First American Boom: Virginia 1618-1630. WWW
28:169-198.

Murphree, L. C. and K. H. Miller
1976 Wm. U.S.D.A., Soil Conservation Service
in Cooperation with Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station.

Myers, Merle Wentworth
1949 Geography of the Mississippi Black Prairie. Ph.D. Dissertation, Clark
University.

Newton,Milton
1974 Cultural Preadaptation and the Upland South. WM 5:143-154.

North, Douglass C.

1966 W W W Norton.New
York.

O'Brien, Michael J.
1984 11.111 11'. :11. 111: 1.1.1: ' 1 I"... '1

W. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

Otto, John S.
1981 Slaveholding General Farmers in a Cotton County. Wm 55: 167-
178.

Owsley, Frank L.
1949 W. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge.

Peebles, Christopher T.
197 8 Determinants of Settlement Size and Location 1n tfeh Moundville Phase. In
,edited by Bruce D. Smith, Pp. 369-416.
Academic Press, New York.

Peet, J. Richard
1969 The Spatial Expansion of Commercial Agriculture in the Nineteenth Century: A
Von Thunun Interpretation. Economic W 45:283-301.

240

Phelps, Dawson A.
1952 The Chickasaw Agency. MW 14:119-137.

Phillips, U. B
1908 The Origin and Growth of Southem Black Belts. WW
1 1:798-816.

Polk, Michael R.
1982 Archaeological Excavations at the Presumed Colbert Townsite Locale. In Qral

111111I1.....‘.111-.11 11111..11u-1‘1'°:'1111 1111-111-11

1.1111 11 1.1 1‘ 1111'1‘v. 1 1r 1 ‘1 ‘ 111.‘

1., edited by W. Lee Minnerly, pp. ISO-155. Michigan State University Museum,
East Lansing.

Prescott, J. R. V.
1965 W. Aldine, Chicago.

Price, Cynthia R., and James E. Price
1981 Investigation of Settlement and Subsistence Sytems in the Ozark Border Region of
Southeast Missouri During the First Half of the 19th Century: The Widow Harris

Project Ethnohistont 28:237-258.

Prout, W. E.
1973 Aflistoneauzocummtationnfflxmomhmsissinni Tombigbee River Valley
Water Management District, Tupelo.

Rodabough, John E.
1971- Port of Aberdeen. MM June 1971- April 1975.

1985 W- Tombigbee Press, Hamilton, Mississipi.

Rohrbough, Malcom T.
1978 W. Oxford University Press, New York.

Roth, Rodris
1961 Tea drinking 1n eighteenth century America: Its etiquette and equipage. United
WM 225

Sahlins, Marshall D. and Elrnan R. Service
1960 W. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.

Scarborough, William K.
1973 Heartland of the Cotton Kingdom. In Wedited by R. A.
McLemore. University and Colege Press of Mississippi, Hattiesburg.

Schaeffer, Donald F.
1987 A Model of Migration and Wealth Accrunulation: Farmers at the Antebellum

Southern Frontier Exnlmuominfieonomicflim 24: 130-157

Schiffer, Michael B., Theodore E. Downing, and Michael McCarthy
1981 Waste Not, Want Not: An Ethnoarchaelogical Study of Reuse' 1n Tucson,
Arizona In Modmhhtmialflrdmmeolows edited by Richard
A. Gould and Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 67-86. Academic Press, New York.

241

Schuyler, Robert L.
1988 Archaeological Remans, Documents, and Anthropology: a Call for a New Culture

History W220): 3642

Shepard, Steven Judd
1987 Status Variation 1n Antebellum Alexandria: An Archaeological Study of Ceramic
Tableware In W edited by Suzanne
Spencer- -Wood, pp. 163-198. Academic Press, New York.

Smith, Alfred Glaze, Jr.
1958 W. University of South Carolina
Press, Columbia.

Southern Argus
December 17, 1836 and September 26, 1837. Columbus, Mississippi.

Spencer-Wood, Suzanne M. (editor)
1987a WWW. Plenum Press. New York.

Spencer-Wood, Suzanne M.
1987b Miller' s Indices and Consumer-Choice Profiles: Status-Related Behaviors and
White Ceramics In W edited by
Suzanne Spencer-Wood, pp. 321-358. Plenum Press, New York.

Spencer-Wood, Suzanne M. and Scott D. Heberling
1987 Consumer Choices 1n White Ceramics. A Comparison of Eleven Nineteenth-
Century Sites In ConsumeLChoieeinflistoricalArchmlou edited by Suzanne
Spencer-Wood, pp. 55-84. Academic Press, New York.

Steffen, Jerome O.

 

of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Swedlund, Alan C.
1975 Population Growth and Settlement Pattern 1n Franklin and Hampshire Counties,
Massachusetts, 1650-1850. AmenaanAnnqnim 40(2) Memoir 30: 22-33.

Taylor, Rosser Howard
1926 SlanholdinainNonhSamlinaaAnEeonomiem University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Temin, Peter

1969 Wm. W. W. Norton, New York.

Thompson, Stephen 1.

3W Addison-Wesley Publishing
97Company, Inc. Philippines.

Toulouse, Julian H.
1969 Ernitlara Thomas Nelson, Camden.

1971 W. Thomas Nelson, Camden, New Jersey.

 

242

Turner, Frederick Jackson
1893 The significance of the frontier 1n American history.
WWW. pp 199-227

U.S. Bureau of the Census
1840-1850 Federal Censuses, Manuscript Schedules of Population, 1820, 1830, 1840;
Manuscript Schedules of Agriculture, Population, and Slaves, 1850, 1860,
Lowndes County, Mississippi. Available from the National Archives, General
Service Administration, Washington.

1821 Fourth Census. WWW
Department of State, Washington, D. C.

1832 Fifth Census WWW
Department of State, Washington, D. C.

1841 Sixth Census. W. Department of the Interior, U.S.
Census Office, Washington, D. C.

1853 Seventh Census. MW. Department of the Interior,
U.S. Census Office, Washington, D. C.

1864 Eighth Census. W. Department of the Interior, U.S.
Census Office, Washington, D. C.

Vance, James E., Jr.
1965 WWW- Prentice-Hall.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Wallerstein, Irnrnanual

1974 I1 111111111115 .4111111‘111 0.121 1 111.‘.-.1

WW Academic Press, New York

Waselkov, Gregory A. and R. Eli Paul
1980 Frontiers in Archaeology. WWW 2:309-330.

Way, Winston W. and Kim A. McBride
1983 The Study 1n Historical Perspective: A Narrative of Mid-Nineteenth Century

Barton and Vinton Mississippi In W
W

Wet edited by Charles E
Cleland and Kim A. McBride, pp. 7-73. The Museum, Michigan State University,
East Lansing.

 

Weaver, David C.

 

received from the author.

Weaver, David C. and James F. Doster
1982 111W. Report submitted to the
Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, Albequerque.

Weaver, Herbert

1945 W. Vanderbilt University Press, Nashville.

243

Weiner, Jonathan M
1976 Planter Persistence and Social Change. Alabama, 1850-1870. W

W 52(2). 235-260.

Wells, Robin
1973 Frontier systems as a sociocultural type. W 14(1):6-15.

Wetherbee, Jean
1980 Almknaflhinflmnatnne. Wallace-Homestead Book Company Des Moines,
Iowa.

 

WW Universityof Nebraska Press !

Wilkes, W. D.
1979 Pioneer Times in Monroe County. In W, edited by W. A. Evans,
pp. 1-29. Mother Monroe Publishing Company, Hamilton, Mississippi. Originally
published serially in the W, 1936-1938.

Williams, Petra, and Marguerite R. Weber

1986 We: Fountain House East. Jeffersontown.
Kentucky.

 

Wilson, Eugene M
1975 W. Alabama Historical Commission, Montgomery, Alabama.

Wood, Charles Lyon
1925 W. Reprinted m 1959, Columbus, Mississippi.

Woodman, Harold D.
1968 W. University of Kentucky Press, Lexington.

Works Project Administration
n.d. Source Material for Mississippi History. Clay County.Mississippi Department of
Archives and History, Jackson.

Wright, Gavin

1970 "Economic Democracy" and the Concentration of Agricultural Wealth 1n the
Cotton South, 1850-1860. Wm 44: 63-93.

1978 W W. W. Norton. New York.

Young, Mary E.
1961 W. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.