mike hilton <jmh963@hotmail.com> wrote: > >Thanks for the information, John about the Patented Certificates of resurvey, I know that one of the tracts absorbed into Bacon Quarter was called Deficiency, and 1626 Acres is quite a large amount of land from my viewpoint. > >Do you know if George Smith Sr. was growing either Tobacco or Wheat on that large of an acreage? Originally, I had no idea that he owned that much land, I thought he had just a couple of hundred acres and was perhaps a small or middling planter as such. > >It would be interesting if there was a surviving archive of Smith family papers or other family papers and letters from the mid to late 1700s. Do they have many surviving family archives from that time period in Delmarva that you are aware of? I've got a copy of the Nelms Store Accounts and found them to be quite interesting. > ________________ You seem to have misconstrued the term “deficiency” in the Wo Cert 237 plat legend as meaning a tract. Here, it’s a surveyor’s statement that the parent tract was originally computed as 596 acres, but the present surveyor finds only 591, thus “a deficiency” of 5 acres. Then he proceeded to take away interferences with three other actual properties and add several vacancies: This 1771 resurvey is defined as a resurvey of BACON QUARTER (25 Mar 1767, George Smith, 596 ac, found = 591) less 3.25 by CAMP less 18.5 by WALLACES ADVENTURE less 12.5 by CAPE BRETTON + 1069.5 ac vacancy in three components, as rendered on the plat and the affiliated course tables. Typically, otherwise and generally, a deficiency was an attribute of a warrant rectifying a shortfall in qualifying acreage for some previous survey, e.g., because the earlier survey had been discovered to have laid out interfering with some “elder survey”. The grantee would be authorized by a “warrant of deficiency” to new rights in the amount of the lost territory. This typically resulted in the seeking of a new survey, often adding contiguous vacancy to a party’s established land. You’re thinking in 21st century terms about the land. This is all much too complicated to go into here, but simply put, the local government perceived, for taxation purposes, that land would be assessed as cultivated, pasture (meadow), timber land, and swamp or marsh, at differing rates, also modulated by quality metrics. An ancient landholder was hardly likely to have cultivated 1626 acres surrounding his farmhouse, for many reasons, beginning with the ludicrous infeasibility. He needed timber land for wood to burn and otherwise exploit, like for fencing, construction (and sale). He needed pasture land for his livestock (sheep, cattle, horses, the odd goat and, of course, the kangaroos) and the ever-present foraging pigs. Typically, in the 17th and 18th centuries, only small fractions of large holdings were ever cleared for crops. The “1783 Assessments” for each county included the first complete rundown of land use and other household assessments for all properties. The index to these is at the MSA Web site, but to see the actual records, one must order the originals. There were similar sorts of things collected (and archived at MSA) in the 1790s and beyond. The 1783 Assessments list a gaggle of properties surrounding BACON QUARTER under George Smith’s name. Occasionally, one discovers in the (re)survey records a recapitulation of “improvements on the vacancy”,usually presented on the face of the plat. For the 1765 and 1771 BACON QUARTER resurveys, a total of 13 acres (12 + 1) of cultivated land is mentioned in the improvements recap. Take a look. As to what was being grown, the typical best source from official records might be an estate inventory, in which crops or other data might inform. As to surviving family papers, prospective sources are the Special Collections at the MSA (which include a number of private submissions that the Archives dutifully preserves; google their site under your names of interest), the family files at the MD Historical Society, and the Nabb Center. As to the 1626 acre BACON QUARTER itself, “special conditions” which apply here include the understanding that this land, several miles east of Salisbury, had gone unclaimed for over a century after first county settlement. This whole region was among the last land in the county to be taken up. Why? Primarily because it was in the “central highlands”, so to speak, without access to navigable or even much useable water. It lay between the heads of the tributaries of the Pocomoke and the Wicomico Rivers, in what was called The Wicomico Forest. The sense would be that it was wooded and not then seen as a good place for farming, or getting one’s goods to market. The land quality may also have played, but this would be a better topic for an agronomist to field. My lay inference, though, is that it was probably more acquired for its timber resources than for its farming potential. You’re now on your own. Good luck! John

John Lyon wrote: >>> An ancient landholder was hardly likely to have cultivated 1626 acres surrounding his farmhouse, for many reasons, ... . He needed timber land for wood to burn and otherwise exploit, like for fencing, construction (and sale). He needed pasture land for his livestock (sheep, cattle, horses, the odd goat and, of course, the kangaroos) and the ever-present foraging pigs. Typically, in the 17th and 18th centuries, only small fractions of large holdings were ever cleared for crops.<<< __________________ John is directing his comments at the 1600s and 1700s. Generally, though, it could be a bit risky to assume that the percentage of cleared land or land in cultivation over the years in a given area in America always has progressed steadily upward. A quick look online for some sources addressing agricultural history in the mid-Atlantic British colonies turned up several possible interesting reads, including Philip Alexander Bruce's "Economic History of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century: An Inquiry into the Material Condition of the People, Based Upon Original and Contemporaneous Records" (1896), presented online at www.dinsdoc.com/bruce-1-0b.htm. Bruce mirrors what John has suggested concerning the percentage of land in cultivation in the time period under discussion -- at least in Virginia along the lower James River. Bruce points out that in the late 1600s -- nearly 100 years after Jamestown's settlement -- even Virginia's most densely populated areas still resembled wilderness, with "[t]he high lands ... concealed by a heavy growth of trees, and the low grounds consisted largely of forest and marsh." He continues that, "The proportion of open fields on these plantations was barely one-fifth of the whole." The author explains that inexpensive "virgin soil" coupled with a lack of use of developing soil science were primary contributing factors. Farming tended to use and discard land (topsoil), with settlement moving outward to use previously unfarmed lands ... such that much of the settled area NOT in cropland in 1700 was, in fact, former cropland no longer productive and allowed to grow over. This use and discard approach might have been particularly pronounced in central and southeastern Virginia's tobacco-driven agriculture of the period. Bruce points out that wheat was the first crop grown in Virginia by the colonists (page 424). He also tells a story about a clergyman and an overseer, not so different than the story Susan Wheary related. And, again, the clergyman proved correct! (see pages 432-34). Dave K

Dave... I must be in an "expansive" mood this evening, so I'll add a brief :-) comment to your first paragraph below (incidentally I found the John Lyon comments highly interesting). Several years ago I was in Fauquier Co & (new) Rappahannock Co Va on a research trip. I stopped along the road and spoke with an orchardist (apples) and we got around to land. We were on the close eastern edge of the Blue Ridge and he gestured to the small mountains behind us and said "those hills used to be farmed intensively to the very top, and now look at them" (they were covered with timber, obviously having been allowed to revert to their natural, original state). Apparently the late comers in the initial emigrations to Virginia, and the less well financed farmers were forced to the hilltop land (the better farmlands were no longer available except at high prices) where agriculture, and thus financial, results were less robust. Thus when the lands in Ohio and Kentucky opened, the hilltopper farmers abandoned the hilltops and went West. Joe Lake > John Lyon wrote: >>> An ancient landholder was hardly likely to have cultivated > 1626 acres surrounding his farmhouse, for many reasons, ... . He needed timber > land for wood to burn and otherwise exploit, like for fencing, construction (and > sale). He needed pasture land for his livestock (sheep, cattle, horses, the odd > goat and, of course, the kangaroos) and the ever-present foraging pigs. Typically, > in the 17th and 18th centuries, only small fractions of large holdings were ever > cleared for crops.<<< > __________________ > > John is directing his comments at the 1600s and 1700s. Generally, though, it could > be a bit risky to assume that the percentage of cleared land or land in cultivation > over the years in a given area in America always has progressed steadily upward. > > A quick look online for some sources addressing agricultural history in the > mid-Atlantic British colonies turned up several possible interesting reads, > including Philip Alexander Bruce's "Economic History of Virginia in the Seventeenth > Century: An Inquiry into the Material Condition of the People, Based Upon Original > and Contemporaneous Records" (1896), presented online at > www.dinsdoc.com/bruce-1-0b.htm. > > Bruce mirrors what John has suggested concerning the percentage of land in > cultivation in the time period under discussion -- at least in Virginia along the > lower James River. Bruce points out that in the late 1600s -- nearly 100 years > after Jamestown's settlement -- even Virginia's most densely populated areas still > resembled wilderness, with "[t]he high lands ... concealed by a heavy growth of > trees, and the low grounds consisted largely of forest and marsh." He continues > that, "The proportion of open fields on these plantations was barely one-fifth of > the whole." > > The author explains that inexpensive "virgin soil" coupled with a lack of use of > developing soil science were primary contributing factors. Farming tended to use > and discard land (topsoil), with settlement moving outward to use previously > unfarmed lands ... such that much of the settled area NOT in cropland in 1700 was, > in fact, former cropland no longer productive and allowed to grow over. This use > and discard approach might have been particularly pronounced in central and > southeastern Virginia's tobacco-driven agriculture of the period. > > Bruce points out that wheat was the first crop grown in Virginia by the colonists > (page 424). > > He also tells a story about a clergyman and an overseer, not so different than the > story Susan Wheary related. And, again, the clergyman proved correct! (see pages > 432-34). > > Dave K > *************************************** > QUESTIONS about POSTING GUIDELINES, SUBSCRIBING or UNSUBSCRIBING? > Visit The Lower DelMarVa Roots Mailing List FAQ: > http://www.tyaskin.com/handley/ldrfaq.htm > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > LOWER-DELMARVA-ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message