I 29.14/2: 7
Clemson Universi
3 1604 019 699 844
vey and
PUBLIC DOCUMENTS* DEPOSITORY ITEM
FEB 23 1993
CLE>.1S0N LIBRARY
CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY AND INVENTORY
OF A WAR-TORN LANDSCAPE:
THE STUART'S HILL TRACT,
MANASSAS NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD PARK
VIRGINIA
Edited by Laura J. Galke
With Contributions by
Kevin Fitzpatrick
Jacqueline L. Hemigle
Martha McCartney
Cynthia Whitley
Manassas National Battlefield Park 1992
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2012 with funding from
LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation
http://archive.org/details/culturalresourceOOgalk
CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY AND INVENTORY
OF A WAR TORN LANDSCAPE:
THE STUART'S HILL TRACT,
MANASSAS NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD PARK, VIRGINIA
Edited by Laura J. Galke
With Contributions by
Kevin Fitzpatrick
Jacqueline L. Hernigle
Martha McCartney
Cynthia Whitley
Report submitted to the National Park Service, National Capital Region, under the auspices of the Cooperative Agreement between the National Capital Region and the Department of Anthropology, University of Maryland at College Park.
Occational Report #7
Regional Archeology Program
National Capital Region, National Park Service
Washington, D.C.
1992
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Part I Introduction
1. Project Background - L. Galke 3 Part II Historical Background
2. Research Strategy - M. McCartney 9
3. Regional History - M McCartney 13 Part III 1990 - 1992 Archeological Investigations
4. Phase I Research - K. Fitzpatrick 41
5. Brownsville (44PW479)
History - M. McCartney 47
Archeology - L. Galke 64
6. Meadowville (44PW478)
History - M. McCartney 85
Archeology - J. Hernigle 108
7. Nash (44PW581)
History - M. McCartney 121
Archeology - L. Galke 132
8. Swart (44PW572)
History - M. McCartney 143
Archeology - C. Whitley 155
Part IV Conclusion
9. Summary of Findings - L. Galke 171 References Cited 1 75
PART I INTRODUCTION
VIRGINIA
Old Prince William
TO ILLUSTRATE
"Landmarks of Old Pwnce W/ll/am
Leonard Lelana. Del. 1 9 24 —
, 5CAIC or UlUS , 10
LEGEND
JT*Tf lOUHOltT tlWS .- ^—^— -»^—
COl'lfT IOO»01tT liMS ~
Mil'. iOUHMft ll»f S — — — —
oifiM of*nworu*o ■————"'*••""" ctnrutu u»irj « nso wsowwmwroTO /Q ■ .o» -■ ■■ T
' VIHMOUSd ......................... A
courrxousri 3
..SIMflCS -..- •
}* nan II
A/
o
A ;»
■WASHINGTON
Figure 1-1: Location of Manassas, Virginia (Harrison 1987).
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION
Project Background Laura Galke
Manassas National Battlefield Park is part of the National Park Service, National Capital Region. It is less than thirty miles from Washington, D.C. (fig. 1-1). Over 5,000 acres in size, the park preserves the land upon which the first and second battles of Manassas were fought during the War Between the States (fig. 1-2)
lanassas jattlefield Park
Manassas National Battlefield Park acquired the Stuart's Hill Tract from developers on November 10, 1988 when President Reagan signed Public Law 100-647. Well over 500 acres in size, the tract's historical significance to the Battle of Second Manassas prompted it's purchase and exacted its preservation. Under the regulations of the 1966 Historic Preservation Act, any property acquired by the National Park Service must be assessed, and all cultural resources identified, especially those which meet the criteria for the National Register of Historic Places (section 106). The goal of Manassas National Battlefield Park is to restore the tract to its 1862 appearance, the year in which the Second Battle of Manassas was fought within and around the boundaries of this tract.
The archeological survey identified and evaluated both historic and prehistoric remains. Once acquired by the Park Service, an initial archeological pedestrian survey confirmed that a significant portion of the tract had been disturbed by development activities (fig. 1-3). This disturbance included mechanical grading of the surface of the affected areas to subsoil, road construction, and the construction of houses.
Figure 1-2: Manassas National Battlefield Park
Archeology was conducted on this tract in 1987 - 1988 by Karrell Archaeological Services. Their investigations provided direction for the Manassas National Battlefield Park Archeological Project, guiding further avenues of research. A cooperative agreement between the National Park Service, National Capital Region, and the University of Maryland developed a two and one-half year archeological project to assess the cultural resources of the property. This contract provided the funds for three positions: one research archeologist, one assistant research archeologist, and one archeological technician. Jacqueline Hernigle served as research archeologist from May 1990 through January 1992. She was assisted by William Leigh from May 1990 through January 1991, and Laura Galke from February 1991 through January
1992. The archeological technician from May 1990 through early August 1991 was Matthew Reeves. Kevin Fitzpatrick became archeological technician from January 1992 through September 1992. Laura Galke became research archeologist from February 1992 through September 1992. In March 1992, Cynthia Whitley assumed the duties of assistant research archeologist.
The archeological investigations were to incorporate both phase I and II research. A methodology was devised to sample the entire tract in an unbiased fashion through the excavation of shovel test pits (stp's). These stp's were excavated along transects aligned on Virginia Grid North (9 degrees east of magnetic North). On the western side of the tract exists the hill known as "Stuart's Hill", significant during the Civil War. Here, the interval sampling was set at fifty feet. This interval was the most intensive interval used at the tract and was used on this hill because of its association with the Battle of Second Manassas, specifically with the location of General Robert E. Lee's headquarters. Once "The Hill" had been fully investigated by 50 ft. interval s.t.p.s, the interval was increased to one hundred feet. Details of the methodology and the results of the shovel test pit investigations are discussed in chapter 4 of this volume.
Stuart's Hill
Manassas Battlefield Archeology
Grwr Nor
Phase II archeological research was conducted to sample identified sites in order to access the quality and integrity of their archeological deposits. These sites included Brownsville (44PW479), Meadowville (44PW478), Nash (44PW581), Swart (44PW572), and a newly discovered prehistoric site (44PW589) (fig. 1-3). For details of these excavations, consult the appropriate chapters in this report.
Volunteers participating in the National Park Service National Capital Regional Archeology Volunteers-ln-the-Parks Program were able to take part in the excavation of shovel test pits and phase II excavations at the Brownsville, Nash, and Swart sites. Through this program interested people were able to participate in archeological investigations under the supervision of project archeologists. The program profited from their efforts, enabling more archeological recovery than would have otherwise been possible. Their efforts benefitted the community, the battlefield, and the archeology program.
Figure 1-3: The Stuart's Hill Tract
The artifacts collected were washed, labeled, and cataloged according to National Park Service procedures, using materials and techniques approved by the Museum and Archeological Resource Storage Facility. The artifacts were cataloged using the ANCS data entry system, developed by the National Park Service. The artifacts are stored at M*A*R*S in Lanham, Maryland (the Museum and Archeological Resource Storage Facility).
While preliminary research on the historical sites was done by project members, in-depth
historical research was completed by Martha McCartney, whose contributions can be found throughout this volume.
Throughout the project, an emphasis was placed on discovering evidence of African- American material culture in an effort to contribute to the disciplines current interest in recovering evidence of African-American lifeways. Manassas National Battlefield Park can contribute significantly to such studies as several sites dating from the late eighteenth- through late twentieth-century are preserved within the park boundaries. Here, an entire community of ante- and post-bellum life exists, including sites which cross-cut social status, economic stratification, and ethnicity. Free black tenant farmers, landowners, and enslaved laborers exist within the context of their community, alongside the physical remains of white tenant farmers, landowners, and laborers. While these people shared a community, their experiences here were certainly diverse. A future study of the entire community represented at this National Park could provide an invaluable resource revealing the social trends, growth, and reactions of a community throughout the years of industrialization, war, and economic development.
PART II HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Chapter 2
RESEARCH STRATEGY
Martha McCartney
Archival research undertaken in support of archaeological investigations of the Meadowville (44PW478), Brownsville (44PW479), Swart (44PW572), and Nash (44PW581) archeological sites in Prince William County commenced with the examination of cartographic works that are on file at the Library of Congress, National Archives, Virginia State Library, Virginia Historical Society, Virginia Department of Historic Resources and the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Research Archives. Maps reproduced in secondary sources such as The Official Atlas of the Civil War and the American Campaigns of Rochambeau's Army were utilized as were plats and surveys that are on file at the Prince William County courthouse. Research also was carried out using plats that are among the Virginia Historical Society's collections of personal papers. An index to plats and surveys that are on file at the Huntington Library (in San Marino, California) was examined. Map research was oriented toward identifying cultural features within the boundaries of these site tracts and tracing the sequence of development that occurred there; analyzing land use patterns; ascertaining property boundaries; and establishing/verifying seventeenth-, eighteenth-, nineteenth- and twentieth- century land ownership traditions.
Patents and grants (records of the Virginia Land Office) were utilized as a means of assessing the rate at which settlement spread within the Potomac River drainage. Specific patents and grants were accessed through use of the abstracts compiled by Nell M. Nugent and Susan B. Sheppard. The card file of later-dated patents that is available at the Virginia State Library also was examined. Peggy S. Joyner's synopses of Northern Neck warrants and surveys were used extensively.
During visits to the Prince William County courthouse and the Virginia State Library, the chains of title for each site were traced through the analysis of deeds, wills, plats and land tax rolls. Use was made of the data compiled by earlier researchers, whose work was verified or corrected. Wills executed by some of the sites' owners and the inventories and estate sale accounts prepared by their executors and/or administrators were examined in order to gain insight into the decedents' material culture and socio-economic status. Land tax rolls were used to document the sequence of structural development that occurred on the tracts, for tax commissioners, commencing in 1820, began listing the estimated value of the buildings that stood upon the properties they assessed and sometimes recorded when specific structures were erected, improved, or razed/destroyed. While research was in progress, general observations were made with regard to the assessed values that had been assigned to the buildings that stood upon Prince William County's rural acreage, i.e., what contemporaneous monetary values represented improvements that were in the low, middling or high range. These data, in turn, were compared with the assessments assigned to those who owned/occupied Meadowville, Brownsville, Swart and Nash, respectively, for their investment in their built environment was a byproduct of their socio-economic status.
Personal property tax rolls were examined as a means of determining whether the owners of these tracts were residents of Prince William County and actually occupied the sites being studied. Also, because the tax assessor tabulated the quantities of slaves, livestock, and taxable luxury items (such as furniture, watches and wheeled vehicles) that taxpayers owned, personal property tax roll data were studied as another indicator of socio-economic status.
Agricultural census records compiled for Meadowville and Brownsville were reviewed as a means of determining what types of crops their owners/occupants raised and whether or not they had a substantial investment in farming equipment, to what extent they practiced animal husbandry, and how much land they had under cultivation. Census records and slave schedules were utilized as a source of data on household size and composition and familial relationships.
Faithful transcriptions of the official records of the Virginia government, as first a colony and then a commonwealth, were used as needed. E. G. Swem's Virginia Historical Index, the Virginia Gazette index, and the Pennsylvania Gazette index were used and the computer networks and card catalogues at the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Research Archives, the Williamsburg Regional Library, the Virginia Historical Society, and the Swem Library at the College of William and Mary were searched for secondary source material. General historical background data were extracted from volumes produced by respected scholars such as Warren S. Billings, Thad Tate, and Allan Kulikoff . Specialized reference works on the American Revolution and the Civil War were used as sources of both general and site-specific information on military activity that occurred in Prince William County. Among the volumes examined was T. B. Warder and J. M. Catlett's The Battle of Young's Branch or Manassas Plains: An Account of the Battle Fought July 21, 1861. Extensive efforts were made to identify and explore events that might have left an imprint upon the archeological record at each of these sites.
During visits to the Library of Congress, the Museum of the Confederacy, the Virginia State Library and the National Archives, photographic collections were examined. Fairfax Harrison's history of Prince William County, the Works Projects Administration's Writers Project volume on Prince William County and Nan Netherton's well documented history of nearby Fairfax County were used as sources of regional background data.
Manuscripts generated by architectural historian Betty Bird and historians Thomas W. Ray and James A. Schaefer were utilized extensively, as was a manuscript produced from Mrs. Nannie N. Leachman Carroll's recollections of life at Folly Castle (Brownsville) and vicinity. A Phase I archaeological reconnaissance survey report prepared by Daniel Koski-Karell and his associates was examined as was Willard J. Webb's write-up on the Monroe House. As seemingly contradictory information was presented in some of these manuscripts (data that are critically important to the interpretation of the archaeological remains at 44PW478 and 44PW479), emphasis was placed upon documenting each phase of the sites' development. Limited efforts were made to investigate certain peripheral properties (for example, the Monroe House, which stands upon acreage that originally was part of the Meadowville tract).
Data Limitations
Most of the seventeenth- and eighteenth-century maps that are available for the Northern Neck, within which the study area lies, consist of schematic representations that contain relatively little topographic detail. They do, however, disclose the general pattern of the region's settlement and development. By the first quarter of the nineteenth century map-makers began identifying Prince William County's major thoroughfares and local landmarks. Later, Civil War era cartographers prepared highly detailed maps that were extremely useful in tracing Meadowville's and Brownville's ownership traditions and land use patterns.
Undoubtedly, the most useful set of maps in documenting sites' involvement in the Second Battle of Manassas, were those produced by G. W. McCrary in November 1862 and
10
updated by G. K. Warren's investigative team in 1878, in preparation for General Fitz-John Porter's court martial hearings. These truly remarkable renderings, which portray the William Center tract in great detail, show its buildings, the major and minor roadways (such as farm lanes) that passed through the area, topographic features, and the pattern of troop movements. A lesser known map, produced by an anonymous cartographer during the 1 860s, shows the eastern part of the study area; it appears to have been prepared for use in conjunction with the First Battle of Manassas, when military action occurred to the east, beyond the study area. Maps made by William H. Brown in 1901 and by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1904 identify specific dwellings and their owners/occupants, forested areas and agricultural fields.
Prince William County was formed in 1 730 from portions of Stafford and King George Counties, both of which have as their common ancestor Westmoreland County, established in 1653 (Virginia State Library 1965:26,28). Prince William County's court records are incomplete, although most of its nineteenth-century deeds still survive. The county's earliest dated plat book, which commences in 1789, is well preserved. The records of Stafford County, one of Prince William's immediate antecedents, suffered great losses during the Civil War, whereas those of King George and Westmoreland Counties (Stafford's antecedents) are largely complete.
Prince William County was part of the Northern Neck Proprietary, which land grants are incomplete. Even so, many of its records still survive. Virginia's earliest land patents are copies of the original documents, which in 1690 were transcribed into volumes and sent to England. Prior to that time, the colony's patents, which were kept in the clerk's office at Jamestown, consisted of a series of loose leaves that were suspended upon a piece of cord and therefore were easily lost or destroyed (Nugent 1969-1979:1:226).
11
Chapter 3 REGIONAL HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Martha McCartney
Prince William County is in Virginia's Northern Neck, which region is situated between the Potomac and Rappahannock Rivers and fronts upon the Chesapeake Bay. The Northern Neck most likely was visited by Captain Vincente Gonzalez and Juan Menendez-Marques in 1 588, Spanish explorers who set out in search of Sir Walter Raleigh's colonists. In 1 608 Captain John Smith ventured into the Potomac River and discovered that Indian villages lined its banks. Later, he depicted them upon his well known map of Virginia (Lewis and Loomie 1953:186-202; Smith 1610; 1910:395-398). The Virginia colonists, who in 1610 were in desperate need of corn, began trading with the Natives of the Northern Neck, a practice that continued for many years (Smith 1910:419). English settlement in the southerly portion of the Potomac River valley was initiated during the early 1640s, but it wasn't until nearly a century later that colonists in substantial numbers began moving into the Northern Neck's upper reaches and interior (Stanard 1902:54; Wheeler 1972:1 1-14; Nugent 1969-1979:1:131-132, 135, 189, 199, 239, 264, 278).
The land within the Northern Neck of Virginia was part of a proprietary territory that the exiled King Charles II allocated to seven of his loyal supporters in 1649, a grant that he upheld in 1652 when the monarchy was restored. In 1669 Charles II reaffirmed the Northern Neck grant by means of a 21 year lease but he excluded three of its seven original proprietors. Later, when one of the excluded men's heirs protested, six of the seven men's shares were reinstated. John Lord Culpeper, whose interest in the Northern Neck had been restored, eventually purchased the shares of four fellow lessees. In 1688, his heir, Thomas Lord Culpeper, received the final grant to Northern Neck. Later, the Northern Neck Proprietary passed to Thomas Lord Fairfax through his marriage to Culpeper's daughter and heir (Gentry 1981:xvi-xvii).
Tracts of land within the Northern Neck proprietary were allocated to prospective grantees by means of purchase warrants that specified the size and location of the acreage for which application was being made. After a survey was performed, a legal land grant was prepared and issued. The office of the Northern Neck Proprietary continued to dispense land until after the American Revolution and the death of Lord Fairfax. The Fairfax family's interest in these Virginia lands, which was the subject of heated controversy after the Revolutionary War, was terminated in 1808, when the last surviving Fairfax heir sold off his residual interest in the region. Despite the fact that the Northern Neck was a proprietary territory, those who resided within its boundaries fell within the purview of Virginia law (Gentry 1981:xvi-xvii).
During the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, sizeable tracts of Northern Neck land were cleared to accommodate the mass production of tobacco, utilizing slave labor. Early on, Virginia planters learned that the soil type they favored for the production of sweet scented tobacco (the most marketable and therefore the most valuable species of the weed) occurred along the banks of the Rappahannock and Potomac and their tributaries. Therefore, it was during the mid-to-late seventeenth century that the plantation economy which characterized the Northern Neck for the next century and a half became well established (Billings et al. 1986:66-68). The 1670 map of Augustine Herrmann (1673) reveals that planters were then dispersed along the shore line of the Potomac and Rappahannock Rivers and the lesser streams that extended into the region's interior (fig. 3-1). A rapid increase in the
13
Figure 3-1: Virginia and Maryland, 1670 (Herrmann 1673).
14
population of the Northern Neck led to its being subdivided into several new counties and parishes.
As settlement spread inland, tensions increased between the colonists and the Indians, with the result that there were sporadic outbreaks of violence. In 1676 Governor William Berkeley responded to the plight of frontier families by building forts at nine sites on the heads of the colony's principal rivers. On the Potomac a fort was constructed on Mussell Creek in Stafford County. In 1679 these forts were replaced by military garrisons that were erected at only four sites. In contrast to the forts of 1676, which the colonists likened to mousetraps, these garrisons were to serve as a base from which armed horsemen could range through the countryside, maintaining a watch over the frontiers. The garrison on the Potomac was to be built near Occoquan. In 1683 the garrisons were discontinued, by which time the population of Virginia's Indians had declined significantly (McCartney 1985:67-71; Hening 1809-1823:11:326-327, 433; Nugent 1969-1979:11:60).
Most of the men who claimed literally thousands of acres of land on the Virginia frontier were members of the planter elite who were heavily involved in the colony's commerce and trade and in its political affairs. Their plantations were massive and according to contemporary accounts, resembled small villages. Interspersed with these great plantations were those of lesser size, which belonged to persons of more modest means (Billings et al. 1986:55, 122). The development and maturation of the colony and its governmental systems coincided with an increase in the stratification of Virginia society as a whole, with the result that those in its upper ranks, socially and economically, were in possession of many important advantages. County officials were appointed by the governor and council, as were lesser functionaries, all of whom derived income from performing their governmental duties. Members of the House of Burgesses, though elected, were drawn from the upper ranks of society, further enhancing their own influence. Family, political and social connections among the colony's leaders guaranteed their participation in the governmental establishment. Politics also permeated the affairs of the church, to which official interest was linked, with the result that the same men who functioned as burgesses or county officials (such as justices, naval officers or sheriffs) usually served as parish vestrymen. As members of an elite class these Virginians mingled together socially as well as when they were conducting business and discharging their governmental duties. Meanwhile, those at the lower end of the socio-economic scale, such as enslaved blacks and landless freedmen, had little opportunity for personal advancement (Billings et al. 1 986:55, 1 22).
In March 1730 an act was passed by Virginia's House of Burgesses, establishing Prince William County. Within the new county's boundaries was all the land at the heads of King George and Stafford Counties "above Chopwansick Creek on Potomack River, and Deep Run on Rappahannock river, and a south-west line [that was] to be made from the head of the north branch of the creek to the head of the said Deep run" (W.P.A. 1941:28). The newly-created Prince William County's vast territory later was subdivided into Prince William, Fairfax, Fauquier, Loudon and Arlington Counties. In 1731 a site near Woodbridge was chosen as the seat of Prince William County. With little delay, court justices, a clerk of court, and a sheriff were appointed and warehouses and ferries were authorized. The following year, parish boundary lines were adjusted to accommodate the region's growing population (W.P.A. 1941:29-30). During this period, plantation seats along the Rappahannock and Potomac Rivers, which early on had become a conduit of shipping and trade, served as the manorial estates of some of Virginia's most prominent families (fig. 3-2) (Mayo 1736, Warner 1736-1737).
Robert "King" Carter of Corotoman, who was extremely wealthy and powerful, was highly critical of the way in which the Northern Neck Proprietary was managed. Having become irritated by the Proprietors' agents' refusal to grant him a parcel of escheat land in Lancaster
15
A SURVEY of the NORTHERN NECK
of VIRGINIA, being
T/n' LANDS M<>train<i to t/ir BflfiwouniMf
Figure 3-2: Survey of the Northern Neck (Warner 1736 - 1737).
16
County, Carter used his position as chairman of the Virginia Assembly's Committee of Propositions and Grievances to encourage the Northern Neck's inhabitants to protest against the Proprietary's land allocation policy. In 1695 he filed a report in which he alleged that the Proprietors' agents failed to monitor whether the land grants they allocated to patentees were ever "seated" or settled upon. He alleged that "a man may hold 50,000 or more acres of land by a secure title, and that without so much as actually seating or building upon it" (Harrison 1964:240).
In 1702, when Robert Carter himself became an agent of the Proprietary, he practiced what he preached, for almost without exception he turned his personal land acquisitions into working plantations; however, by 1723, when he commenced his second term as agent, he had altered his views on the necessity of seating land promptly. In Spring 1724 Carter surveyed and set aside for his heirs grants that totalled 89,937 acres. These vast properties included the Licking Run tract (10,227 acres); the Turkey Run tract (10,610 acres that were situated above the Licking Run tract); the Kettle Run tract (6,166 acres above the Turkey Run tract; the Broad Run tract (12,285 acres in the fork of Broad Run and above the Kettle Run tract); the Bull Run tract (41,660 acres above the Broad Run tract and extending across the upper waters of Bull Run); and the Lower Bull Run tract (8,989 acres that consisted of two parcels that were east of the Broad Run and straddled the lower waters of Bull Run). As soon as settlement had extended beyond Difficult Run, Robert Carter began laying claim to additional land. In 1727-1728 he acquired 52,000 acres that extended from the headwaters of Broad Run to a point above Goose Creek and in 1730 he came into possession of 58,000 acres that were above the Shenandoah River (Harrison 1964:240-244).
Nan Netherton, who analyzed land settlement patterns in nearby Fairfax County, determined that in 1749 only 36 percent of the people living within her study area resided to the north or west of Difficult Run. Thus, she concluded that settlers preferred to establish their homesteads on the banks of rivers and navigable streams and moved inland at a relatively slow rate. Her research also revealed that although county residents generally relied upon slave labor, more than 61 percent of slave owners had six slaves or less and 24 percent of those slave owners had only one or two slaves. In contrast, 1 1 percent of Fairfax County's slave owners had between 20 and 40 slaves apiece and an elite four men possessed more than 40 slaves apiece. Netherton 's research demonstrated that the region's wealth was concentrated in its old, established families, many of whom were absentee landowners who had tenants or sharecroppers on their property (Netherton et al. 1978:30-31).
A map prepared in ca. 1747 demonstrates that during the second quarter of the eighteenth century, the upper part of the Northern Neck was sparsely settled but that the frontier had penetrated to a point that was well beyond the Blue Ridge mountains (Jefferson and Brooke 1736-1746). An unsigned map of Fairfax County that dates to ca. 1745-1748 and is believed to have been made by Daniel Jennings, reveals that a road network then criss-crossed the countryside, a situation that most likely was replicated in its western neighbor, Prince William. The Potomac Path, an Indian trail that led along the natural ridge between the Potomac and Rappahannock Rivers, extended from the Occoquan to Great Hunting Creek (where Alexandria later was established) and then continued westward; it was the forerunner of Route 1 . From the Occoquan Ferry another road extended westward, what was known as the Ox Road or Middle Ridge Road. This byway was laid out by Robert Carter in 1729, as a connecting link between the Occoquan Ferry and his Frying Pan Copper Mine, which was located on the Horse Pen Branch of Broad Run (Netherton et al. 1978:21-26).
The early 1 750s produced dramatic growth in the region's population. It was during this period that new roadways were laid out in Prince William County's interior and Dumfries,
17
established on Quantico Creek in 1749, became a flourishing international seaport. Although Prince William County's first seat was at Cedar Run on the Occoquan, by 1762 it was shifted to Dumfries. For much of the nineteenth century, the seat was in Brentsville, and then it eventually was moved to Manassas (Harrison 1964:662, 667). The spread of settlement in the region is reflected by the records in Robert Carter's land book, a bound volume in which he and his heirs sporadically noted who was leasing their land, the quantity of acreage that was being let to a specific renter, the amount of the lessee's annual rent, and whether or not his acreage had been surveyed. Unfortunately, Carter's book contains very few entries that pertain to the Bull Run tract, which surviving entries describe as 6,030 acres that were located in Prince William and Loudon Counties. Each of the five men who rented land in what then constituted the Bull Run tract reportedly had settled their property between 1752 and 1762 and held 21 year leases. Their annual rent ranged from 3 pounds 10 shillings to 3 pounds 16 shillings for 375 acres of land. No information was given on precisely where, within the Bull Run tract, each of these properties was located (Carter 1760-1815:4).
In 1 759 Fauquier County was created out of part of old Prince William County and a decade later Leeds Parish was formed from Hamilton Parish and included the northern part of what was then Prince William. During the fourth quarter of the eighteenth century the Potomac Path still comprised the main route that extended up the lower side of the Potomac River toward Alexandria. At the far end of Prince William County was the old Carolina Road,which entered the county at the northern end of the Bull Run ridge. After Dumfries began to prosper, roads were cut into newly settled areas. The Dumfries road (which extended from the Potomac River to the mountains) eventually led to Manassas and then to the Sudley Road, which was in relatively close proximity to the plantations which then occupied what became the Stuart's Hill tract (Henry 1770; Fry and Jefferson 1755, 1775; Jefferson 1787; W.P.A. 1941:31, 68-71; Ray 1987:12) (fig.s 3-3, 3-4 and 3-5).
The residents of Prince William County, like many other Virginians, in 1774 became caught up in what evolved into the American Revolution. On June 6, 1774 a citizens' meeting was held at Dumfries, where resolutions were passed against supporting the Mother Country. Two delegates were elected to attend the First Virginia Convention, which met in Williamsburg in August 1 774, and a permanent county Committee of Safety was appointed (W.P.A. 1 941 :31 ).
During the late eighteenth century, Prince William County's second and third towns, Newport and Carrsborough, were established by law, for Dumfries had entered a period of decline, thanks to the fact that Quantico Creek had begun silting in, to the detriment of shipping. However, neither Newport nor Carrsborough actually developed significantly. In 1796 the people of Prince William laid out Buckland, in the upper part of the county, and in 1799 Haymarket, which also was inland, was established by law. These were succeeded by Occoquan, created in 1804, and Brentsville (W.P.A. 1941:37). Historical maps that were made during the early nineteenth century demonstrate that by that time inland transportation had improved considerably. Bishop James Madison (1807), who in 1807 prepared a map of Virginia that was updated in 1818, emphasized the state's main thoroughfares while omitting most lesser roads. Madison showed Route 1 's forerunner, which developed from the track of the ancient Potomac Path and linked the colonial towns of Occoquan and Dumfries, and he also indicated that roads led southward from Occoquan and Colchester, which joined and then continued toward Dumfries. He identified the town of Haymarket, Route 55's forerunner (then an important thoroughfare), and showed the track of the Warrenton and Alexandria Turnpike (Route 29's antecedent) (fig. 3-6). Wood's map (1820) confirmed Madison's work and identified some of the sites at which development had occurred.
18
C O V X T Y
r^fS A*
/
Figure 3-3: A New and Accurate Map of Virginia (Henry 1770).
1Q
Figure 3-4: A Map of the most inhabited part of Virginia (Fry and Jefferson 1775)
^»»
20
Figure 3-5: A Map of the Country between Albermarle Sound and Lake Erie (Jefferson 1787).
21
1
/is '
^J
.V.
A «'/*///,/•• /\/v#/
l<
Figure 3-6: A Map of Virginia Formed from Actual Surveys (Madison 1807).
22
Herman Boye ( 1 826), whose map of Virginia was first published in 1 826 showed not only older roads that had developed into main thoroughfares at an early date, he also identified a number of minor roads that by 1826 had evolved into public byways (fig. 3-7). David H. Burr (1839) and Claudius Crozet (1848) depicted many of the same early transportation corridors. Crozet, who showed the Warrenton and Alexandria Turnpike prominently on his map, in 1824 reportedly noted that it was then complete as far as Buckland. By 1827 two stage coaches a week were running between Alexandria and the Orange County courthouse. Throughout the first half of the nineteenth century, agriculture comprised the economic mainstay of Prince William County. Its inland inhabitants needed roads over which they could transport their crops to urban markets and procure the manufactured goods they had come to need. The community known as Gainesville, which is located just west of the study area, originated as a stage stop on the Warrenton-Alexandria Turnpike (W.P.A. 1941:71, 167). In 1850 the General Assembly chartered the Manassas Gap Railroad Company and authorized it to build a rail line that connected with the Orange and Alexandria Railroad. The coming of the railroad provided another important mode of transportation to those who lived in Prince William County's interior. By 1851 construction was underway and within a year Manassas Gap trains were running to The Plains, Rectortown and Markham (Harrison 1964:588-592).
Shortly after the outbreak of hostilities between the North and South, the Manassas area was caught up in armed combat. Only 24 days after Fort Sumter was fired upon, Confederate General Robert E. Lee ordered the fortification of Manassas Junction. Northerners, meanwhile, clamored for a quick move on Richmond, hoping to bring the war to a timely end. General McDowell launched an offensive on July 16, 1861, with plans to attack the Confederates at Manassas. Military action began on July 18th. During the tactical maneuvers that ensued, the Confederate forces that came under attack received reinforcements that enabled them to withstand the Union assault and ultimately, to dispatch their adversaries (N.P.S. 1961). One map of the Manassas area that was prepared in August 1861 not only shows William M. Lewis's home, Brownsville (44PW479), but also the "range of elevated ridges and hills" in the vicinity of Meadowville (the Cundiff site, [44PW478]) that provided "commanding views of the Union lines to [the] eastward of Bull Run" (Atkinson 1861) (fig. 3-8). A map that was made by an anonymous cartographer depicts Brownsville and the countryside to its north and east (Anonymous [186-]) (fig. 3-9). Irvin McDowell's map (1862), which was produced in January 1862, emphasizes the vicinity of Manassas Station and includes Groveton and the Lewis home within its field of interest; however.it provides relatively little information about the western part of the Stuart's Hill tract (fig. 3-10). J. N. Macomb's rendering (1862), which was produced in April 1 862, appears to be based upon the topographic information compiled by Irvin McDowell.lt portrays schematically the manner in which Union and Confederate troops faced off against one another in July 1861 (fig. 3-11). Civil War scholars generally agree that no military action occurred in the vicinity of the Stuart's Hill tract during the First Battle of Manassas (Bull Run).
Approximately 1 3 months after the First Battle of Manassas was fought, the Manassas area again became a combat zone. This military engagement, which occurred during late August 1862 and is known as the Second Battle of Manassas, directly impacted the Stuart's Hill Tract. It was Union General George B. McClellan's failure to take Richmond during the Peninsular Campaign that led Federal officials to decide upon consolidating their forces under General John Pope. Pope's men, who were ordered to advance along the Orange and Alexandria Railway toward Gordonsville, encountered Confederate troops led by Thomas J. (Stonewall) Jackson on August 9, 1 862; this comprised the first battle of the campaign. General Robert E. Lee hoped to defeat Pope before McClellan's troops (who were still on the Peninsula) could come to his aid. But Pope withdrew to the Rappahannock. Meanwhile, Lee, in a surprise move, divided his forces and sent Jackson to Manassas, at the rear of the Union Army, where
23
Figure 3-7: A Map of the State of Virginia: Constructed in Conformity to Law (Boye 1826).
24
Figure 3-8: Map of the Battlefields of Manassas and the Surrounding Region, August 1861 (Atkinson 1861).
25
.poo- ••*#£ •.,;,;
Figure 3-9: Untitled Military Map (Anonymous [186-]).
26
Figure 3-10: Surveys for Military Defenses, Map of N. Eastern Virginia and Vicinity of Washington (McCowell 1862).
27
Figure 3-11: Manassas Junction and Vicinity (Macomb 1862).
28
on August 27th his men seized the Union supply base. Jackson then withdrew to a concealed position in the woods near Groveton, where his men were located behind the embankment of an unfinished railroad, a branch of the Manassas Gap Railroad. From that vantage point, Jackson and his men looked southeast toward the old battlefield upon which the First Battle of Manassas had been fought. Lee, meanwhile, reached Thoroughfare Gap and quickly thrust out of the way the small Union force that held that position. Thus, the way was clear for Lee's and Jackson's men to reunite in the vicinity of Manassas (N.P.S. 1961).
On August 28, 1862 an engagement took place involving Confederate troops under the command of Jackson and a Union Army division from General John Pope's Army of Virginia. This fighting, known as the Battle of Brawner Farm, occurred immediately to the north of the Stuart's Hill tract, across the Warrenton-Alexandria Turnpike. After combat ceased, the Union Army moved toward Manassas, leaving Jackson's units in position on the bed of the unfinished railroad to the north of the turnpike. On August 29, General Pope's units attacked Jackson's line. General James Longstreet's troops arrived from Thoroughfare Gap and extended the Confederate line to the south, across the Stuart's Hill tract. The fighting that occurred on August 29 and 30 was directed almost exclusively at Jackson's line. Most of this military activity on the Stuart's Hill Tract was limited to maneuvering and skirmishing between various units and an intense but brief clash between two Union and two Confederate brigades. The bloodiest fighting appears to have occurred to the east of the Stuart's Hill tract. It was a violent thunderstorm that ultimately put an end to the Second Battle of Manassas (Schaefer 1987:1:50-60; 11:2-4; N.P.S. 1961). A Union Army map that was prepared in 1864-1865 to document the progress of General U. S. Grant's campaign identifies the roads and railroads that had figured in the fighting, earlier on (Engineer Bureau War Department 1864-1865) (fig. 3-12).
Maps that were made in November 1 862 and updated in 1 878 as part of an investigation into the battlefield conduct of Union General Fitz-John Porter depict the roads and railroads that passed through the countryside in which the Second Battle of Manassas was fought. Also identified are some of the farm houses that at various times served as the focal points of military activity (Warren 1878a) (fig. 3-13). G. K. Warren's 1878 investigative team prepared a base map that summarized troop positions on August 29th and the various military maneuvers that occurred throughout the day (Warren 1878b) (fig. 3-14). Shown prominently on both of these maps are the Meadowville (Cundiff) and Brownsville (Lewis) dwellings. One map identifies the position of General Fitz-John Porter's men, as reported by General John Pope (Warren 1878c) (fig. 3-15). Two other maps portray the positions of the opposing sides at 6 P.M. and at midnight on August 29th (Warren 1878d; 1878e) (fig.s 3-16 and 3-17). The extent to which Porter was responsible for the severe losses that occurred among his men is still the subject of scholarly debate (Boatner 1959:662; Long 1987:257). Porter was accused of deliberately disobeying orders and on January 10, 1863 was court martialed, found guilty and cashiered. In 1 878 his sentence was remitted. The Schof ield Board, which studied Porter's case, concluded that his orders were "based upon conditions which were essentially erroneous and upon expectations which could not possibly be realized" and commended him for not sacrificing his troops in order to protect his own reputation (Boatner 1959:662).
The end of the Civil War and the onset of the Reconstruction period brought many changes to Prince William County and Virginia as a whole, which comprised a military district. The demise of slavery as a legalized institution forced Virginia farmers to draw upon hired labor and sharecroppers, some of whom were ex-slaves that chose to remain near their former homes. Many of Prince William County's buildings had been seriously damaged or destroyed during the war, with the result that whole families were displaced or had been made destitute. Land that formerly had been under the plow, upon being abandoned, quickly grew up in thickets of weeds
29
Figure 3-12: Central Virginia Showing Lt. Gen. U.S. Grant's Campaign (Engineer Bureau War Department 1864-1865).
30
Figure 3-13: Map of Battle Field of Manassas, Virginia, on August 29, 1862 (Warren 1878a).
31
Figure 3-14: 12 M, Map of Battle Field of Manassas, Virginia, on August 29, 1862 (Warren 1878b).
32
Figure 3-15: 6 PM, Map of Battle Grounds of August 28, 29 and 30 1862 (Warren 1878c).
33
77 Hi
7Z£ ZJOrt
sets' Toeu&t . • > ■ -.- £*
z/idesii' lux- ? arcestiw
15
Figure 3-16: Map of Battle Grounds of August 28, 19 and 30, 1862 (Warren 1878d).
34
Figure 3-17: 12 M, August 30, 1862, Map of Battle Field of Manassas, Virginia "on Auaust 29, 1862 (Warren 1878e).
35
and briars that had to be cleared before it could be cultivated. Too, literally thousands of Virginia men lost their lives in battle or received permanently disabling wounds, such as the loss of a limb. As most of these former Confederate soldiers were rural men of working age, their elimination from the agricultural work force crippled the farm economy. Many rural families commenced raising less labor-intensive crops, such as vegetables and fruits that could be sold in urban markets, or became more heavily involved in animal husbandry (McCartney 1988.165).
The Constitutional Convention of 1867-1868, which produced the so-called Underwood Constitution, effected a complete reorganization of government. At that time, county boards of supervisors were established as the administrative unit of local government. The creation of a system of public education, which support and attendance was mandatory, also stemmed from the 1 867-1 868 Constitutional Convention. In 1 872 the Alexandria and Washington Railroad was extended southward from Washington while the Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac Railroad was built northward; the two rail lines converged at Quantico Creek and formed a network that connected Richmond with Washington. The town of Manassas was incorporated in 1 873. Potomac, which also was incorporated during the late nineteenth century, faltered but went on to be re-incorporated in 1 927 as the town of Quantico. Occoquan and Haymarket were incorporated in the early 1870s and '80s and in 1893 the town of Manassas became the seat of Prince William County. Throughout this period Prince William's population grew steadily, from 9,180 persons in 1880 to 11,112 in 1900 (W.P.A. 1941:55).
The advent of the twentieth century brought a number of significant changes to those who lived in rural Prince William County. Steam- and horse-powered farming equipment was replaced by gasoline-powered tractors that were both faster and more efficient. Likewise, horse-drawn vehicles were replaced by trucks and automobiles, which in turn necessitated road improvements. As animal-propelled vehicles diminished in use, tracts of land formerly used to raise livestock feed were re-planted in crops that were intended for human consumption. A map prepared in 1904 reveals that Prince William County was still predominantly rural in character (U. S. Army 1904) (fig. 3-18). In 1917 the outbreak of World War I brought the establishment of a Marine Corps training center at Quantico, which became a permanent base the following year. Around 1917 Groveton School No. 3 (which was constructed on land that was donated by John T. Leachman of Brownsville) was replaced by a two-room school that was erected nearby. Rural electrification and telephone service, the paving of roads and the establishment of rural mail service further broadened the horizons of those who lived in rural Prince William. By 1940 the population of Prince William County had grown to 17,237 and visitors had begun to come to the area's battlefields, stimulating the development of a tourist industry. During the 1960s, Pageland Road was extended down to Groveton Road, which ran parallel to Route 66; it was around this time that both roads were black-topped (Ray 1987:54-55; W.P.A. 1941:55; U.S.P.O. 1923).
36
-&/ &fc* / H Deader) .
Figure 3-18: Maneuver Grounds: Prince William and Fairfax (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1904).
37
PART III ARCHEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS
Chapter 4 PHASE I INVESTIGATION
Kevin Fitzpatrick
Topography
The Stuart's Hill Tract is located in the piedmont lowlands of northern Virginia. Elevations vary along the tract, ranging roughly from 220 to 340 feet above sea level. The most prominent hill on the tract is Stuart's Hill. All of the hills on the tract are eroded, revealing iron- laden sandstone on the ridgetops and some of the slopes. Young's Branch is the major water source, oriented northwest to southeast. Several intermittent streams feed this creek, which are seasonally dry by early summer.
A good portion of the vegetation on the tract is relatively new. An aerial photograph taken in May, 1937 shows most of the land as recently farmed and/or timbered. Presently, Stuart's Hill Tract is in various stages of secondary succession, the process by which the natural forest returns to an area. An aerial photograph taken in May, 1988 shows the areas with recovering forest (fig. 4-1).
Soils associated with the Stuart's Hill Tract are predominantly of the Jackland-Waxpool- Legore-Oakhill variety, and in most areas, drainage is moderate to poor (Elder n.d.:121). Although the Stuart's Hill Tract was historically used as farmland (McCartney, this report), much of the land formerly used for growing crops has lost most of its topsoil due to erosion (Karell, et al 1987:14). There is often less than one foot of soil covering red shale bedrock.
Review of Previous Archeological Work
Prior to the National Park Service's acquisition of the Stuart's Hill Tract, Karell Archeological Services conducted a survey of the 542.7 acre property in 1987. Since procedural methodology of the Manassas Battlefield Archeological Project was impacted by this former survey, a brief review of the Karell investigation follows.
The Karell survey of William Center (now Stuart's Hill) was largely guided by predictive modeling developed through background research. Eleven "sensitive zones" were identified (a sensitive zone being an area of land thought likely to contain evidence of historic or prehistoric cultural occupations.) Five of the eleven zones were areas potentially impacted by the Second Battle of Manassas. Four zones were selected as high probability areas for prehistoric Indian occupation. The remaining two zones encompassed two historic farmsteads, Brownsville and Meadowville. The total acreage of sensitive land was 110 acres (Karell, et al 1987:20).
Of the 110 acres, 102 were within historically sensitive zones. These areas were systematically surveyed by metal detector and shovel tested at 50 foot intervals. The remaining eight acres, comprised of four prehistoric sensitive zones, were also shovel tested at 50 foot intervals. Additional shovel tests and excavations were performed when archeological remains of possible significance were found. The remaining 432.7 acres were surveyed in a less intensive manner (Karell, et al 1987:20-26).
The Karell survey identified five prehistoric sites (44PW476, 44PW477, 44PW481, 44PW482, 44PW483), one civil war site (44PW480), and two historic farmsteads, Brownsville
41
Figure 4-1: Aerial Photograph of the Tract, May 1988 (Air Survey Corp.).
42
of the prehistoric sites due to disturbance caused by plowing and/or erosion. Two of the prehistoric sites, 44PW476 and 44PW483, were destroyed. During development of the land by the Hazel/Peterson Companies during 1 988 - 1 989. Only 1 5 artifacts were recovered from the Civil War site (44PW480), resulting in a recommendation for no further work.
The two historic farmsteads, Brownsville and Meadowville (44PW479, 44PW478), were recommended for preservation in place. Both yielded many Civil War period military artifacts. The Brownsville site contained cultural material from the late eighteenth- through twentieth- centuries, including artifacts indicative of African-American lifeways (Galke, this report). Meadowville contained artifacts from two discreet occupations, one nineteenth- and one twentieth-century occupation. A prehistoric component was also recovered from here, but interpreted as having been the personal collection of one of the farmstead's residents (Hernigle, this report).
Phase I Methodology
The Manassas Battlefield Park Archeological Project was begun in July, 1990. Information on the project area was gathered from pedestrian surveys and aerial photographs taken in 1987 and 1990 by the Air Survey Corporation. The amount of land disturbed by development was calculated to be approximately 1 06.5 acres, or 20% of the tract (fig.4-2). Any cultural material in this area was assumed to have been destroyed by heavy machinery, therefore this area was not included in the phase I research.
Transects were laid out east-west, following a Virginia grid north (9 degrees east of magnetic north) orientation. The remaining 436 acres of the tract were shovel tested at regular intervals, for a total of 2,530 shovel test units. The 42 acres directly on and surrounding Stuart's Hill, and 20 additional acres encompassing Brownsville, the Nash site and Meadowville were shovel tested at 50 foot intervals. The rest of the tract, 379 acres, was tested at 100 foot intervals.
Phase I Investigations
Shovel test pits (stp's) were one foot in diameter, and excavated at least one foot in depth into culturally sterile subsoil, or shallower if bedrock or poorly drained soil interfered. Shovel tests falling on slopes of greater than 20% were left unexcavated. All soil was trowel- sorted and examined for cultural material. Positive shovel tests were retested in cardinal directions at one-half of the stp interval to further define the parameters and nature of the deposit. All positive shovel tests were recorded on shovel test forms. Artifacts recovered from stp's were washed, labeled, catalogued and stored at M.A.R.S. (Museum and Archeological Research Storage Facility). Phase I fieldwork was completed in June, 1992.
Phase I Results
Stuart's Hill
Of the 745 shovel test pits either directly on or near Stuart's Hill, 5 were positive for cultural material. One dropped, not fired, Civil War period Union Army minie ball was included in the small assemblage. Historic documentation records the presence of Robert E. Lee's camp headquarters in the proximity of Stuart's Hill; however, no confirmation of such was obtained archeologically. No significant cultural deposits were found in situ within this area (fig. 4-2).
43
O0££3>LJl-a2: aca <*
Figure 4-2: Transects and Sites of the Stuart's Hill Tract.
44
Brownsville: 44PW479
The Brownsville site is located in the southeast portion of the Stuart's Hill tract. Three hundred shovel test pits were placed on the Brownsville farmstead. Areas where structures were known to have existed were avoided so as not to disturb intact features. Most of the historic cultural materials were found exterior to the northern sides of known structures, eroding downslope towards Young's Branch. The results of Phase II investigation of Brownsville appear in Chapter 5.
A prehistoric component was also recovered at Brownsville. One blocky quartzite fragment, possibly fire-cracked, was recovered from test M-22 in the middle of site 44PW477, documented by Karell Services as a late Archaic camp with a late Woodland component (fig. 4-2). Six tests northwest of Brownsville produced a lithic scatter (K-2, L-4, M-1, M-4, N-1 and S-2) which was highly dispersed within the plowzone. One rhyolite flake and one Halifax-like projectile point base were found, suggesting a late Archaic presence similar to that found at 44PW477. No further work was recommended at this site.
Meadowville: 44PW478
Refer to Chapter 6 for shovel test results.
Nash Site: 44PW581
The Nash site was discovered during 100 foot interval shovel testing on transect BS, on a ridge approximately 1 00 feet south of Lee Highway and 1 200 feet from the intersection of Lee Highway and Groveton Road. Intact structural remains were found, along with a man-made depression, resulting in retesting of the area at 50 foot intervals. Cultural material was found in 2 of the 70 tests, including two fragments of Rockingham/Bennington earthenware. Refer to Chapter 7 for results of Phase II testing of the Nash site.
Swart Site: 44PW572
The Swart site encompasses the extant remains of a stone foundation structure, and nearby standing barn and shed. The Karell report includes a description of the farm equipment still stored in the barn. The stone foundation is approximately 100 feet south of Lee Highway and 1 200 feet east of the intersection of Lee Highway and Pageland Lane, with the barn and shed located south and southeast, respectively. Test pit Z-25 directly east of the shed produced high artifact density, resulting in the decision to test the shed area as well as the stone foundation. Refer to Chapter 8 for results of Phase II testing of the Swart site.
44PW589
This prehistoric site was located on transect AW in the center of a knoll near Young's Branch in the center of the tract (fig. 4-2). One scrapper and one hammer-stone were found in test pit AW-18. A quartz core fragment and 2 quartz flakes were found in a retest of this test pit. A 2.5 foot by 2.5 foot test unit was placed next to AW-18, yielding 2 rhyolite flakes, quartz debitage, and fire-cracked quartzite from within the plowzone. Although the site received official state designation, no further work was recommended.
44PW482
45
Test pit AG-25 and its retests confirmed location of this prehistoric site, formerly identified by Karell Services. The site is located on the south side of Young's Branch in the northwest section of the tract. No diagnostic artifacts were found, although AG-25 yielded two hammer stone, a quartzite biface fragment and fire-cracked rock. No further work was recommended.
Additional Positive Tests
A total of 28 shovel tests produced cultural materials, but were not associated with nearby archeological sites, and did not receive official site designation. Twelve such tests were located west of Meadowville farm and produced brick fragments, despite no surface indication of a nearby structure. It was concluded that the brick was plow-scattered rubble generated by Meadowville. The remaining 14 shovel tests were deemed isolated deposition incidents, and no further investigation was recommended.
Conclusion
The Manassas Battlefield Archeological Survey was a comprehensive and systematic assessment of the Stuart's Hill tract. As a result of the survey, two historic sites were identified (Nash Site 44PW581 and Swart Site 44PW572) and one prehistoric site (44PW589). Other previously recorded sites were confirmed and parameters further defined prerequisite to conducting Phase II investigations.
46
Chapter 5 BROWNSVILLE PLANTATION
Historical Background Martha McCartney
George Newman Brown, who first developed the plantation known as Brownsville, was living in Prince William County by 1769, at which time he purchased 235 acres from John Young, for whom Young's (or Licking) Branch is named. The land Brown bought appears to have been part of the 255 acres on the Licking Branch of Bull Run that Young had acquired from Maurice Bivin in 1725-1726. In 1775, when a survey was made of a 12 acre tract that Brown had just been granted, reference was made to the fact that his newly-allocated parcel lay adjacent to "his own land (formerly John Young's)" (Prince William County Deed Book R:127; Joyner 1986:94,174). This acquisition would have given him 247 acres that were contiguous. Later-dated land records demonstrate that George Newman Brown built his home upon the acreage he purchased from John Young in 1769, the tract upon which 44PW479 is located. Between 1775 and 1782 Brown modestly enhanced the size of his land holdings through the acquisition of another 107 acres and in 1782 he paid real estate tax upon a total of 354 acres. Personal property tax rolls identify Brown as a resident of Prince William County and indicate that he was a relatively prosperous farmer, who owned seven slaves (two of whom were age 16 or over), five horses and 16 cattle (Prince William Land Tax Lists 1782; Personal Property Tax Lists 1782). The names of the slaves in 1782 were Frank, Harry, Young Moll, Louis (a female), Amy, Pender, and Sarah.
In 1787, George N. Brown leased from Mann Page III of Mannsfield in Spotsylvania County 202 acres of land that Page had inherited from Robert Carter. Like William Cundiff, who in 1787 also commenced leasing land from Page, Brown was obliged to preserve one-fourth of the acreage's timber and to build "a good and proper dwelling and outbuildings" and keep them in good repair. He, too, was to plant 100 apple trees per hundred acres of ground and to pay the annual quitrent that was owed on the property. The Page-Brown lease extended for the lifetimes of George N. Brown and his three sons, Henry, John and William (Prince William County Deed Book X:42-43). Land tax lists reveal that by 1791 George Newman Brown commenced paying the real estate taxes that were due on the land he was leasing from Mann Page III; he also was still in possession of the 354 acres he had previously owned (Prince William County Land Tax Lists 1783-1791).
On January 4, 1800 Mann Page III sold to George N. Brown the 202 acres he had been leasing to him since 1787 (Prince William County Deed Book 1:31-32). As noted earlier in this report, it was during 1800 that Page disposed of virtually all of the 1,875 acres he then owned in Prince William County. In 1801 George N. Brown conveyed 1 12 of his 354 acre tract to his son, John, which left the older man with 242 acres. The following year, the assessor noted that Brown's 202 acres had been purchased from Mann Page and that his other parcel (then described as 255 acres) had come from John Young. In 1807 when the assessor commenced setting down a limited amount of geographical information about the land he evaluated, Brown was credited with tracts of 202 and 255 acres, both of which were located on Young's Branch. By 1809 Brown's 255 acre parcel had been reduced in size to only 230 acres; however, the assessor's records provide no explanation for the change. No land tax lists exist for 1808. In 1814 George N. Brown was said to be living "on [the] premises" of his 230 acre tract "of Young" on Young's Branch. The assessor also noted that during 181 3 Brown had conveyed his 202 acre parcel"of Page" to Robert Brown, his son, who immediately took up residence upon it (Prince
47
William County Land Tax Lists 1790-1814). Thus, the tax assessor's records reveal that in 1814 George Newman Brown personally was occupying part of the 235 acres he had acquired from John Young in 1 769, whereas son Robert Brown was then in possession of the 202 acres that George had commenced leasing from Mann Page III in 1787 and bought from him in 1800.
Personal property tax rolls reveal that between 1783 and 1800 George Newman Brown slowly but surely increased the quantities of slaves and livestock he owned. In 1787 Brown headed a household that included one free white male tithe over the age of 21 (Brown himself), two free white males between 16 and 21 (most likely his sons George N., Jr. and John), four slaves who were age 16 or older and eight who were under 16. In his possession were six horses/asses/mules and 21 cattle. Tax lists indicate that George N. Brown had a greater investment in cattle than many of his contemporaries. By 1 794 Brown was credited with 1 1 slaves who were over age 16. Commencing in 1795 John Brown (whom the assessor identified as George Newman Brown's son) began paying personal property taxes upon himself and another free white male tithe who was over the age of 16, plus a horse/ass/ mule. Concurrently, the number of free white male tithes in George N. Brown's household declined to one: Brown himself. Thus, his two maturing sons, who owned no land of their own, may have set out to establish a separate farmstead on part of their father's land. During 1796 George N. Brown appears to have given his son, John, three slaves (two who were over 16 and one who was underage) and an additional horse/ass/mule. Meanwhile, William Brown (whom the assessor noted was George N.'s son and under the age of 16) was taxed upon one stud horse. By 1800-1801 George N. Brown's sons, William and John, were paying their own personal property tax. John, who had three adult slaves and one who was between 12 and 16, plus four horses/asses/mules, had just received 112 acres of land from his father. William, on the other hand, was still landless and slaveless and had only one horse/ass/mule (Prince William Personal Property Tax Lists 1783-1801; Land Tax Lists 1800-1801).
During the years 1800-1814 George N. Brown headed a household that included two to three free white males of tithable age, eight or nine adult slaves and nine or ten horses/asses/mules. His son, John, appears to have left Prince William County in 1805 and returned in ca. 1809, for he ceased and then resumed paying his capitation taxes in the county. Meanwhile, George N. Brown's son, William, continued to be listed as a Prince William County taxpayer who had neither land nor slaves; thus, he may have continued to share his parents' home. Throughout this period, the quantity of taxable personal property attributed to George N. Brown essentially remained constant (Prince William County Personal Property Tax Lists 1800-1814).
The Brown family suffered the loss of George N. Brown, Jr., sometime during 1803. Although he owned no Prince William County real estate, an inventory that was compiled of his personal estate reveals that he had possessed a saddle, bridle and sorrel horse and half-interest in a "steed horse" named Friendship. William Cundiff of Meadowville served as the appraiser of George N. Brown, Jr. 's estate (Prince William County Will Book l:6). In 1810 when the census-taker visited George Newman Brown's home, living in his household were a free white male who was over age 45 (George himself), a free white male between 26 and 45 and another who was between 16 and 26, a free white female who was over age 45 (presumably Brown's wife, Sarah), and two free white females who were between 16 and 26. The Brown family had 21 slaves, or more than twice the nine upon whom George N. Brown paid personal property tax in 1810. This indicates that a dozen of the Browns' slaves were less than 12 years old, the age at which slaves were then deemed taxable (Prince William County Census 1810; Personal Property Tax Lists 1810).
George Newman Brown died at the close of 1814. Even so, in 1815 the personal
48
property tax assessor attributed to him (rather than his estate) two free white male tithes who were over age 16, 14 black slaves who were over age 12, eight horses/asses/mules and 15 cattle. Also credited to Brown were two taxable luxury items: a chest of drawers and a bureau-or-secretary, both of which were made of a wood other than mahogany (Prince William County Personal Property Tax Lists 1815). The records compiled by the man who formulated Prince William County's land tax assessments for 181 5 were more accurate and up-to-date than those of the individual who maintained the county's personal property tax rolls, for in 1815 Mrs. Sarah Brown, George Newman Brown's widow, was residing "on [the] premises" of the 230 acres her late husband reportedly had bequeathed her during the previous year. The assessor noted that Mrs. Brown had inherited a life interest in the decedent's real estate, not outright (fee simple) ownership (Prince William County Land Tax Lists 1815).
George Newman Brown's inventory provides a great deal of insight into his family's material culture and socio-economic status. In his possession was a relatively elaborate assortment of household furnishings, including a sideboard, two bureaus, five bedsteads, a writing desk, several tables, ten chairs, two chests and a mirror. Among the luxury items Brown owned were half a dozen silver teaspoons and a pair of brass candlesticks. A substantial quantity of utilitarian goods were on hand, including a gun, a loom, iron pots of various sizes, water vessels, a grindstone, churns, a powdering tub (for salting meat), flat irons, a woolen wheel, a meal sifter, coffee mill, cotton cards, still yards, and four sets of andirons and tongs. The presence of six whiskey barrels, three half-barrels and a hogshead suggests that someone in the Brown household was fond of strong drink or perhaps sold it to others. Although the late George N. Brown had invested in several plows, hoes, mattocks, axes, froes, and other types of agricultural equipment, the bulk of his investment was in his slaves, several of whom were worth $200 to $400. He also had substantial quantities of rye, wheat, oat and flax seed. Brown's livestock, which were worth more than all of his household furnishings combined, included four horses, a yoke of oxen, dairy cattle, 37 sheep and 20 hogs. The decedent, at the time of his death, was in possession of a wagon and a tent (Prince William County Will Book K:396-397) (see Table I).
By summer 1816, when the county's personal property tax assessor prepared his estimates, the late George N. Brown's perishable estate had been distributed among his surviving heirs. Mrs. Sarah Brown, who then had two free white male tithes living in her household, was taxed upon three slaves who were over age 1 6, one who was over age 1 2 and six horses/asses/mules. William Brown, one of the decedent's sons, who previously had owned only a horse/ass/mule, in 1816 was credited with a slave who was over age 16. John, another son, paid taxes upon six slaves that were age 16 or older and five horses/asses/mules. By 1817 all of these individuals were in possession of approximately equal amounts of slaves and livestock. Robert Brown, one of the late George N. Brown's sons, who in 1814 had come into possession of the 202 acres his father had bought from Mann Page III, died prior to the tax assessor's visit in 1 81 5 and for the next three years, Robert's 202 acre farm was credited to his estate (Prince William County Personal Property Tax Lists 1816-1817; Land Tax Lists 1814-1818).
On October 8, 1818 John Brown et al., the heirs of George Newman Brown, conveyed to Bernard Hooe of Hazel Plain the 408 acre tract upon which the decedent reportedly "resided at the time of death," which Brown's widow, Sarah, subsequently had occupied. The text of Brown-Hooe deed states that the land being sold was the same acreage that the late George N. Brown had purchased from John Young and Mann Page, part of which Brown had patented personally. Mention also was made of the fact that the decedent had given a portion of his land to his son, Robert Brown, who had died single and intestate, with the result that his real and personal estate had reverted back to his kin (Prince William County Deed Book 7:126-128). Land tax rolls for 1819 confirm the fact that Brown-Hooe transaction was completed, for the
49
assessor noted that Bernard Hooe had just come into possession of 409 acres on Young's Branch that he had procured from George N. Brown's heirs. In 1820, when the real estate tax assessor commenced setting down the value of the structural improvements that were located upon Prince William County's real estate, buildings worth an estimated $1,000 then stood upon the 409 acres that Bernard Hooe had obtained from the Brown heirs. Although the assessor in 1824 stated that Brownsville had $1,000 worth of buildings, when he returned in 1825 he left the column blank in which he should have recorded the value of its improvements. The next two years' tax records make no mention of the buildings' existence or disappearance and in 1828 the assessor noted that "buildings added formerly were omitted." Thus, it appears that in 1825 the assessor made a simple clerical error that was corrected in 1828 (Prince William County Land Tax Lists 1819-1828; Personal Property Tax Lists 1818-1820).
Personal property tax lists dating to the first quarter of the nineteenth century reveal that Bernard Hooe of Hazel Plain was one of Prince William County's most prosperous farmers. In 1818 he owned 39 slaves that were age 16 or older and another seven slaves who were between 12 and 16; also in his possession were 37 horses/asses/mules. After Hooe purchased Brownsville, he continued to reside at Hazel Plain, where his investment in its improvements was considerable: $4,000 or four times the value of Brownsville's buildings. He was still living at Hazel Plain at the time of his death in 1825. Bernard Hooe's will reveals that he bequeathed life rights to all of his real and personal property to his wife, Margaret, who was authorized to retain as much of his estate as she thought proper, once his just debts were paid. At Margaret Hooe's decease the Hooe property was to descend in fee simple ownership to the couple's daughters, Lucy Buckner and Elizabeth T. Hooe. The late Bernard Hooe's inventory indicates that his home at Hazel Plain was well furnished and reflected his affluence and cultured tastes. Among his material possessions were two shares in the Warrenton-Alexandria Turnpike, which touched the northern border of Brownsville. Hooe's will made no distinction between the slaves and livestock that he had on his home farm, Hazel Plain, and any that he might have assigned to Brownsville. Thus, unless he elected to rent Brownsville's acreage to a tenant or sharecropper, he most likely expanded his agricultural operations to encompass its 409 acres and placed an overseer and gang of slaves upon the property (Prince William County Land Tax Lists 1819-1820; Personal Property Tax Lists 1818; Will Book M:350-352,389-392).
In 1826 and 1827 Prince William County's tax assessor noted that Mrs. Margaret Hooe of Fairfax, the late Bernard Hooe's widow.was then in possession of Brownsville, the decedent's 409 acres on Young's Branch, and that the farm had $1,000 worth of buildings. He also indicated that Mrs. Hooe had inherited Brownsville under the terms of her husband's will. By 1828, however, Mrs. Margaret Hooe's name had disappeared from the Prince William County tax rolls, suggesting that she had relinquished to her daughters the real and personal property that she had inherited or that she had died or perhaps remarried. In 1828 Elizabeth T. Hooe of Alexandria was credited with several tracts of Prince William County land that previously had been in the hands of her mother, Mrs. Margaret Hooe, including Hazel Plain and its $4,000 worth of buildings. Between 1829 and 1830 the tax assessor consolidated some of Elizabeth T. Hooe's parcels into larger aggregates, one of which was 1,333 acres on Little Bull Run that reportedly had $1,000 in improvements. In 1836, however, when Brownsville changed hands again, the assessor described its 409 acres as vacant. The farm's buildings (which both architectural data and family tradition indicate were extant) were omitted from tax assessor's records from 1836 to 1839 (Prince William County Land Tax Lists 1826-1839). A sketch of the Brownsville dwelling, made in the 1880s by artist Lewis Kowalsky, which indicates that the building's oldest component was constructed in an architectural style that was common during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, corroborates Mrs. Nannie N. L. Carroll's account, which states that her grandfather bought Brownsville, which had "a good substantial Colonial house" and moved his family into it (Carroll 1976:1, 5-6, 32). Of course, the possibility
50
also exists that the first Brownsville house, which was in existence prior to 1814, was destroyed in ca. 1836 and that a new dwelling was constructed in ca. 1840, at which time the tract's assessment again referenced the existence of buildings (Prince William County Land Tax Lists 1814 - 1840).
In 1 835 William H. Fowle and his wife, the former Elizabeth T. Hooe, who were residents of the city of Alexandria, sold their 408 acres known as "Brown's tract" to William M. Lewis, who already was in possession of 349 acres on the Copper Mine Branch that had $350 worth of buildings. The Fowle couple (as grantors) stated that the land they were conveying to Lewis was the same acreage that had been allotted to Elizabeth T. Hooe by the commissioner of the county circuit court in the law suit of Fowle vs. Hooe. In 1836, when the Prince William County tax assessor compiled his annual records, he credited William M. Lewis with his 349 acres on the Copper Mine Branch, plus 409 acres called "Browns." He made no note of the Brown tract's buildings, but indicated that Lewis had acquired the land "by deed from Fowle and wife." William M. Lewis's Brownsville and Copper Mine tracts were identically described through 1 839. Personal property tax rolls indicate that William M. Lewis was a relatively successful middling farmer who owned six slaves that were over the age of 16 and two who were between 12 and 16, plus five horses/asses/mules. Commencing in 1838 both Lewis and his son (Benjamin F.) were identified as free white male tithes, although the elder man was listed as head of the household. In 1 838-1 839 William M. Lewis paid taxes on from 1 0 to 12 horses/asses/mules and the same number of slaves he had owned in 1836 (Prince William County Land Causes 1835-1841 Part 1:157-159; Land Tax Lists 1835-1839; Personal Property Tax Lists 1836-1839).
In 1840 the county tax assessor stated that William M. Lewis's 409 acres called Brownsville had $300 worth of buildings and his 349 acres on the Copper Mine Branch had improvements that were valued at $100. It was between 1836 and 1840 that William M. Lewis moved his family into the domestic complex that stood upon the Brownsville tract, the dwelling that became affectionately known as Folly Castle (W.P.A 1941:123). In 1840, when a census was taken of Prince William County's inhabitants, William M. Lewis was described as heading a household that included a free white male over age 45 (himself); a free white male between 20 and 30 (son Benjamin F); a free white female over age 45 (William M.'s wife, Anne); a free white female between 20 and 30 (daughter Lucinda); and three free white females who were between 10 and 20 (daughters Josephine, Adelaide, and Mary). Genealogical records indicate that in 1840 William M. Lewis was age 58 and his wife, the former Anne Mitchell, was 46. Since their marriage in 1812 the couple had produced at least five children: Benjamin F. (born in 1815), Lucinda (born in 1817), Josephine (born in 1823), Adelaide (born in 1825), and Mary (born in 1830). Tax records for 1840 indicate that William M. Lewis then had eight slaves who were over age 16 and 11 horses/asses/mules and that he and his son lived in the same household (Prince William County Land Tax Lists 1840; Census 1840; Personal Property Tax Lists 1840; Carroll 1976:28-29).
Between 1840 and 1849 William M. Lewis neither bought nor sold any of his Prince William County real estate, for he continued to be credited with his 409 acres called Brownsville and its $300 in improvements and the 349 acres he owned on the Copper Mine that had $100 worth of buildings. In 1850, however, the value of the buildings on William M. Lewis's 409 acre Brownsville tract rose from $300 to $1,000, suggesting that the farm's structural improvements had been enhanced substantially. It was, perhaps, around that time that Lewis constructed a two-story wing addition onto his dwelling. Still another significant change occurred in 1850: Lewis's son, Benjamin F., commenced being credited with 170 acres of land that contained no structural improvements. Throughout the 1840s Lewis and his son were listed together as free white male tithes who lived in the same household and the elder man continued to pay the taxes that were owed upon his six to nine slaves who were over age 16, his one to five slaves who
51
were between 1 2 and 1 6, plus his 1 3 to 1 4 horses/asses/mules. Genealogical accounts indicate that William M. Lewis's daughter, Lucinda, married William H. Dogan in 1842 and took up residence at Groveton. Her sisters, Josephine and Adelaide, married and left home during the following decade (Prince William County Land Tax Lists 1 840-1 850; Personal Property Tax Lists 1840-1850; Census 1840; Carroll 1976:29).
In 1850 when the census-taker returned to William M. Lewis's home, he described Lewis as a 68-year-old white male farmer who owned $5,000 worth of real estate. Also present were Benjamin F. Lewis (age 34), whose occupation was listed as 'agent," and Adelaide (age 25) and Mary (age 21) Lewis. Slave schedules for 1850 reveal that William M. Lewis owned black males who were aged 3, 4, 6, and 21 and black females who were 7, 8, 12 and 25; however the tax assessor attributed to Lewis nine slaves who were over the age of 16 and three who were between 12 and 16, plus 12 horses/asses/mules. In 1850 William M. Lewis paid taxes upon a clock, the only taxable luxury item he then owned. Agricultural census records for 1850 reveal that 350 acres of Lewis's farm were"improved" (which was defined as being under cultivation or in pasturage) and 60 acres were "unimproved" (wooded or unusable). The cash value of Brownsville was $3,000 and the value of Lewis's farming implements was $200. Lewis's livestock included 12 horses, 12 milk cows, four working oxen and 12 other cattle, 130 sheep, and 50 swine. During the previous year 1,000 bushels of Indian corn had been raised on the farm, as well as 200 bushels of oats, 4 bushels of Irish potatoes, 2 bushels of sweet potatoes and 3 tons of hay. Lewis's sheep had yielded 15 lbs. of wool and his cows had enabled him to produce 100 lbs. of butter. Sixty dollars worth of animals reportedly had been slaughtered for consumption during 1849 (Prince William County Land Tax Lists 1840-1850; Personal Property Tax Lists 1840-1850; Census 1840, 1850; Slave Schedules 1850; Agricultural Census 1850). Thus, Brownsville was a successful working farm at mid-century, when it was in the hands of William M. Lewis and his son, Benjamin F. Lewis.
When the tax assessor compiled his records for 1853 William M. Lewis and his son, who were free white male tithes, were credited with 14 slaves over the age of 16 and 15 slaves who were between 12 and 16; 15 horses/asses/mules; 300 cattle, sheep and hogs; two clocks (one of which was metallic); a watch; $50 worth of gold and silver plate; and $300 worth of household fumishings.The quality and quantity of William M. Lewis's taxable personal property fluctuated almost imperceptibly between 1853 and 1860, although in 1861 he w.»s credited for the first time with a wheeled passenger vehicle: a pleasure carriage. Between 1850 and 1856 the value of the buildings on Lewis's Brownsville farm remained constant, at $1 ,000, but in 1 857 they rose to $1,500. While William M. Lewis may have further enhanced Brownsville's improvements, Prince William tax records suggest that the elevation in assessed value was more likely attributable to a county-wide adjustment that was made in the county's tax base. Between 1 857 and 1 870 Brownsville's buildings had an estimated value of $1 ,500 (Prince William County Personal Property Tax Lists 1853-1861; Land Tax Lists 1853-1870).
Census records for 1860 shed a considerable amount of light upon the size and composition of William M. Lewis's household. Lewis, who was identified as the household's head, was a 78-year-old farmer who owned $9,168 worth of real estate and $28,432 worth of personal property. His son, Benjamin F., was described as a 44-year-old farmer who owned $2,916 worth of real estate but lacked personal property. One of William M. Lewis's daughters, Mary, who was 30 years old and single, was still living at home. Anne Mitchell Lewis, William M.'s wife, died sometime during 1860, apparently prior to the census-taker's visit. Slave schedules for 1 860 reveal that William M. Lewis was then in possession of 22 slaves who ranged in age from 1 to 70 and occupied four slave houses. Lewis's slaves, who were made up of both blacks and mulattoes, consisted of two black men who were age 25; four black men who were 30, 32, 36 and 70 years old; one 60-year-old black woman; four mulatto women aged 21, 22,
52
23, and 28; five mulatto men aged 19, 20, 22, 28, and 37; two black youths (aged 15 and 17); two black girls who were age 10 and three black girls aged 1 and 3 (Prince William County Census 1860; Slave Schedules 1860; Carroll 1976:28).
Agricultural census records for 1860 indicate that William M.Lewis then had 700 acres of improved land and 300 acres that were unimproved. As tax records for 1860 credit Lewis with his 409 acre Brownsville tract and 349 acres on Copper Mine Run, or 758 acres in all, he may have leasing some additional farm land or the 170 acres that his son, Benjamin F., owned may have been included in his total. The cash value of William M. Lewis's real estate was $12,112 and he reportedly had $385 worth of farming implements. His livestock, which was valued at $2,067, included 14 horses, 12 milk cows, six working oxen and 20 other cattle, 90 sheep, and 48 swine. During the 1859 growing season Lewis's land had produced 75 bushels of rye, 750 bushels of Indian corn, 400 bushels of oats, 100 bushels of Irish potatoes, 20 tons of hay, and 14 bushels of grass seed. His sheep had yielded 350 lbs. of wool and his dairy cattle had produced 200 lbs. of butter. An estimated 200 lbs. of beeswax and honey had been gathered during 1859 and $450 worth of animals had been slaughtered for consumption. The census-taker noted that $60 worth of homemade manufactures (of an undescribed type) also had been produced (Prince William County Agricultural Census 1860). A comparison between the 1850 and 1860 agricultural censuses for William M. Lewis's farm, which reflect a marked increase in productivity, suggests that Lewis and his son had begun to employ some of the scientific farming techniques that had gained popularity during the 1 850s and that he had begun to place more emphasis upon animal husbandry. These hypotheses are supported by the fact that his land's yield per acre had increased and his dairy cattle and sheep also were more productive.
According to one of William M. Lewis's granddaughters, Nannie N. L. Carroll, the family at Brownsville was "getting on nicely" when the Civil War broke out. Although the First Battle of Manassas was fought only a mile and a half to the east of Brownsville, the farm and its inhabitants escaped direct involvement. However, the situation was quite different in August 1862, when the Second Battle of Manassas occurred and Brownsville's fields and forests became a combat zone (Warren 1878a) (fig. 5-1). Mrs. Carroll, who was born in 1866, recalled hearing that her family's dwelling was "right in the line of battle, about a mile from the Henry House, which was the center of it all." Mrs. Carroll quoted her mother as saying that "this was a terrible day" and that "the house was struck by cannon balls several times and they expected to be killed any minute." Mrs. Leachman reportedly put her five small children behind a large sideboard, where "they stayed huddled ail day, 'til the firing ceased late in the evening." She also took two young calves into a thicket, where she tied them up, hoping they would be overlooked by the soldiers who came onto the farm. After quiet descended upon the battlefield, the wounded of both sides were brought into the yard at Brownsville, which (according to Mrs. Carroll) was converted into a field hospital. This portion of Mrs. Carroll's account is corroborated by the scholarship of James A. Schaefer, who determined that Brownsville was in Union hands on August 29th,was behind the Confederate skirmish line all of August 30th, and in both instances served as a field hospital. After the battle was over, Union soldiers returned to bury the dead, "many of whom were put in mass graves with no identification." According to Mrs. Carroll, the soldiers carried off all of Brownsville's cattle and horses except for the two calves that her mother had hidden away (Carroll 1976:3; Schaefer 1987:1:31-32).
According to some scholars, on August 29, 1862 Confederate artillery attacked the Union troops who were then occupying Brownsville's grounds, while they awaited General Meade's advance to the far side of the turnpike. Jackson's and Seymour's brigades, under the direction of Reynolds, and the batteries of Kerns, Simpson and Ransom were stationed near the house. Around 1 1 A.M. Jackson's Third Brigade moved from Brownsville (identified as the Lewis
53
Figure 5-1: Map of Battle Field of Manassas, Virginia, on August 29, 1862 (Warren 1878a).
54
House) to a position along Meadowville Lane, below John Cundiff's dwelling; simultaneously, Seymour's Brigade advanced. Both brigades were replaced by Meade's Brigade and Cooper's Battery, while Kerns and Simpson continued to remain in place. The First and Second Pennsylvania Reserves soon became engaged in fire with Confederate troops. The Second Pennsylvania then moved to the north of the turnpike, leaving the First Pennsylvania on the south side, within the Stuart's Hill tract. Later on, all of Reynolds' troops and cannon reassembled along Young's Branch, near Brownsville (Schaefer 1987:1:26-27, 32). Troop positions in the vicinity of Brownsville are shown on three maps that were prepared for the court martial hearings of General Fitz-John Porter in 1878 (Warren 1878b, 1878d, 1878e) (fig.s 5-2, and 5-3).
Fourteen-year-old William T. Monroe, who lived in the Monroe House, said that he had witnessed the actions of the Confederate battery that was deployed at the southernmost part of Monroe's (Stuart's) Hill. He recalled that the battery fired in a northeasterly direction toward Groveton, for half an hour, and then deployed in a southeasterly direction toward a site near the Britt House, approximately 0.4 mile southwest of Brownsville. Once the four-cannon battery was readied for action, it discharged grape and canister toward Brownsville, where Union troops had congregated. William M. Lewis's son-in-law, John T. Leachman, who served as a guide to the Confederates under Colonel Stephen D. Lee, rode horseback to Brownsville on August 30th, where he had breakfast and then returned to his duties. He reportedly made no comments about any damage that may have occurred to Brownsville's domestic complex, which suggests that it was minimal. Leachman served as a guide to General James Longstreet and "Stonewall" Jackson during the Second Battle of Manassas (Koski-Karell 1987:89; Bird 1987:9; Ray 1987:33-36).
According to General James Longstreet's testimony at General Fitz-John Porter's court martial hearings, he ventured out on a personal mission of reconnaissance that took him ahead of the Confederate line, which was located to the south of Young's Branch. He reportedly left Monroe's (Stuart's) Hill, skirted the area, then turned toward the Lewis house, Brownsville. Longstreet testified that he then dismounted and entered the Lewis dwelling, where he looked toward the northeast and saw "a very strong array of artillery" and troops, most of whom were lying down in line of battle. James A. Schaefer and nineteenth century historian Jacob D. Cox have argued, however, that Longstreet visited the Britt House or Cundiff dwellings, not Brownsville, for the troops he alleged he saw were then positioned literally around the Lewis residence (Schaefer 1987:1:31). The site of the Lewis house was shown on several maps that were made for the Porter court martial hearings (Warren 1878a) (fig. 5-1).
William M. Lewis, who was 79-years-old at the outbreak of the Civil War, died during 1865. An inventory of his personal estate and the account of his estate sale, both of which were compiled on December 11, 1865, reveal that at the time of his death he was relatively affluent and that he had on hand an impressive quantity of farming equipment, household furnishings and livestock (Prince William County Will Book R:31-35). He also held several people's bonds and notes, which totalled $1,817, an indication that he had been loaning money to others. Lewis's farming implements included harrows, an assortment of plows, cultivators, grain cradles and a threshing machine. Among his household furnishings were specialized food service vessels, such as casters, cake and butter plates and pickle dishes, and his silver flatware included a dozen spoons and a butter knife. The Lewis home was furnished in a genteel fashion, for it had two clocks, a carpet, window curtains, mirrors, a sofa, a settee and awash-stand, a wardrobe, a writing-desk, a dining-table, and several beds, some of which furniture was made of mahogany. The presence of five flax wheels, two spinning wheels and a loom raises the possibility that the $60 worth of "household manufactures" that the agricultural census-taker noted in 1860 had been produced by Lewis's household may have consisted of
55
Figure 5-2: 12 M, Map of Battle Field of Manassas, Virginia, on August 29, 1862 (Warren 1878b).
56
Figure 5-3: Map of Battle Grounds of August 28, 29, and 30, 1862 (Warren 1878d).
57
cloth or yarn that was manufactured for sale. William M. Lewis, at the time of his death, had in his possession 23 cows, 10 calves, three horses, and a flock of 97 sheep. Thus, if soldiers carried off Brownsville's livestock during 1861-1862, as Mrs. Nannie N. L Carroll reported, Lewis (with the assistance of his son-in-law, John T. Leachman) had been successful in rebuilding his farming operations by 1865.
At William M. Lewis's estate sale a significant number of items were purchased by his son, Benjamin F. Lewis, and son-in-law, John T. Leachman. Both men bought farming equipment and utilitarian items, such as flax and spinning wheels. Benjamin F. Lewis bought substantial quantities of dishes, glassware and household furniture, as did his sisters, Adelaide Wheeler (the wife of William Wheeler) and Lucinda Dogan (the wife of William Henry Dogan). Thus, in 1865 the bulk of William M. Lewis's household contents were removed from Brownsville and transported elsewhere (Prince William County Will Book R:33-35). John T. Leachman and his wife, who stayed on at Brownsville, bought no furniture and very few items that were related to keeping house. Whether they preferred to furnish the dwelling in accord with their own taste or were conserving their financial resources toward the purchase of the farm itself is not known.
On July 9, 1868 William M. Lewis's heirs deeded their interest in the tract that he had "died seized of called Brownsville" to John T. Leachman. The 409 acre farm was bound on the north by the Warrenton and Alexandria Turnpike, on the west by the Cundiff property, on the south by the Wheeler farm, and on the east by the Compton and Chinn land (Prince William County Deed Book 26:743-744). In 1870, when Prince William County's tax assessor compiled his records, he noted that John T. Leachman was then in possession of the Brownsville tract, which consisted of 409 acres that had $1,500 worth of improvements. Thus, the buildings were valued at the same figure at which they had been assessed since 1857 (Prince William County Land Tax Lists 1857-1870).
In 1870 when the census-taker visited John T. Leachman's family at Brownsville, he noted that Leachman was a 48-year-old white male farmer who owned $8,135 worth of real estate and $3,310 in personal estate. His wife, Josephine, who reportedly kept house, was age 46. The couple had three sons and six daughters living at home: John T., Jr. (age 15), Charles C. (age 13), Thomas R. (age 5), Edith M. (age 13), Mary L (age 12), Bessie A. (age 11), Roberta L. (age 8), Katie F. (age 6), and Danielle (age 3, who was Nannie N. L. Carroll, whose recollections have been cited throughout this report). Also living in the Leachman household was Martha L. Givins, a 15-year-old white female, and Philip Triplett, a 21-year-old white male farm laborer (Prince William County Census 1870).
Agricultural census records for 1870 indicate that 300 acres of John T. Leachman's 409 acre farm were then under cultivation, whereas its remaining 109 acres were wooded or otherwise unimproved. Leachman's farm, Brownsville, had a cash value of $5,751 and Leachman had in his possession $350 worth of farming implements. During 1869 he had expended $800 in wages to hired laborers, some of which funds may have gone to 21 -year-old farm laborer Philip Triplett. Leachman's older sons also would have assisted him with his farming operations. His livestock (which were worth $1 ,460) consisted of six horses, seven milk cows and 14 other cattle, two working oxen, 50 sheep and 23 swine. During 1869 the crops that had been raised at Brownsville included 560 bushels of wheat, 875 bushels of Indian corn, 800 bushels of oats.two tons of hay, two bushels of peas and beans, and $150 worth of orchard products. Leachman's seven milk cows had produced 364 lbs. of butter and his flock of sheep had yielded 150 lbs. of wool. A total of $450 worth of animals had been slaughtered for consumption. When Brownsville's yield is compared with that of other area farms, it is apparent that in 1870 John T. Leachman ran one of Prince William County's most productive agricultural operations. Leachman, though cultivating less than half as much land as his father-in-law,
58
William M. Lewis, had possessed under the plow, had succeeded in growing twice as many bushels of oats and sightly more corn and had raised a substantial quantity of wheat, a crop Lewis had not attempted. Leachman also appears to have been somewhat more successful in his animal husbandry, for Lewis's 12 milk cows had produced 200 lbs. of butter, whereas Leachman's seven had yielded 364 lbs. (Prince William County Agricultural Census 1860, 1870). It is likely that Leachman, who was 40 years younger than Lewis had been in 1860, kept abreast of the advances that had been made in scientific farming. Land tax lists for 1875 indicate that John T. Leachman's farm, Brownsville, which was described as being near Groveton, had buildings which collective value was $1,200 (Prince William County Land Tax Lists 1875).
Agricultural census records for 1880 reveal that by that date John Thomas Leachman had added to the quantity of land under his control, increasing its size by 106 acres. However, the cash value of his farm had dropped to $5,751 and his farming implements, to only $300. Even so, he had $1,615 worth of livestock, in contrast to the $1,460 worth he had owned in 1870. Of Leachman's 615 acres, only 130 were tilled, 230 acres were in woodland, and 255 acres were in an unimproved but non-forested condition; 20 acres of the Leachman farm were in mown grass. These statistics suggest that between 1870 and 1880 John T. Leachman became increasingly involved in animal husbandry and had begun placing less emphasis upon field crops. Leachman and his farm workers (who had been paid $490 in wages, including board) had produced 1,250 bushels of Indian corn on 40 acres of tilled ground, 100 bushels of oats from 1 0 acres, 300 bushels of wheat from 40 acres, and 20 bushels of rye from 4 acres. He also had raised 5 tons of hay during the previous year and expended $1 10 on fertilizer. The agricultural census-taker noted that during 1879, $980 worth of farm products had been sold, consumed or stored. John T. Leachman's nine milk cows had produced 500 lbs. of butter and nine calves had been born during the year; he also had 27 other cattle, exclusive of one that had been slaughtered and two others that had been sold. His 100 sheep had yielded 400 lbs. of wool and given birth to 109 lambs; ten other sheep had been slaughtered for consumption and six had died of disease. Leachman's 50 barnyard poultry and 50 other poultry had produced 500 dozen eggs. Nine horses and 17 swine also lived at Brownsville. Leachman's 50 apple trees and 20 peach trees had yielded two bushels of fruit apiece and an estimated $25 worth of orchard products had been sold or consumed. A like amount of wood also had been cut and sold or consumed (Prince William County Agricultural Census 1880). John Thomas Leachman's name was included in the Prince William County section of the Alexandria City Directory, where he was described as one of the Gainesville area's 14 main farmers (Ray 1987:44).
John T. Leachman donated a small plot of ground next to the Groveton Road (Lewis Lane) as a school house site and he assisted in the construction of a one-room building that became known as Groveton School No. 3. There, the younger Leachman children and some of the other youngsters in the neighborhood received an elementary education. Edith May Leachman (the family's oldest daughter) began teaching at the Groveton School when she was age 16 and she continued in that capacity for the next 30 years (Carroll 1976:13,23).
During the early 1880s Lewis Kowalsky, a young French artist who intended to paint pictures of the Manassas Battlefield, presented himself at Brownsville, seeking a place where he and his wife and two year old son could find room and board. The Leachmans welcomed the Kowalskys into their home. Later, his views of the surrounding countryside were incorporated into the "cyclarama of the Battle of Manassas," which Nannie N. L. Carroll said was on display in Washington, D. C. Kowalsky used John T. Leachman and some of the people in the Brownsville neighborhood as the models for the figures in his paintings. He also produced portraits of Leachman and his wife, Josephine, and a painting of the Brownsville dwelling-house (Carroll 1976:21). Betty Bird (1987) observed that Kowalsky's rendering conformed remarkably
59
with Nannie N. L. Carroll's description of the Brownsville house:
The old house "Folly Castle" and surroundings were lovely. ...Down stairs a very broad hall, running east and west, with two big rooms on each side. There were very heavy double doors of oak at each end, and they were fastened at night by 4x4 oak bars that fitted into wrought iron hooks at the ends, and these doors had to be fastened at bed time, making it impossible for one to enter. But the funny part was that one could step up on the porch bench and climb thro' the window into the sitting room, or into three or four other windows, east and west. Besides this there was a window into the parlor that opened on the roof of the entrance to the cellar, the door of which was never fastened, and it was easy to climb this door and get into the parlor from that side... The house was rather low pitched with three dormers in [the] roof - front and back, and very large chimneys - north and south, that extended almost the width of the house; being double flues on the first floor and running into one flue at top. There were windows in this chimney down stairs and up, which made it very odd and very pretty. There was wood all around the house surrounded by a whitewashed plank fence, and beyond that a lawn four times as large, also the white fence, this and yard fence also, had a flat plank to fish the top.... At the back of the house was a large garden that must have been very beautiful at one time. At the entrance were two very large boxwood trees, and beyond, the garden was divided into four large squares with nicely laid off walks between them. All around the garden were different fruit trees and along the walks on either side were blooming shrubs, and small fruit bushes such as currants and gooseberries and raspberries, and now and then a grape trellis or a running rose. On the flower borders were sage and other seasonings, intermixed with perennials.... At the lower right side of the garden was a high broad hedge of purple lilacs that completely hid the whitewashed residence of "Mrs. Jones," [the privy ?] whose door, if there was one, always stood hospitably open. Just on the line between yard and garden was an enormous catalpa tree [Carroll 1976:5-6].
William L. Litsey, who appended his comments to Mrs. Nannie N. L. Carroll's manuscript, "Folly Castle Folks," quoted two Leachman family members who recalled that the kitchen, milk room and store rooms were in the semi-basement of the Brownsville dwelling, from which supplies were taken daily. They said that all of the cooking was done in a large fireplace, but that a stove was used in ca. 1795-1800. However, Edith May Leachman, whom Litsey was quoting, was born in 1852 and therefore was repeating hearsay (Carroll 1976:32). The main entrance to the house was from the front porch. This doorway opened into a large hall that ran through the house. A sitting room was on the left and a small room was between the two fireplaces. To the right of the hall were the parlor, the dining-room and John T. Leachman's room, to which led two or three steps. A stairway to the kitchen and to the upstairs was at the end of the hall. Family members recollected that there must have been chimneys on the right side of the house, for they remembered that there were small stoves, both upstairs and down. Upstairs, in the room above the living-room, four or five steps ascended to the dwelling's dormer windows (Carroll 1976:24).
Tragedy struck Brownsville around noon on Easter Sunday in 1900, for a wayward spark ignited the dwelling's roof, setting a fire that couldn't be extinguished. Seventy-nine-year-old John T. Leachman, who saw that the roof was on fire, carried some large chairs onto the lawn and then helped his wife and sister to safety. He then returned to the house, where he attempted desperately to save the family's bedding and clothes by tossing them out of the
60
windows. But after a short while, the roof caved in and the fire became more fierce. Although a nearby resident saw the blaze and tried to alert the neighborhood, by the time help arrived it was too late to "save more than a handful of small things on the first floor." Mrs. Nannie N. L Carroll, who witnessed the conflagration, wrote that although "a new house was built on the old foundation, and with the same chimney... it never seemed like Home! And somehow, it was never called 'Folly Castle.'" The next year brought more sadness, for Josephine Lewis Leachman died at the age of 78 (Carroll 1975:24, 32; Prince William County Census 1900).
The widowed John T. Leachman moved in with his daughter, Mary "Lutie" Buck, and her family who lived nearby. He died on December 16, 1912 at the age of 91 and was interred beside his wife in the family cemetery at Cedar Grove (Ray 1987:53; Carroll 1976:32). Leachman, who had prepared his will on July 13, 1906, bequeathed to his daughter, Katie, all of his household and kitchen furniture, two milk cows, a mare named Trilby, a buggy and some poultry. He left to his five youngest children "all of the land on the west side of the road running through the farm from Groveton to Wellington and the dwelling and other improvements and a strip of land on the east side of the road." He bequeathed to his daughter, Edith May, his land on the south side of Young's Branch near the spring, and to his son, Charles Carroll Leachman, he left his land on the west side of the road, near the lawn. He left to his daughter, "Lutie," half interest in a note he held and bequeathed the remaining interest to son, John Pendleton Leachman (Prince William County Will Book X:401-403).
On December 26, 1913 John P. Leachman and his fellow heirs sold to G. T. Strother the late John Thomas Leachman's 406 1/2 acres near Wellington (the Brownsville tract) plus 10 acres of adjacent real estate that had been conveyed to Charles C. Leachman by the decedent and his wife in October 1897. The 416 1/2 acre tract that was being sold was described as bordering the Wellington and Newmarket Road and the Warrenton and Alexandria Turnpike. It also was said to adjoin the land of A. H. Compton, Compton's Lane, Young's Branch, the Dogan land, the school house lot, A. J. Redmon's (Redman's) property, and the Davis, Hereford, Rollings and Wheeler farms (Prince William County Deed Book 50:317; 64:357-358). G. T. Strother and his wife, who resided in Markham, retained their 416 1/2 acres called Brownsville until 1918, at which time they sold it to J. E. Coverstone of Shenandoah County (Prince William County Deed Book 71 :478). Coverstone kept the farm for nearly a decade, during which time he rented its dwelling and land to tenants (Ray 1987:53).
On May 11, 1926 Mr. Coverstone sold 105.4 acres of his 416.5 acre Brownsville tract to Clark V. Grove. Eleven years later, in May 1937, he conveyed the residual 31 1.1 acres, which contained its dwelling, to Kenneth M. Uglow and his wife, who resided on the property and used it as collateral when securing their mortgage loan. In December 1939 the Uglow couple sold their 31 1.1 acres to Charles W. Carneal and his wife, who absorbed both their equity and their debt. Finally, on November 22, 1941 Ella Spitler and Clark V. Grove's legal heirs conveyed their 1 05 4 parcel and its improvements (described as the same 1 05.4 acres that J. E. Coverstone had sold to Clark V. Grove in May 1926) to Charles W. Carneal. Thus, the Carneals re-constituted the 416 1/2 acres that the Leachman heirs had disposed of in 1913 (Prince William County Deed Book 82:134-135; 99:64-66,81; 103:388-389; 108:45-46). According to Mr. Carneal it was the Uglows who added a portico to the front of the Leachman dwelling. Carneal and his wife preserved the portico when they constructed a new dwelling on the property in 1940 (Bird 1987:16).
Architectural historian Betty Bird, who in 1987 described the two-story frame dwelling that Charles W. Carneal and his wife built upon the Brownsville tract, noted that they had utilized portions of the structural framing and foundations of the post-1900 Leachman home. They reportedly extended the main block of the old dwelling, added a rear porch, and attached
61
a kitchen wing to the north, all the while retaining the portico that had been built by the Uglows in 1938. During the process of building a new home on the old dwelling site, the Carneals demolished its ancient brick chimneys, re-using its brick in walkways, and they graded the land around the house site. Ms. Bird, upon examining the Carneal dwelling, concluded that it contained many architectural attributes that exemplified 1 940s construction techniques. Charles W. Carneal and his wife developed the Brownsville tract into a dairy farm and in 1941 they enhanced its size through the purchase of another 116 1/2 acres (Bird 1987:19-21).
The Carneals borrowed some of the money that they expended when converting Brownsville into a dairy farm. In 1944 Mrs. Carneal relinquished her dower interest in the 105.4 acres that had been sold to Clark V. Grove in 1 926 but simultaneously her trustee received from Mr. Carneal his interest in the 311.1 acres that contained the couple's dwelling. In October 1951 Mrs. Lucie L. Carneal (who was then unmarried) and her trustee deeded 87 acres (called the Brewer's Spring tract) and 161 acres of Brownsville (including its dwelling) to Stanley M. and Genevieve A. Lauer. The following year, Mrs. Carneal and her trustee sold her remaining 150 acres of Brownsville to Mr. and Mrs. O. R. McGuire. In 1964 the Lauer couple deeded 123.5 acres of their 161 acre portion of Brownsville, including its main dwelling house, to Zeb Vance Hicks and his wife; the land the Lauers disposed of lay to the north of Interstate 66. By May 1973 the Marriott Corporation purchased and consolidated several parcels of land into what became known as the Stuart's Hill tract. Thirteen years later, in 1986, Marriott deeded the consolidated tract to Tyson-McLean Associates, York Limited Partnership and The Perch Associates (Prince William County Deed Book 108:481-483;1 13:397-401 ;1 14:441-442; 116:93-95;116:282;130:192;156:143-145;156:147-148;323:48-49; Bird 1987:39-40).
Table I
GEORGE NEWMAN BROWN'S INVENTORY, JANUARY 2, 1815 (Prince William County Will Book K:396-397)
Personal Property Value in Dollars
negro man Lewis 250.00
negro man Tom 400.00
negro man Daniel 200.00
negro man George 350.00
negro man Edmond .350.00
negro man Anthony 200.00
negro man Jerry 130.00
negro woman Hanny 100.00
negro woman Lucy and child 250.00
negro girl Fan 300.00
negro girl Ester 130.00
negro girl Jenny 100.00
1 roan horse 40.00
1 dark bay horse 40.00
1 sorrel horse 50.00
1 sorrel mare 30.00
1 yoke oxen 30.00
1 cow 10.00
4 cows and 3 calves 48.00
7 heifers 49.00
1 bull 10.00
62
17 yearling sheep 34.00
18 ewes and 19 lambs 54.00
9 hogs and 11 shoats 34.50
1 wagon and tent 32.00
1 wheat fan 4.00
.1 cutting box and knife 1.50
4 mobby stans [stands] and half bushel 3.25
old tub with some rye 0.75
6 whiskey barrels, 3 half do. and hogshead. ...5.00 powdering tub and 2 old churns 0.50
3 pr. harness and sleys [sleighs] 4.75
1 loom 3.00
5 hilling hoes, 2 mattox, 2 grubbing hoes 4.15
4 axes, froe, hand saw and drawing knife 5.50
2 barshear plows, 2 shovel do., 4 colter do. .9.50
1 grindstone 0.75
parcel old iron, 4 scythes, 3 cradles 5.00
4 clevers, irons, and 3 wedges 2.00
hatchet, hammer and 2 swingle trees 1.00
2 Ig. iron pots and 1 small do., 3 pr. hooks. 6. 50
2 iron pot racks 2.50
parcel of water vessels 1.00
parcel wheat and oats 40.00
parcel flax seed 0.50
1 pr. stilyards 4.00
parcel of butter pots 5.00
copper skillet, spice mortar and kettle 9.50
3 flat irons and tin sugar box 1.25
4 sets handirons, tongs, etc 4.50
1 sideboard and bureau 35.00
1 do., tea tray, waiter, crockeryware &c 8.00
1 bureau, chest and dressing glass 11.50
1 desk, trunk and box 12.25
writing desk, 2 sm. tables, trunk and chest. .7. 00
2 large tables 14.00
1 small table and candlestand 3.50
1 Ig. do., 1 pine table, small walnut do 5.50
parcel of books 10.00
1 gun 12.00
knife box, knives and forks 1.00
1/2 doz. pewter tablespoons, 1/2 doz. silver teaspoons 3.00
pr. brass candlesticks 1.00
6 Windsor chairs and 4 frame do 2.50
1 woolen wheel, 3 lines do., 1 pr. cotton cards 5.00
pr. saddle bags 1.00
5 beds, bedsteads and furniture, 1 do., no furniture 170.00
4 pr. old wagon gear 9.00
3 bee hives 3.00
Ig. chest, tray, meal sifter &c 3.00
coffee mill and skimmer 1.50
1 harrow and lead chain of wagon 3.00
1 hone 0.75
63
Archeological Investigations Laura Galke
Brownsville was one of two sites (the other being Meadowville, 44PW478) that Karell Archeological Services found to "...contain archaeologically significant cultural deposits" (Karell et al. 1987:2). Their phase one reconnaissance survey of Brownsville included the excavation of shovel test pits at ten-foot intervals and a sweep of the site with a metal detector (fig. 5-4). Finally, test units were excavated where shovel test pits revealed prominent cultural features. Their investigations discovered evidence of all three structures which our project investigated further.
Brownsville was excavated by Manassas National Battlefield Park Archeology project members in two separate phases. During the winter of 1990/1991, test units revealed the northern and southern boundaries of a domestic structure which had an intact cellar. Excavations were performed by William Leigh and Matthew Reeves, supervised by Jacqueline Hernigle. In the late summer of 1991 the project returned to this site, with two objectives: first, to determine the eastern and western boundaries of the structure and, second, to find a structure identified by Karell Archaeological Services' excavations in 1986 as a slave quarters (Kareli et al. 1987:98). The summer excavations by the project investigators were performed by Laura Galke and supervised by Jacqueline Hernigle. Volunteers with the Volunteers In Parks Regional Archeology Program at Manassas National Battlefield Park participated heavily in these excavations.
The site was backfilled in April 1992. A layer of orange silk fence was laid down at the boundaries of our excavations, topped by three inches of sand (significantly thicker in the cellar feature, see below), and then finished off with the original, sifted topsoil.
The excavations focused on the discovery of outbuildings, in hopes of discovering structures used by African-Americans. Three distinct structurefoundations were discovered, referred to as structures 1, 2, and 3, designated in the order in which they were discovered (fig. 5-5) In addition, a spring and a cemetery associated with Brownsville were identified (fig. 5 - 6 ) . The
tombstones within the cemetery consist of unmarked, natural fieldstones. The
identity of the remains interred are
|
BRnWNSVILLE |
|||
|
44PW479 |
|||
|
— ■- |
i |
||
|
J |
|||
|
"\s \ \ |
|||
|
\ 2«0v — — — -. <■*- ~ |
\ |
||
|
x> |
Magnetic 1 |
||
|
S \ "V-* N ,-■ -- |
* s "^ v . |
North |
|
|
\ // |
» Key; — — — Stream Contour line \ Cemetery |
||
|
■^ u |
— Fence line |
||
|
^^7/ f 1 |
1 |
Site of nam house |
|
|
1 \ x^ / >^ |
\jj |
El Spring |
|
|
I \ ^c y |
Scale |
||
|
\ v / >^ — ^^C |
M R«v*s/L Ull<« 1992 |
ess |
|
|
Pogetond Lane |
Oft. |
200ft. |
Figure 5-6: Major cultural features at Brownsville.
64
0 210. U 200- B 190 0 180 0 170 . 0 160 ■
a 150 -
a 140 -
0120-
0 120 -
H 110 S 100
0 90 0 80
M 70 . 0 60 - 0 30-
S 40
0 30* -{
0 20
V 10 8 0 >
D
O
*
i * *
V CARNEAL HOUSE
^sJTI -
'A/.
SCXLE IB FEET
Figure 5-4: Karell Investigations at Brownsville (Karell et al. 1987).
65
^T
1 0
L
|
a |
Cs^ |
||||
|
rx |
° Vs. 1 |
||||
|
# |
if |
||||
|
? |
^ |
||||
|
C7 |
i |
■ I |
e |
^/V^^v/ |
|
|
V& |
N |
I 1 |
^Orf |
to ! |
|
|
ft |
I I |
||||
|
i |
|||||
|
3 |
|||||
|
<& ■ |
s ■ |
• "** |
^ |
i |
|
|
* i |
Figure 5-5: Plan View of Brownsville Structures Found Archeoiogically.
66
CD
3^
^h ^
>
.c i/i
n on
|
o |
||
|
+> |
||
|
a |
||
|
l |
||
|
+> |
||
|
in |
^\ |
|
|
1 — 1 |
U 1— 1 |
|
|
Oi |
>*• |
|
|
2: |
>. |
0 |
|
d |
^ |
|
|
^ |
u |
ON |
|
W |
~* |
|
|
c |
>s |
|
|
O |
L O |
V |
|
+> |
0 |
|
|
a |
a |
|
|
<^ |
* 0 |
u |
|
u |
I |
>. |
|
0> |
pq 0 |
0 X) |
|
(=) |
ro |
|
|
_ |
•s |
+< |
|
CD |
V |
0 |
|
l/l |
m |
|
|
3 |
it |
>
>
i. a> +>
VI
o a
>
0
x ■p
E
o
>
Figure 5-7: Profile of structure one cellar excavations.
67
not known. Currently, a backdirt pile rests atop it, left over from the earth-moving activities of the Stuart's Hill Tract development prior to the National Park Service aquisition. Because of this, the number of individuals interred at the cemetery, or its extent is unknown. No historic maps have been found which document the cemetery.
The project investigations focused on revealing the foundations of the structures of Brownsville. Much of the strata within these structures was left in tact. The only exception to this is the cellar of structure one, which was partially excavated (fig. 5-7).
The site was divided into a 5 ft. by 5 ft. grid, oriented toward grid north. The site datum was established on a concrete slab in close proximity to the site of the main house (fig. 5-5). Levels were excavated using shovels and trowels, and followed the natural stratigraphy. A backhoe was used to excavate when shovels were impractical, such as the thick rubble destruction layer within structure 1 (fig. 5-7). All soil excavated by hand was sifted through a 1/4" screen, and all artifacts were retained. When excessive quantities of brick or mortar were encountered, only a ten percent sample was retained.
Excavations
Structure 1
Structure 1, originally discovered by the project during the winter of 1991, measured 16 ft. by 26 ft, had an interior stone chimney, and a cellar with an exterior entrance. It was likely a frame structure with a stone foundation (fig. 5-8). Evidence for this structure was originally discovered by Karell Archaeological Services in 1986 (Karell et al. 1987:96). Our excavations found that the ash fill below the rubble layer possessed early- to mid- nineteenth century material, including fragments of pearlware, creamware, and colonoware. Artifacts recovered from the bottom-most layers may date as early as the late- eighteenth century. This brings up the possibility that structure one may represent the original Brownsville house. The substantial
nature of the construction materials and the age of the material culture within the cellar indicate that it was a substantial structure in existence as early as the late-eighteenth century, making it at least contemporaneous with original Brownsville home (See McCartney, this chapter). A western entrance to the structure is indicated by the presence of stones (fig. 5-9, units 3512,
Figure 5 8: Reconstruction of structure one.
68
3513, and 3448). The northern wall of the cellar was stone lined, necessary to support the full stone chimney. The southern wall was hand-cut directly into clay subsoil, and had no stone support (fig. 5-7). Judging from the amount of ash within the cellar fill, the structure burned. The rubble destruction layer is evident in the profile, and the stones which make up that layer may have come from the surrounding foundation walls and remaining chimney, which were pushed into the open cellar hole. Karell archaeological services found that "artifacts recovered from rubble dated to no later than the last decade of the nineteenth century" (Karell et al. 1987:96). Indeed, our excavations found that the ash fill below the rubble possessed early to mid-nineteenth century material including large fragments of pearlware, creamware, and colonoware (fig. 5-10). Flotation samples from the lowest layers revealed large quantities of fish bone, egg shell, mammal bone, bird bone, and burnt floral material. After the structure burned, the cellar hole may have remained for a short time, and the resulting depression could have served as a convenient hole in which to throw refuse during this time. It was during the mid- nineteenth century that the cellar hole was filled with the stone rubble destruction sequence which once made the chimney and foundation of the structure.
During the first few weeks of the second phase of excavations during the spring of 1 991 at Brownsville, four units were placed in likely areas to discover the east and west walls of structure 1. These units, 3511, 3513, 3449, and 3519, measured 5 ft. by 5 ft. Unit 3519
Figure 5-10: A colonoware bowl, basal fragment.
69
uncovered a brick pier, which was originally interpreted as part of a porch support for structure 1. All four of these units revealed a mottled clay cap layer overlying a buried, in-tact topsoil layer. This was also noted during the first phase of excavations and can be seen in the profile (fig. 5-7). The presence of mid to late twentieth-century material mixed with early- to mid- nineteenth century material supported the belief that this layer represented a redeposited soil overlying a buried yard surface. Once it was determined that the top strata were redeposited during the mid-twentieth century, excavation in these units was suspended. It was then decided to use a backhoe to remove this redeposited soil, approximately six inches in depth. This method quickly revealed the eastern and western boundaries of structure 1, and it was discovered that the brick pier discovered in unit 3519 was actually part of another structure, structure 3 (fig. 5-11). See the table at the end of this chapter or a table summarizing the ceramic mean dates, terminus post quern dates, and assigned megastrata.
Structure 2
Structure two was originally identified by the Koski-Karell team of archeologists in 1 988 as structure "B". They excavated two test pits in the northeast corner of the structure (fig. 5-1 2). While it is not explicit within the report, probing must have been utilized to determine the location of the chimney, and dimensions of the structure. This structure existed during the mid- nineteenth century as evidenced by a Civil War Battle Field map (fig. 5-13).
Structure two was excavated entirely by shovel and trowel during the summer of 1991 . It was located by our excavation units based upon the Koski-Karell archeological maps. The interior strata was not disturbed by our excavations, as our goal was to discover the structure's dimensions, and its relationship to the rest of the discovered structures. It was hoped that we would be able to test within the structure, but time did not permit. Our excavations revealed a 10.5 ft. by 1 1 ft. stone foundation (fig. 5-14). The stratae overlying the foundation dates to the Carneal construction/grading during 1940, explained more fully in the section titled "megastrata" (this chapter). No chimney footing was revealed in the northeast corner. Instead, excavations revealed a wall fall in that area, which may account for the original chimney footing interpretation by Koski-Karell (1988:98).
The southern wall of the structure was disturbed during the twentieth century construction of the Carneal 's kitchen addition (McCartney, this volume). Rubble from the destruction of the southern wall was haphazardly incorporated into the new, portland cement laid wall. This feature can be found primarily within unit 3956 and extended well into subsoil (fig. 5-14). Time constraints prevented us from reaching the very bottom of this disturbance. The fill within this feature was full of an impressive amount of material which composed of large fragments. Amongst the items found, were large fragments of a mendable cast iron kettle, a mendable five gallon stoneware crock, a metal bucket, bedsprings, and chicken wire. This assemblage indicates a single depositional episode, and relates to the 1940's construction of a kitchen addition to the northern side of the house (McCartney, this volume). Because all strata excavated dated to the twentieth-century, no summary table of t.p.q. and mean dates was created for structure two.
Structure 3
The discovery of structure 3 was a surprise, located after backhoe excavation of the top six inches of soil surrounding structure 1 . The brick pier, originally discovered in unit 35 1 9, was found to be one of several discovered once the redeposited clay cap was removed by trowel (fig. 5-15). Karell archaeological services discovered a brick pier during their investigations, labeled 'C' on their site plan map (fig. 5-4). Once the original topsoil layer was uncovered, use of the backhoe was suspended, and hand excavation began on this pristine, mid-nineteenth century yard surface. Park volunteers and project members began systematic excavation which
70
TEST PIT §2
ROCK FOUNDATION
Figure 5-12: Structure 2, as Mapped by Karell Archaeological Services (Karell et al. 1987).
71
Figure 5-13: Map of Battle Field of Manassas, Virginia, on August 29, 1862 (Warren 1878a).
72
Grid North
A
Brownsville (44PW479)
Structure Two
SCALE 1 IN. = 5 FT.
Q sandstone F| concrete
Figure 5-14: Plan View of Structure 2.
Datum
73
Grid North
|
Scale |
|
|
■Hi |
|
|
1 |
in. = 5 ft. |
|
E3 |
bnck |
|
^ |
sandstone |
sandstone pier
o
Brownsville (44PW479)
Structure Three
Figure 5-15: Plan View of Structure 3.
74
then revealed the presence of eight brick piers, two to three courses in width, and up to two courses high (fig. 5-15). The brick which comprised these piers was clearly reused from two or more sources, as there was a variety of distinct brick types present. Artifacts indicate that the brick pier structure post dates structure 1 , dating to the mid-nineteenth century.
The stone features in 3330 and 3457 (fig. 5-15) are more enigmatic. Material surrounding the feature in unit 3330 is both unique and early, dating to the early- to mid- nineteenth century, with a mean ceramic date of 1 861 . The artifactual evidence surrounding the stones in 3457 had a mean ceramic date of 1849, but the stones in this particular unit are less organized, more jumbled, than those which characterize 3330, which are larger and appear to be horizontally oriented. These may be the remains of an earlier structure, whose stone foundations were perhaps robbed for some other construction. Another possibility is that these stones were central supports for structure 3.
Minieballs were present in the area surrounding structure three, indicating that it stood during the Civil War. Union troops massed here on August 29, 1862 and in response, Confederate forces shelled them from the West (Shaeffer 1990, McCartney, this volume). Several military items relating to this era were associated with structure three (fig. 5-18).
The exact function of this structure is not known. It does not appear on any historic map studied thus far. It was likely a frame structure measuring 22.5 ft. by 22.5 ft. and abutted directly against what had been the northeastern corner of structure 1 (fig. 5-11). This structure may represent one of the four slave quarters which was said to be on the site during the mid- nineteenth century, or perhaps a tobacco barn (McCartney, this volume). Fragments of African- American colonoware were prevalent in the area surrounding this structure. The size and spatial extent of these fragments indicates that they represent yard scatter, which would be expected whether this structure is a domestic dwelling or a barn. A fragment from a pair of sheep shears was discovered near one of the southeastern brick piers of this structure, evidence of the sheep herding which took place at this site from the late eighteenth-century through at least the late nineteenth-century (McCartney, this volume).
Figure 5-18: A sample of military items discovered at Brownsville.
75
MEGASTRATA
The following section assigns excavated layers to an overall site "megastrata," or strata which relate to each other temporally or in terms of major cultural episodes. This was determined by examining the similarity of soil color (Munsell, 1990 edition), content, and/or elevation. While most layers fit into the overall scheme, there were unique events, for example features or intrusions by rodents, whose characteristics cannot be generalized into an overall soil scheme. These distinct layers are described following the megastrata description.
There is naturally some variation in soil description from unit to unit. Megastrata serve to link major cultural or natural episodes preserved in the history of the soil. Each megastrata are assigned roman numerals. The descriptions begin with the most recent strata, and are assigned the lower numbers. In all, there were seven megastrata at Brownsville.
Megastrata I (ca. 1940 - 1991)
This strata was present in all three structures. It dates to the landscaping activities of the Carneal family during 1940:
"During the process of building a new home on the old dwelling site, the Carneals demolished its ancient brick chimneys, re-using its brick in walkways, and they graded the land around the house site" (McCartney 1991:68 emphasis mine).
There are three distinct components which comprise this megastrata, distinguished by color.
Megastrata la
It is best characterized as a 7.5YR4/2 brown/dark brown clay loam, often described as having inclusions of 2.5YR3/4 dark reddish brown clay. This layer was mechanically removed from structure three, but was present in all three structures. The artifacts from this layer included a mixture of late- eighteenth through late-twentieth century artifacts including wrought, machine-made, and wire nails, .22 caliber shells, whiteware, ironstone, salt-glaze stoneware, lead-glazed earthenware, English porcelain, and plastic. It had a mean ceramic date of 1858, but a t.p.q. date of 1960, due to the presence of plastic.
Both the presence of clay inclusions and the temporal mixture of artifacts indicated that this was a redeposited, disturbed layer. It's presence in all three structures indicated that at some point during the mid- to late-twentieth century, large scale surface disturbance occurred across much of this site.
Megastrata lb
Megastrata lb was a 5YR3/3 dark reddish brown loamy clay. It was present in structures one and three. It was mechanically removed from structure three. In units surrounding the chimney footing for structure one, it also contained fragments of brick and mortar, relating to the chimney's construction materials (3325, 3388, and 3389 fig. 5-9). Artifacts from this strata were also a mixture of early-nineteenth through late-twentieth century material such as plastic, pearlware, creamware, and both machine-cut and wire nails. The mean ceramic date was 1829, and t.p.q. of 1960 (plastic). This temporal mixture and soil matrix supports an interpretation of the continuation of the twentieth century Carneal disturbance.
Megastrata Ic
This megastrata marks the boundary or end of the twentieth-century disturbance. It was
76
mechanically removed in structures one and three. It was highly mixed, and thus variable in description. In units in which this layer was excavated by hand (especially 3449, 3452, 351 1, 3513, and 3519) it easily peeled off a buried topsoil layer (fig. 5-7). It was most often characterized as a 7.5YR4/2 dark brown loamy clay mottled with 2.5YR3/3, 3/4, and 7.5YR4/2 respectively. In several units, it was described as a 5YR3/4 dark reddish brown clay mottled with 7.5YR3/4 dark brown loamy clay. The assemblage from this stratum continued the pattern of early nineteenth-through twentieth-century material including plastic, whiteware, lead-glazed earthenware, and both machine-cut and wire nails.
Megastrata II (mid to late nineteenth-century)
This layer was undisturbed. It was excavated only in structure three, but was present at the base of the mechanical excavation of structure one. It was a 7.5YR3/3 dark brown or as a 7.5YR4/4 brown/dark brown loamy clay with bedrock shale fragments. It was present in every unit excavated from structure three. The artifacts recovered support a mid- to late-nineteenth century interpretation, including minnie balls, wrought and machine cut nails, lead glazed earthenware, transfer-printed whiteware, pearlware, and widely dispersed colonoware. The mean ceramic date was 1854.
Megastrata III (mid nineteenth century)
Megastrata ill lies directly below megastrata II and represents pre-structure occupational deposits. It was excavated only in structure three, and is undisturbed. Only one unit (3522) was chosen to test this stratum, leaving it undisturbed in the remaining units (fig. 5-16). This thin stratum (.05' to .15') contained fragments of pearlware, tin-glazed earthenware, a few cut nails, brick, and several fragments of faunal (small mammal) bone. It had a mean ceramic date of 1854, but the sample was only seven diagnostic ceramics.
The rest of the megastrata describe layers from a unique context, specifically from the cellar hole of structure one (fig. 5-7).
Megastrata IV (mid nineteenth-century)
Found directly below the clay cap (megastrata Ic), megastrata IV is characterized as a rubble layer within a 5YR3/4 dark reddish brown clay loam with fragments of charcoal and plaster (fig. 5-7). It represents the destruction sequence for structure one, when the depression caused by the empty cellar from this burned structure was filled in with surrounding foundation and/or chimney stones. Much of this layer was mechanically excavated. Many artifacts were burned and included polychrome pearlware. 1869 was the calculated mean ceramic date.
Megastrata V (late eighteenth- to early nineteenth-century?)
This layer was entirely removed mechanically and no artifacts were kept. It was identified in profile as a 7.5YR3/4 dark brown silty loam with fragments of charcoal and plaster. It varied in depth from .1' to 1.0' (fig. 5-7).
Megastrata VI (Late eighteenth-century)
This stratum was a 10YR3/4 dark yellowish brown ashy loam, with prevalent amounts of ash and charcoal (fig. 5-7). Polychrome and hand-painted pearlware were found, as well as creamware, cut nails, colonoware, lustreware, and faunal bone. It was excavated as a one foot by one foot flotation sample, and provided several fragments of fish bone and scales, bird and
77
mammal bone, egg shell, and squash seeds. The calculated mean ceramic date was 1748.
Megastrata VII (Late eighteenth-century)
Megastrata VII represents the bottom-most ash layer. Below this layer is the sterile subsoil clay floor of this domestic structure (fig. 5-7). It was a 7.5YR4/4 brown/dark brown ashy loam clay. It was excavated as a one foot by one foot flotation sample, yielding fish, mammal, and bird bone, as well as egg shell fragments. The mean ceramic date was 1796, but the sample size was from only three diagnostic artifacts.
Unique Strata
The following strata were created during unique natural or cultural events. Because they are distinctive, they cannot be fit into the generalized megastrata scheme. Much of the Karell archeological investigations were placed into this category. Other events, such as a builder's trench for structure one (unit 3454), and natural formation processes, such as rodent activity are included in this section. No unique layers were discovered within structure three.
Structure 1
Within unit 3261, layer 5 was a thin (.07 foot in depth) layer of sterile soil. The explanation for this depostional episode is not known. Layer 7 of this same unit was the result of rodent activity.
Within unit 3325, layer 7 was identified as a shovel test unit from Karell Archaeological Services. In the same unit, feature 8 was discovered. This feature remains unidentified, and was characterized as a .25 tenths in diameter circular feature which had a pointed bottom. It apparently had a depth of one half foot.
Unit 3452 layers 3 and 5 were the result of disturbance from the previous Karell Archaeological Services' investigations. Layer 4 of this unit was the result of rodent activity.
A possible exterior builder's trench for structure one was discovered in unit 3454. Unit 3454 possesses architectural features of both structures one and three (fig. 5-10). Only a small portion of the supposed builder's trench existed within this unit. It contained small amounts of machine cut nails, blue shell-edged whiteware, lead-glazed earthenware, creamware, window pane glass, and mortar.
Structure 2
Within unit 3828, two earlier excavation units from Koski-Karell were found, designated as layer two, and four respectively (fig. 5-11). It was excavated to subsoil.
Much of unit 3956 was heavily impacted by the 1940 construction of the kitchen on the north side of the Carneal House (McCartney, this volume). Levels 3 and 4 document this disturbance. Evidence for this disturbance also intrudes into unit 3891 (fig. 5-11). It was a 7.5YR4/3 Brown/Dark Brown mottled loamy clay with mortar and triassic sandstone fragments. This disturbance destroyed what had been the southern wall of this structure. The foundation for the circa 1940 kitchen was composed in part of the disturbed foundation stones which made up the southern wall of structure two. The new foundation stones were poorly laid and were held together by sloppily-applied portland cement with bits of artifacts within its matrix. On the interior side of this feature the cement was finished off smoothly.
78
AFRICAN-AMERICAN MATERIAL CULTURE
The current interest in African-American lifeways within the discipline of archeology was reflected in the goals of the project, and warrants extended discussion. Since it's inception, Brownsville was home to African-Americans. During the late-eighteenth century George Brown had a relatively modest population of seven slaves, five of which were under the age of sixteen (McCartney, this volume). The greatest number of slaves who lived here at one time was during the early nineteenth-century, when forty-six individuals lived and labored at Brownsville. They were responsible for the livestock, sheep, corn, pigs, potatoes, corn, wheat, rye, hay, butter, and honey which made this plantation an economic success for its owners (McCartney, this volume).
On the eve of the Civil War, the 1860 census indicates that Brownsville was home to twenty-two slaves, dwelling within four houses (McCartney, this volume). Evidence for their presence exists in abundance, especially within structures one and three, where pre-twentieth century strata was excavated. Blue beads were found within structure one and two. (Singleton 1991, Parker and Hernigle 1990, Creel 1988). Fragments of colonoware were recovered from structure one, within the ashy fill of the cellar, including some from bowls and tobacco pipes. A small, single cluster of quartz crystals was found within the mixed eighteenth- through twentieth-century layer in unit 3388 (layer 2). Quartz crystals have been found to correlate with African-American activity areas (chapter 7 this volume, Logan, et al. 1992, Patten 1992). A larger conglomerate was associated with the mid- to late- nineteenth century strata of structure three. Gaming pieces also correlate well within African-American contexts, and were found within all three structures (fig. 5-18).
Figure 5-18: Gaming pieces from Brownsville.
Because much of the strata within these structures remains undisturbed, the potential for future research concerning middling plantation social and economic development and its impact upon both white and black Americans remains excellent. More outbuildings certainly survive beneath the ground surface which were not discovered during our brief archeological survey. This site would provide an excellent cultural resource for future investigations.
79
|
BROWNSVILLE 44PW479 Mean Dates/TPQ Structure One |
|||
|
Unit |
Ceramic Mean |
T.P.Q. |
Megastrata |
|
3325.1 |
1898 n=l |
Late 20th C. |
lb |
|
3325.2 |
1883 n= 13 |
Late 20th C. |
lb |
|
3325.6 |
1824 n= 19 |
1805 |
IV |
|
3325.7 |
n/a |
n/a |
Unique |
|
3325.8.1 |
1791 n = 3 |
1762 |
Unique |
|
3325.8.2 |
1791 n = 3 |
1762 |
Unique |
|
3388.1 |
1851 n=10 |
Late 20th C. |
la |
|
3388.2 |
1805 n= 165 |
Late 20th C. |
lb |
|
3388.7 |
1861 n=19 |
1830 |
IV |
|
3388.9 |
1805 n=7 |
1780 |
VI |
|
3389.1 |
1890 n = 8 |
Late 20th |
lb |
|
3389.2 |
1863 n = 81 |
Late 20th |
lb |
|
3449. 1 |
1898 n=l |
Late 20th C. |
la |
|
3449.2 |
1876 n = 41 |
Late 20th C. |
la |
|
3452. 1 |
1869 n = 2 |
Late 20th C. |
lb |
|
3452.2 |
1873 n= 14 |
Late 20th C. |
Ic |
|
3452.3 |
1894 n = 39 |
Late 20th C. |
Unique |
|
3452.4 |
1898 n = 3 |
Late 20th C. |
Unique |
|
3452.5 |
1847 n = 9 |
Late 20th C. |
Unique |
|
3452.6 |
1898 |
Late 20th C. |
Unique |
|
3452.7 |
1873 n = 36 |
1892 |
IV |
|
3452.8 |
sterile |
sterile |
V |
80
|
BROWNSVILLE 44PW479 Mean Dates/TPQ Structure One |
|||
|
Unit |
Ceramic Mean |
T.P.Q. |
Megastrata |
|
3452.9 |
1734 n = 54 |
1805 |
VI |
|
3452.10 |
sterile |
sterile |
unique |
|
3452.11 |
1835 n = 3 |
1830 |
VI |
|
3452.12 |
1791 n=l |
1762 |
VI |
|
3452.15 |
No Diagnostics |
n/a |
VI |
|
3511.1 |
1862 n= 15 |
Late 20th C. |
la |
|
3511.2 |
1870 n = 21 |
Late 20th C. |
Ic |
|
3511.3 |
1878 n = 99 |
1890 |
unique |
|
3513.1 |
1883 n- 10 |
Late 20th C. |
la |
|
3513.2 |
1898 n = 4 |
1890 |
Ic |
|
3513.3 |
1875n=110 |
1890 |
II |
|
3516.7 |
1764 n = 3 |
1762 |
IV |
|
3516.8 |
Sterile |
Sterile |
V |
|
3516.9 |
1764 n = 3 |
1795 |
VI |
|
3516.11 |
1799 |
1780 |
VI |
|
3516.12 |
1791 n=13 |
1762 |
VI |
|
3516.17 |
1811 n = 6 |
1805 |
VI |
|
3580.1 |
sterile |
Late 20th C. |
lb |
|
3580.2 |
sterile |
Late 20th C. |
Ic |
|
3580.7 |
sterile |
sterile |
IV |
|
3580.8 |
sterile |
sterile |
V |
|
3580.9 |
1805 n=4 |
1780 |
VI |
81
|
BROWNSVILLE 44PW479 Mean Dates/TPQ Structure One |
|||
|
Unit |
Ceramic Mean |
T.P.Q. |
Megastrata |
|
3580.11 |
1791 n=l |
1762 |
VI |
|
3580.12 |
1793 n= 15 |
1780 |
VI |
|
3580.16 |
1898 n = 5 |
1805 |
VII |
|
3580.17 |
1858 n = 3 |
1805 |
VII |
|
3261.1 |
no diagnostics |
Late 20th C. |
lb |
|
3261.2 |
1821 n = 4 |
Late 20th C. |
lb |
|
3261.3 |
Sterile |
Sterile |
Ic |
|
3261.4 |
1898 n=l |
Late 20th C. |
lb |
|
3261.5 |
Sterile |
Sterile |
Unique |
|
3261.6 |
1806 n= 15 |
Late 20th C. |
Ic |
|
3261.7 |
1805 n = 2 |
Sterile |
Unique |
82
|
BROWNSVILLE 44PW479 Mean Dates/TPQ Structure Three |
|||
|
Unit |
Ceramic Mean |
T.P.Q. |
Megastrata |
|
3330.2 |
1885 n = 43 |
1890 |
II |
|
3331.2 |
1877 n = 49 |
1890 |
II |
|
3332.2 |
1894 n = 47 |
1890 |
II |
|
3391.2 |
1854 n = 46 |
1890 |
II |
|
3394.2 |
1853 n = 44 |
1830 |
II |
|
3395.2 |
1868 n = 45 |
1890 |
II |
|
3396.2 |
1876 n = 4 |
1805 |
II |
|
3454.2 |
1858 n = 33 |
1890 |
II |
|
3454.3 |
1826 n=2 |
1830 |
Unique |
|
3457.2 |
1830 n = 78 |
1890 |
II |
|
3458.2 |
1861 n = 21 |
1890 |
II |
|
3459.2 |
1877 n = 42 |
1890 |
II |
|
3519.1 |
1877 n = 28 |
Late 20th C. |
la |
|
3519.2 |
1842 n = 72 |
1890 |
II |
83
|
BROWNSVILLE 44PW479 Mean Dates/TPQ Structure Three |
|||
|
Unit |
Ceramic Mean |
T.P.Q. |
Megastrata |
|
3521.2 |
1846 n=31 |
1890 |
II |
|
3522.2 |
1828 n = 25 |
1890 |
II |
|
3522.3 |
1822 n = 7 |
1790 |
III |
|
3584.2 |
1857 n = 77 |
1890 |
II |
|
3585.2 |
1851 n = 58 |
1890 |
II |
|
3586.2 |
1857 n = 27 |
1890 |
II |
|
3649.2 |
1884 n = 9 |
1890 |
II |
|
BROWNSVILLE 44PW479 Mean Dates/TPQ Miscellaneous Yard Units |
|||
|
Unit |
Ceramic Mean |
T.P.Q. |
Megastrata |
|
3010.1 |
1960's (Plastic) |
lb |
|
|
3010.2 |
1890 (Wire nail) |
lb |
|
|
3010.3 |
(bakelite) |
lb? (no munsell) |
|
|
3010.4 |
Ic |
||
|
3010.5 |
sterile |
Ic |
|
|
3311.1 |
I |
84
Chapter 6 MEADOWVILLE (44PW478)
Historical Background Martha McCartney
William Cundiff, who at the onset of the nineteenth century commenced developing the tract that became known as Meadowville Plantation, may have been a descendant of Jonathan Cundiff, who in 1739 was a resident of Prince William County (Joyner 1986:94). Although surviving Northern Neck Proprietary records make no other reference to Cundiff, it is likely that he and his descendants remained in Prince William County.
On August 4, 1787 William Cundiff signed a lease with Mann Page III of Mannsfield in Spotsylvania County, whereby Cundiff, his heirs and assigns, and his brothers, Isaac and Bryan (Bryant), rented with right of survivorship 217 acres of Prince William County land on the Muddy Lick, a drain or tributary of Bull Run (W.P.A. 1941:161). The acreage the Cundiff brothers leased was described as being contiguous to the property of John Cundiff, which lay to the south and also was part of the 41,660 acre Bull Run tract that Robert Carter had claimed in 1724 and left to his descendants. Under the terms of Mann Page III and William Cundiff's lease agreement, the Cundiff brothers, who collectively held a life interest in the property they were renting, were obliged to pay Page an annual rent of 1,410 lbs of tobacco, which was due annually on December 25th. If the Cundiffs' rent were more than 60 days overdue, Page had the right to repossess his land and any improvements it contained. The Cundiffs were obliged to build "a dwelling house and proper outhouses [that were] to always be in good repair," to plant 100 apple trees per hundred acres, and to maintain the plantation's fences in satisfactory condition. They were to leave forested at least one-fourth of the property they were leasing and after the expiration of eight years they were enjoined from planting Indian corn on any part of the tract for more than one year out of three. Under the terms of the Page-Cundiff lease, the Cundiff brothers were obliged to pay whatever annual real estate taxes that came due on the property (Prince William County Deed Book X:37-38).
Prince William County land tax rolls indicate that William Cundiff by i790 commenced paying taxes upon approximately half of the property he and his brothers were leasing from Mann Page III; concurrently, Isaac and Bryan Cundiff together assumed responsibility for the taxes that were owed on the other half (Prince William County Land Tax Lists 1790-1806). According to personal property tax rolls for the 1790s, William Cundiff, as a Prince William County resident, paid taxes upon himself, five or six slaves that were over age 16 and approximately five to ten horses/asses/mules. Thus, he was a relatively successful middling farmer. Tax records also demonstrate that Cundiff slowly but surely increased the quantities of slaves and livestock that were in his possession. His brothers, on the other hand, appear to have been somewhat less prosperous, for tax rolls indicate that they owned only one slave (or sometimes, none) and had only one horse/ass/mule. Throughout this period a John Cundiff (who most likely was William, Isaac and Bryan's kinsman) paid taxes on half-a-dozen slaves and a like number of horses/asses/mules (Prince William Personal Property Tax Lists 1791-1800).
On January 3, 1800 Mann Page III, who appears to have realized that the Northern Neck Proprietary's legal rights were bordering on extinction, sold William Cundiff 368 acres that were described as bordering on the east bank of Bull Run's south fork, in Prince William County (Prince William Land Lists 1790 - 1800). The following month, Page deeded to Cundiff an
85
additional 225 acres that adjoined the property he had just purchased and abutted a stream that later became known as the Licking Branch. These two parcels, which were contiguous and formed an aggregate of 593 acres, comprised the plantation that William Cundiff developed into his home farm, which was known as Meadowville. In 1800, when Prince William County's tax commissioner compiled his assessments, William Cundiff was credited with the 593 acres he had purchased from Mann Page III during January and February (Prince William County Deed Book 1:51-55; Land Tax Lists 1800).
During the early 1800s, when William Cundiff 's interest shifted to Meadowville, his brothers, Isaac and Bryan, commenced paying the taxes that were owed upon the 21 7 acre tract that the three men had been leasing from Mann Page III. Isaac and Bryan may have bought out William's interest in the property, for in 1806-1807 they deeded 114 acres of the tract (or approximately half of it) back to William, who absorbed it into Meadowville. Five years later Isaac and Bryan Cundiff sold the remaining half of the Page tract (that portion which contained its domestic complex) to William Shaw. Tax rolls indicate that Shaw's personal residence was located in another part of Prince William County and that the dwelling on the acreage he bought from the Cundiffs was the log structure that has become known as the Monroe House (Prince William County Land Tax Lists 1790-1820; Deed Book 28:392). Willard J. Webb, who conducted architectural research on the Monroe House, which is situated upon a tract called Poplar Grove or Poplar Springs, ascribed to it a late eighteenth century construction date on the basis of its architectural attributes. He also concluded that the log dwelling was built by William Cundiff upon the 217 acres the Cundiff brothers began leasing from Mann Page III in 1787 and he assumed that William occupied the house up until the time of his death in ca. 1821-1822 (Webb 1 979:9). Although Prince William County land records indicate that the Monroe House was built upon the land the Cundiff brothers commenced leasing from Mann Page III in 1787, those same documents refute Webb's assumption that William Cundiff was still occupying the dwelling when he died in 1821. By that date, Cundiff was living at Meadowville and the Monroe House was part of William Shaw's estate (Prince William County Land Tax Lists 1790-1822; Deed Book 28:392) (see ahead).
Personal property tax rolls demonstrate that William Cundiffs financial lot improved during the first two decades of the nineteenth century for the number of adult and juvenile slaves and horses/asses/mules for which he was responsible gradually grew. As previously noted, in 1806-1807 William Cundiff procured 114 acres of land from his brothers, Isaac and Bryan, whose acreage (the Page leasehold) adjoined Meadowville. Concurrently, he purchased 102 acres from John Dye, whose acreage also was contiguous. In 1807 the county tax assessor noted that all of William Cundiffs acreage was located on the Licking Branch. By 181 1 he (the assessor) had consolidated all three of Cundiffs tracts into an aggregate of 759 acres "on the Licking Branch" (Prince William County Personal Property Tax lists 1800-1810; Land Tax Lists 1807-1812).
In 1810, when a census was made of Prince William County's inhabitants, William Cundiff of Meadowville headed a household that was comprised of a free white male who was over age 45 (himself), a free white female who was between 26 and 45, a free white female between 16 and 26, a free white male between 10 and 16, and two boys and a girl who were under the age of 10. Cundiff also was responsible for 24 slaves. No free blacks were attributed to his household (Prince William County Census 1810). The 31 members of William Cundiffs household would have derived the bulk of their sustenance from Meadowville and Cundiffs slaves would have relied upon him to provide food, clothing, shelter, and medical care. Personal property tax lists for 1810 attribute to William Cundiff ten slaves who were over age 1 6 and two who were between 1 2 and 1 6, or half the number of the enslaved blacks that census records indicate were living with his household (Prince William County Personal Property Tax
86
Lists 1810).
In 1814, when Prince William County's tax assessor commenced noting whether property owners resided upon the land they owned in the county, he stated that William Cundiff was living "on the premises," thereby indicating that he was in residence on his 759 acre farm on the Licking Branch. Concurrently, when the tax assessor tabulated the amount of taxable personal property each local citizen owned, he attributed to William Cundiff 14 black slaves who were over age 1 2, two who were between 9 and 1 2, 1 2 horses/asses/mules and 25 cattle. Cundiff also paid luxury tax upon an ice house that was for private use, a metallic clock, a chest of drawers of common wood, and a bureau-secretary-bookcase-wardrobe that was made of a wood other than mahogany. In addition, Cundiff was assessed a special tax that was levied upon those who owned houses that were worth at least $500. This placed him in a somewhat elite group, for in 1815 only 32 of the 480 households in William Cundiff s district of Prince William County owned dwellings that were worth $500 or more. It should be noted, however, that the houses that were subjected to this special tax ranged in value from $500 to $3,000 and that William Cundiff, though among the elite 6.6 percent who owned a taxable house, literally was at the bottom of the scale among those whose dwellings were taxable. Tax records for 1815 indicate that William Cundiff was among the relatively few Prince William County householders who owned an ice house (Prince William County Personal Property Tax Lists 1814-1815). By 1 82 1 , Cundiff 's domestic complex also included a dairy (Prince William County Will Book L:433 - 433).
In 1 820 when the county tax commissioner commenced assigning an estimated value to the structural improvements that stood upon the real estate he assessed, he noted that $3,000 worth of buildings were present on William Cundiff's 759 acres on the Licking Branch, which Cundiff occupied personally. He also owned 1 1 8 acres on Catharpin Run that he had purchased from the Debill heirs in 1819, acreage that was devoid of improvements. William Cundiff paid personal property tax upon himself (an adult white male), 1 1 slaves who were over the age of 16, two slaves between the ages of 12 and 16, and nine horses/asses/mules (Prince William County Land Tax Lists 1819-1820; Personal Property Tax Lists 1820).
In 1820, when a census was made of the county's inhabitants, William Cundiff's household at Meadowville consisted of a free white male over the age of 45 (Cundiff himself) and one who was between 16 and 26 (his eldest son, William P. Cundiff), a free white male between 10 and 16 and two boys who were under the age of 10. John Y. Cundiff, who was born in 1820, may have been one of these boys. Female household members included a free white woman over the age of 45 (probably Mrs. Elizabeth Cundiff) and two white girls under the age of 10. Mary Cundiff Gaines, born in 1817, may have been one of these girls. Enslaved black household members included four males who were under age 1 4, four who were between 1 4 and 26, three who were between 26 and 45, and three who were over age 45. Cundiff's black female slaves consisted of four who were under 1 4, five who were between 1 4 and 26, and one who was between 26 and 45. Of the 8 white household members and the 24 enslaved blacks, 19 persons reportedly were engaged in agriculture. The Prince William County census also includes another William Cundiff, who was the head of a local household. He, as a free white male aged 26 to 45, headed a household that was comprised of a free white female aged 26 to 45, a free white female 16 to 26, a free white female over the age of 45, and a boy under age 10. This Cundiff family had no slaves and three of its members personally were engaged in agriculture. As real estate and personal property tax rolls for 1820 include only one William Cundiff, Meadowville's owner, the younger man (who was landless and slaveless) would have resided upon someone else's property, perhaps as a tenant or sharecropper (Prince William County Census 1820; Land Tax Lists 1820; Personal Property Tax Lists 1820).
87
In 1821, William Cundiff paid taxes upon two free white males who were age 16 or older, nine slaves who were over age 16, three slaves who were between 12 and 16 and eight horses/asses/mules. Real estate tax records continued to credit him with the 759 acres on the Licking Branch that contained his personal residence and 118 acres on Catharpin Run, which lacked taxable improvements. The assessor also indicated that since his visit in 1820 Cundiff had acquired from George Tennill 16 1/2 acres on Cundiff Creek that were vacant (Prince William County Personal Property Tax Lists 1821; Land Tax Lists 1821). The two free white male tithes who were living in the Cundiff household in 1821 presumably were household-head William Cundiff and his son, William P.
William Cundiff died during 1821, which fact the tax assessor noted when updating his records in 1822. Although Cundiff appears to have died intestate, an inventory of his personal estate, which was made on January 24, 1822 and presented to the county court the following April, sheds a great deal of light upon his household's material culture and socio-economic status. The substantial quantity of furniture in Cundiff 's possession at the time of his decease suggests that his family occupied a relatively spacious dwelling. His inventory also indicates that one of the buildings in his domestic complex was a dairy. On hand at the time of William Cundiff's decease were three walnut tables and a large walnut chest, a dozen Windsor chairs, a clock, a looking glass, two dressing glasses and tables, a desk and bookcase, a buffet, several trunks, a china press, a sideboard and eight bedsteads. His possession of a dozen silver teaspoons and a silver ladle attests to his relative affluence and refinement, whereas the presence of "a lot of books" suggests that he was literate. Cundiff owned ten pewter basins, four pewter plates and an undescribed quantity of crockery and glass. Also on hand were numerous utilitarian items, such as a gun, a set of medical scales, two flax wheels and four cotton wheels, a number of stone pots, iron pots and tubs, a still and worm, and an assortment of casks and barrels (Prince William County Will Book L:430-433; Personal Property Tax Lists 1822).
William Cundiff's agricultural equipment included harrows, cultivators and a variety of plows and gear, scythes and cradles, a dung fork, shovels and spades. He also had saws, planes, augers, two grindstones, a horse cart and gear, a wagon, an ox cart and several sets of harness. His livestock consisted of five mares, four stallions and two. colts; 58 sheep; ten milk cows, three steers, a bull, three calves, and a yoke of unbroken oxen; and an unspecified quantity of hogs. Cundiff's inventory reveals that the bulk of his personal wealth was invested in his 20 slaves, some of whom were worth more individually than the collective value of his household furnishings (Prince William County Will Book L:430-433) (see Table I).
When the tax assessor compiled his records for 1822, he noted that a free white male tithe was then residing in the late William Cundiff's household (most likely the decedent's eldest son, William P. Cundiff) and he credited the decedent's estate with nine slaves who were over age 16, 11 who were between 12 and 16, and 11 horses/asses/mules. Cundiff's estate also was charged with his 759 acres on the Licking Branch, 1 18 acres on Catharpin Run and 16 1/2 acres on Cundiff Creek. The late William Cundiff's personal estate appears to have been distributed among his legal heirs between 1822 and 1824, for in 1823 Elizabeth Cundiff (the decedent's widow) was credited with nine slaves who were over the age of 1 2 and six horses/asses/mules, whereas William P. Cundiff was in possession of only one horse/ass/mule. It was likely during this period that any debts against the decedent's estate were paid. In 1824 Elizabeth Cundiff was charged with five slaves who were over the age of 1 6 and one who was under 1 6, plus eight horses/asses/mules, whereas William P. Cundiff still owned only one horse/ass/mule. During 1825 and 1826 no one named Cundiff was listed in Prince William County's personal property tax rolls, raising the possibility that Elizabeth Cundiff had remarried, died or relocated and that William P. Cundiff had left the area for a time (Prince William County Personal Property Tax Lists
88
1822-1826).
In 1824 the real estate tax assessor noted that an undisclosed amount of the late William Cundiff's land had been deeded to John Leachman but he failed to deduct that acreage from the 759 acres that since 1807 had comprised the decedent's home tract, his 118 acres on Catharpin Run, or his 16 1/2 acres on Cundiff Creek. Nine years later, in 1833, the assessor when updating his record book noted that 368 acres had been subtracted from the late William Cundiff's 759 acre Meadowville tract. The assessor may have postponed altering his records until after Leachman had fully paid for the land he had purchased and obtained an unencumbered title to it. The reduction of Meadowville by 368 acres, precisely the same quantity of land that William Cundiff purchased from Mann Page III in January 1800, raises the distinct possibility that the acreage the decedent's heirs or administrators disposed of was that which Cundiff had bought from Mann Page III in January 1800 (Prince William County Deed Book 1 :51-52). If so, William Cundiff appears to have built his domestic complex upon the 225 acres that he bought from Page in February 1800 (Prince William County Deed Book 1:53-55). The residue of the late William Cundiff's real estate (including Meadowville) was not distributed to his legal heirs until 1871 , approximately 50 years after his decease, and then only as a result of litigation (Prince William County Land Tax Lists 1821-1871; Deed Book 1:51-55) (see ahead).
In 1827 William P. Cundiff's name reappeared in Prince William's personal property tax rolls, at which time he was credited with one slave who was over the age of 16 and five who were under 1 6, plus seven horses/asses/mules. During the next three years the number of slaves and horses/asses/mules upon which Cundiff was taxed slowly but surely increased. At the time of the census-taker's visit in 1830, the household William P. Cundiff headed included a free white male between 20 and 30 (Cundiff himself), a free white male between 16 and 20, two free white males between 10 and 16, a free white female between 30 and 40,two free white females between 16 and 20, a free white female between 10 and 16, and nine enslaved blacks. Black male household members included two who were between 36 and 55, two between the ages of 10 and 24, and one who was under the age of 10. Black female household members consisted of two who were between 36 and 55, one who was between 10 and 24, and one female who was less than age 10. Thus, William P. Cundiff's household consisted of 16 blacks and whites. Personal property tax lists for 1831 reveal that William P. Cundiff's brother (a male of tithable age whose first name was not supplied by the assessor) was living in the household; he was most likely the same 1 6-to-20-year-old white male who was living with William P. Cundiff at the time of the 1830 census. By 1832, this second Cundiff male was gone and only William P.'s name was listed in the county's tax rolls (Prince William County Personal Property Tax Lists 1827-1832; Census 1830).
Personal property tax lists for the 1830s suggest that William P. Cundiff was not an especially successful farmer, for the quantity of slaves and livestock in his possession gradually dwindled. The possibility also exists that he was in failing health or that he had weathered a series of financial hardships. By 1839 he was farming his land with the aid of only one taxable adult slave and a solitary horse/ass/mule. Census records for 1840 reveal the household William P. Cundiff then headed included three members: a free white male between 30 and 40 (Cundiff) and a black couple who were between the ages of 30 and 54 (Prince William County Personal Property Tax Lists 1832-1840).
Although a gap exists in the personal property tax records for 1840, William P. Cundiff's name was listed in 1841 but no data were recorded. Prince William County's personal property tax rolls for the years 1842-1847 include no one by the name of Cundiff (Prince William County Personal Property Tax Lists 1 840-1 848). This raises the possibility that William P. Cundiff, who in 1840 had neither a wife nor children, had died. Concurrently, the tax assessor consolidated
89
the late William Cundiff's real estate, which consisted of 391 acres on the Licking Branch that had $3,000 worth of buildings and tracts of 1 18 and 16 1/4 acres tracts on the Catharpin (both of which lacked improvements), into an aggregate of 525 1 /4 acres. The assessor identified this aggregate as Meadowville and continued to attribute it to William Cundiff's estate. In 1839 Prince William County's assessors revised their tax base, bringing it in line with that of other counties. As a consequence, the buildings on the late William Cundiff's Meadowville tract, which formerly were worth an estimated $3,000, were devalued to $400, a value consistently associated with upper middle class housing (Prince William County Land Tax Lists 1840-1848).
In 1849 the name of John Y. Cundiff, who had neither slaves nor a horse/ass/mule, commenced appearing in Prince William County's personal property tax rolls. By 1850 he was in possession of one slave who was over the age of 16 and a solitary horse/ass/mule. Census records for 1850, which identify John Y. Cundiff as a household head, reveal that he was then 30 years old. Living in John Y. Cundiff's household was James Gaines, a 78-year-old white man. Neither Cundiff nor Gaines, who both were described as Virginia-born, reportedly owned real estate or had an occupation. However, agricultural census records for 1850 indicate that John Y. Cundiff was a farmer. Slave schedules for 1850, which supplement the census records compiled on whites, state that John Y. Cundiff was in possession of a black male slave who was age 25 and three black children: two girls, who were ages 1 and 7, and a boy who was 5 years old (Prince William County Census 1830,1850; Slave Schedules 1850).
Agricultural census records for 1850 indicate that John Y. Cundiff had under cultivation 300 acres of land, whereas the residue of his property was unimproved. He was credited with $15 worth of farming equipment (a modest figure in comparison with many of his peers), and had a horse, a milk cow, and 12 swine. During 1849 he had raised 200 bushels of Indian corn, 100 bushels of oats, one bushel of peas and beans, and eight bushels of Irish potatoes. His cow had produced 150 lbs. of butter and his sheep had yielded 110 lbs. of wool. An estimated $20 worth of Cundiff's livestock had been slaughtered for consumption (Prince William County Agricultural Census 1850).
During the 1850s the late William Cundiff's estate called Meadowville continued to remain intact. In 1851 the tax assessor noted that Meadowville lay adjacent to the "turnpike road" (a reference to the Warrenton-Alexandria Turnpike, Route 29s forerunner) and he reduced the value of Meadowville's improvements from $400 to $300, but provided no information on why he had revised his estimate. In 1 855 the assessor commented that 4 1 /2 acres of land had been conveyed to the Manassas Gap Railroad by the Cundiff heirs and he reduced the Meadowville tract's size from 525 1/4 to 521 acres. Two years later, in 1857, he raised the value of the buildings on Meadowville from $300 to $500, as part of what appears to have been an overall elevation (or inflationary adjustment) in the local tax base. Meadowville's size (521 acres)and the value of its improvements ($500) remained constant up until the time of the Civil War (Prince William County Land Tax Lists 1851-1865).
Personal property tax rolls for 1852, which are more detailed than previous years' records, suggest that John Y. Cundiff's economic situation began to improve somewhat. He was then in possession of a slave who was over the age of 16 (perhaps the same man who had been listed the previous year) but he also was credited with another slave who was over the age of 12 but under 16. He still owned a horse/ass/mule and he had 12 cattle, sheep and hogs. John Y. Cundiff's household furniture was worth an estimated $50, a value that was relatively low in comparison to the majority of his contemporaries; even so, he was not among the county's poorest citizens. Throughout the 1850s John Y. Cundiff added to the number of slaves and quantity of livestock in his possession, evidence that he was making steady economic progress. By 1853 he had four slaves who were over the age of 12 and 22 cattle, sheep and hogs and in
90
1855 he had four horses/asses/mules.Between 1855 and 1856 he acquired a clock (a taxable luxury item) but he had neither wheeled vehicles, watches nor gold and silver plate. In 1861, when the Civil War broke out, John Y. Cundiff 's livestock herd consisted of four cattle, 40 sheep and 14 hogs (Prince William County Personal Property Tax Lists 1852-1861).
Census records for 1860 describe John Y. Cundiff as a 40-year-old white male farmer that was able to read and write. Residing with him was Levi Payne, a 21 -year-old farm laborer, who was illiterate. Cundiff reportedly owned $5,250 worth of real estate and $1,500 worth of personal property. It should be noted, however, that the tax assessor was still attributing Meadowville to the late William Cundiff's estate and that John Y. Cundiff was not listed among those who owned Prince William County real estate. Thus, John Y. Cundiff appears to have been in residence upon the decedent's property, which ownership he shared with his father's other heirs. Agricultural census records for 1860 support this hypothesis, for John Y. Cundiff was credited with management of almost precisely the same quantity of acreage that in 1871 comprised William Cundiff's estate. In 1871, when the late William Cundiff's estate was partitioned, it consisted of 440 acres called Meadowville and 115 1/2 adjoining acres called the Gant tract (see ahead). John Y. Cundiff's name was not included in Prince William County's slave schedules for 1860 even though he paid personal property taxes upon two enslaved blacks who were over age 1 2. However, his sister, Mrs. Mary C. Gaines, was listed as the owner of a substantial number of slaves, an indication that she was relatively well off (Prince William County Census 1860; Agricultural Census 1860; Slave Schedules 1860; Land Tax Lists 1860-1861; Personal Property Tax Lists 1860-1861).
Agricultural census records for 1860 indicate that John Y. Cundiff then had 360 acres of land under the plow and 185 acres that were unimproved. He worked his land with farming implements that were worth $75. Cundiff's livestock, which were valued at $943, included six horses, four milk cows, 1 2 other cows, and 1 5 swine. During the previous year he had raised 20 bushels of rye, 250 bushels of Indian corn, 200 bushels of oats, one bushel of peas and beans, 20 bushels of Irish potatoes, 20 tons of hay, 5 bushels of grass seed, and $12 worth of orchard products on his farm and $80 worth of animals had been slaughtered for consumption. John Y. Cundiff's dairy cattle had produced 300 lbs. of butter. Between 1850 and 1860 Cundiff appears to have ceased raising sheep (Prince William County Agricultural Census 1850, 1860).
In 1861, when war broke out between North and South, the first Battle of Manassas (Bull Run), which occurred on July 21, 1861, was fought in an area that lay approximately 2 1/2 miles to the east of Meadowville. No evidence has come to light that suggests that military activity then occurred in the immediate vicinity of Meadowville (Koski-Karell et al. 1987:52). In August 1861, when W. G. Atkinson prepared a map of the Manassas battlefield and its environs, he omitted the site of the Cundiff domestic complex at Meadowville but indicated that the area in which it was situated consisted of a "range of elevated ridges and hills" (Atkinson 1861) (Fig. 6-1). McDowell (1862) likewise focused his attention upon the area's roadways and provided little information about its built environment (Fig. 6-2). Macomb's map (1862) indicates that in 1862 the land in the vicinity of the Cundiff domestic complex was relatively free of vegetation (Fig. 6-3). Although no evidence has come to light which suggests that John Y. Cundiff served in the military, Confederate records reveal that he delivered 1 ,800 lbs. of hay to the Confederate Army in September 1861, for which he was paid $10,and later in the year he conveyed another 5,800 lbs. of hay to the army on behalf of his sister, Mrs. Mary C. Gaines. In December 1861 Cundiff rented his three-horse team to the army for nine days(Schaefer 1987:1:8, 15; Ray 1987:33, 36-37).
During August 28, 29 and 30, 1862, when the Second Battle of Manassas was fought, the Cundiff's Meadowville tract was in the midst of what became a major combat zone. On August
91
Figure 6-1: Map of the Battlefields of Manassas and the Surrounding Region, August 1861 (Atkinson 1861).
92
Figure 6-2: Surveys for Military Defenses, Map of N. Eastern Virginia and Vicinity of Washington (McDowell 1962).
93
Figure 6-3: Manassas Junction and Vicinity (Macomb 1862).
94
28th Union General Marsena R. Patrick's men sought cover in the woods to the right of the turnpike. Like several houses in the area, Cundiff was converted into a field hospital (Schaefer 1987:1:8,15; Ray 1987:33,36-37).
Military cartographers' maps that were prepared both during and after the war reveal that John Y. Cundiff 's domestic complex at Meadowville, which in August 1862 was in the midst of the battlefield, was a likely site for a field hospital (Warren 1878c) (Fig. 6-4). According to one man who participated in the Second Battle of Manassas, those who were most serious wounded were carried to the Cundiff house, where they were tended by surgeons and hospital stewards who served under the command of Dr. Peter Pinco, chief medical officer of the Division. Henry Marsh, a hospital steward with the 19th Indiana Regiment, described in part his medical duties at the Cundiff house and noted that "we had to work as hard as we could until the brigade moved." Later, many of the wounded were loaded into ambulances and transported to sites where they could receive more sophisticated care. General John Gibbon made a sketch upon which he identified some of the dwellings that on August 28, 1862 were used as Union field hospitals. One of the buildings that he depicted as a "house used as hospital" was the home of John Y. Cundiff at Meadowville (Schaefer 1987:1:16-18).
After dark, silence descended upon the battlefield. Union military leaders' decision to retreat during the night was not made in haste, for they hoped to meet up with the rest of the army at Manassas. But the Union withdrawal left the Confederates in possession of the battlefield and positioned along the embankment of the unfinished railroad line that was situated to the north of the Warrenton-Alexandria Turnpike. On the morning of August 29th, Union General John Pope set large numbers of troops in motion, with orders to move toward "Stonewall" Jackson's line. As part of these maneuvers, General Fitz-John Porter was instructed to shift his men from Manassas to Gainesville. Meanwhile, when daylight came and Confederate leaders realized that their enemy had departed, Jackson proceeded to distribute his troops along a wide front and Jubal Early's brigades were positioned on some high ground to the west of Pageland Lane. It has been estimated that on August 29, 1862 approximately 21,000 Confederate officers and men (or nearly half of the Confederate Army) were deployed in the vicinity of the William Center tract. They served under the command of Major-General James Longstreet, who reported directly to General Robert E. Lee, whose headquarters were on Monroe's or Stuart's Hill. A Union detachment under Captain Irvin drove the Confederates back and seized the Cundiff house, where they discovered the remains of the Union field hospital that had occupied the building the night before (Schaefer 1987:1:21-24; Ray 1987:33-34).
One Union soldier, who had been seriously wounded and was left behind on the battlefield, became a Confederate prisoner-of-war. He and some of the other wounded were surrounded by Confederate skirmishers who marched them to an old house, which military records suggest was the Cundiff dwelling, Meadowville. During the late morning, when Union skirmishers attacked the Confederates, they proceeded to take shelter in the house. Shots fired by these Union troops, who were unaware that their wounded comrades-in-arms were inside, reportedly riddled the house and struck some of those who already were seriously injured. Some of the Union wounded were evacuated by the Confederates to positions of relative safety. Others were left behind in the house, where they later received assistance when the dwelling came into possession of the Union Army (Schaefer 1987:24-25).
Around noon on August 29th, the right wing of the Army of Northern Virginia, under General James Longstreet, assembled in a line that was parallel to Pageland Road. During the next 24 hours these same troops assumed various positions on a north-south axis in the vicinity of Meadowville Lane. Late in the afternoon of August 30th General Longstreet's men advanced eastward and surprised their opponents to the east of the Groveton Road. Some of the
95
*jp
Z$rvyf.
£§a
'</££
'tf/'rxfyes and/ '-'y ?I"y*. -J^^r^'V^ 'i^-plajiA is arlibruytJ ^ « ■ j UaJzassas t.ocuL>, ' ' _r*.j J ^
%ejuUnllin± . *>* k'
f y . ■ f I O nf;.
w
u.
ib
Gu.-
<9
il
>.\*
•^
*<*
Jt^
5^
Hi
7
^
vV
schejv(
-Mi
jfiRSTr::
MB.
.!•%
"^*vi J
#*.
VS
1&&
^
.^s<
^
*<. tJ
«$
\"j<i\
Cfc
:^;
U: K
.i*
A
jt-t?
lJ2
»?<PZ7?
-* .i.JM-.
55*t
^22£i-
^
•(7?
tl.&&-=6z&-~
•v*,
52 (?
h-
S£
'.sai
A~\
BKCrrt
;,><c°
»ir> ■''•■..-■»"■. ' ■• . - r .' \
->., r-^,-. .f^t .-».* '- '.. u"-- .?.. JL
24v. i'>;'.'L ■v.'t»h:'-;'.«'- r. 1
m&
•A?;
»<*&«
^&-
li^«*»
m
m
ciz+y- -.•
«-uf"i.\W
^*-
A5*.
:rti
J'rJl-
?«^a*firJ
«•■ */^«!ei^o f9X,Y-./^
Figure 6-4: 6 PM, Map of Batle Grounds of August 28, 29, and 30, 1862 (Warren 1878c).
96
bloodiest fighting of the Second Battle of Manassas took place in this easterly area. As a result of this action, the Union Army was obliged to withdraw toward Centreville, in Fairfax County (Koski-Karell 1987:54; Schaefer 1987:1:3).
A series of maps that were prepared in 1878, under the supervision of G. K. Warren as part of the retrial proceedings against Fitz-John Porter, provide a comprehensive picture of the military activity and troop movements that occurred in the immediate vicinity of 44PW478. These maps indicate that on August 29, 1862 the Confederates were positioned a relatively short distance to the southeast of John W. [Y] Cundiff's dwelling, Meadowville, just east of the Meadowville Lane, and that as the Confederates gathered strength, they pressed eastward (Warren 1878d, 1878e) (Fig.s 6-5 and 6-6). When viewed collectively, the maps produced by G. K. Warren's investigative team indicate that during the August 1862 battle, the Cundiff dwelling was in the midst of the combat zone and that military activity occurred in its immediate vicinity.
After the fighting was over burial details searched the battlefield for the dead and removed the wounded to field hospitals, where they could receive immediate care. Although no one directly associated with John Y. Cundiff's household is known to have been injured during the fighting that occurred, it is likely that his farm land bore the scars of combat for many years to come. As the Battle of Chantilly followed close on the heels of the fighting at Manassas, neither the Union nor Confederate Armies had an adequate amount of time to treat the wounded or bury the dead. Left behind were thousands of men who were casualties of the war. Many of those who were buried were hastily interred in mass graves. Eventually, rain, erosion and eventual efforts to till the soil for agriculture would have unearthed substantial quantities of human skeletal remains, as well as ammunition and other debris (Schaefer 1987:1:62-63). Prince William County land tax lists reveal that between 1861 and 1865 the Cundiff domestic complex at Meadowville was totally destroyed. This is not surprising when one considers that the dwelling, which was described as old, had been riddled with shot and used as a field hospital. In 1861 the county tax assessor, who attributed the 521 acre Cundiff plantation, Meadowville, to the late William Cundiff's estate, estimated that its buildings were worth $500. In 1865, when he formulated his evaluation, he noted that Meadowville was then devoid of taxable improvements and said that he had taken "$500 off [for] buildings destroyed." Prince William County's land tax lists for 1862, 1863, and 1864 are not extant. William Cundiff's estate was listed identically in 1870: 521 acres that were devoid of improvements (Prince William County Land Tax Lists 1861, 1865-1870).
Census records for 1870 reveal that John Y. Cundiff (Cundy) (age 50) was then residing in the household of his sister, Mary C.Gaines, a 53 year old widow whose home was in Gainesville. Mrs. Gaines' sons, Summerville (age 33) and Thomas B. (age 21), and daughter Clarandone (age 24) also shared her home, as did 16-year-old Douglas Knalton, a white male. The census-taker noted that in 1870 Mrs. Mary C. Gaines owned real estate that was worth $14,000 and personal estate that was valued at $1,000. John Y. Cundiff was credited with $1,850 in real estate but had no personal estate. The only individual the census-taker identified as having an occupation was Mrs. Gaines, who was said to be "keeping house" (Prince William County Census 1870). John Y. Cundiff's presence in his sister's home suggests that after the domestic complex at Meadowville was destroyed, he joined her household. Agricultural census records for 1870 include no data on Meadowville, suggesting that John Y. Cundiff made no attempt to resume his farming operations there (Prince William County Agricultural Census 1870).
In May 1 871 , when William B. Foster et al., plaintiffs, sued John Y. Cundiff et al., defendants, the late William Cundiff's estate, Meadowville, was partitioned and distributed among the plaintiffs and his heirs. In accord with the settlement that was reached the 521 acre
97
sas road*, s
heyoTLCU ' *,, _. - ■*' '::■ :j. c'. Wtf"
r are es&wz
Figure 6-5: Map of Battle Grounds of August 28, 29 and 30, 1862 (Warren 1878d).
98
hK-L.
l^i&iSKSsess
Figure 6-6: 12 M, August 30, 1862, Map of Battle Field of Manassas, Virginia, on August 29, 1862 (Warren 1878e).
99
Meadowville farm was subdivided and surveyed into lots that were of approximately equal value. The central portion of Meadowville, which consisted of 440 acres, was apportioned into three lots and a non-contiguous parcel called Gants or Garnets, which sat astride the road from Groveton to Sudley Mills, also was identified as part of the late William Cundiff 's estate. Lot #1 of Meadowville, which consisted of 140 acres that abutted west upon the Pageland Road and extended northward across the Warrenton Turnpike, was allocated to William B. Foster and his associate, E. M. Lipscomb. It is likely that Foster and Lipscomb were creditors who had a legal interest in the Cundiff estate. Mrs. Mary C. Gaines received Lot #2 of Meadowville, which contained 120 acres and lay to the east of Lot #1. Her brother, Pembroke C. Cundiff was assigned Lot #3, a 180 acre parcel that was still further to the southeast. Meanwhile, John Y. Cundiff received the 115 1/4 acre Gant (Garnet) tract. Two plats that were prepared at the time the late William Cundiff 's estate was partitioned reveal that 44PW478 is located upon Lot #2, the land that was assigned to Mrs. Mary C. Gaines (Prince William County Deed Book 28:390-393) (Fig. 6-7). In 1875, when the county tax assessor formulated his estimates, he indicated that Mary C. Gaines' 120 acres, Foster and Lipscombs' 140 acres, and P. C. Cundiff 's 180 acres, all of which were part of Meadowville, were devoid of improvements. Meanwhile, John Y. Cundiff 's 115 1/2 acre Gant (Garnet) tract also was vacant (Prince William County Land Tax Lists 1875).
Although relatively little is known about John Y. Cundiff, personally, Nannie N. L. Carroll, daughter of John T. Leachman, who owned nearby Brownsville, recollected that he was: ... an old cousin, a bachelor, who kept a store at Gainesville, and right often, on Saturday nights, he came down home and spent the night and Sunday with us, and the old folks were always glad to see him, and so were the children, for he never failed to bring a bag of candy in his pocket. One time, he was so busy talking news and politics, he seemed to forget us, so I crawled up in his lap. Of course he knew why, so he began to tickle me unmercifully, and I was terribly ticklish. I wriggled and squealed and could not get away. Finally, I caught him by his beautiful brown hair, and it all came off in my hand, leaving his head perfectly bald. I had heard of Indians scalping people, and I thought I had scalped Cousin John. ... I had never seen a wig. It was not many years after this that the message came one day that Cousin John Cundiff had died suddenly [Carroll 1976:15].
Whether John Cundiff actually was a blood relative of the Leachmans is open to conjecture, for the term "cousin" may have been adopted out of affection, enabling the Leachman youngsters to call him by his first name. John Y. Cundiff died in 1888 and was interred in the Dogan Cemetery, across the turnpike from the William Center tract (Ray 1987:40-41).
On February 25, 1895, after Mrs. Mary C. Gaines' death, her son, Summerville, sold 1 10 of his mother's 120 acre Meadowville parcel (Lot #2) to Mrs. F. A. Hereford (Prince William County Deed Book 43:430). A map prepared by William H. Brown in 1901 reveals that by that date Mrs. Hereford had erected a dwelling that was located in the southwestern part of the property, on Meadowville Lane, not far from the Monroe House (fig. 6-8). In 1904, when U. S. Army cartographers mapped an area in which military maneuvers were conducted in the vicinity of the First and Second Manassas Battlefields, they, too, identified the Hereford dwelling and indicated that the site at which the Cundiff family's domestic complex at Meadowville formerly stood was vacant (U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 1904) (Fig.s 6-9 and 6-10). In April 1925 Mrs. Hereford, who was a widow, conveyed 65 of her 110 acres to Cecil C. Hereford, but retained the residue of her lot. Shortly thereafter she executed a deed of trust in favor of T. E. Didlake, using as collateral the 45 acres she had kept when selling part ofher land to Cecil C. Hereford. In May 1933, Didlake foreclosed Mrs. F. A. Hereford's mortgage. Later, he recovered the rest of her acreage, reconstituting its original 120 acres. In May 1933 Didlake offered the Hereford
100
|
«#•/ |
■ — |
||
|
^ |
H>. |
||
|
3 |
1 s* / V*o |
""Q *.&/ |
|
|
«5| |
/ » |
S |
|
|
/ v*k |
V |
t o |
trA
I^Z
<-
-co
Avi^ mi ~ y'rit/tf '/«>.»"
t/
*r\
\t
X
tr\ & §
/
/
x
/
Figure 6-7: Plat made in 1871, when William Cundiff's Real Estate was Partitioned (Prince William County Deed Book 28:392).
101
Figure 6-8: Prince William County (Brown 1901).
102
\^
Figure 6-9: Maneuver Grounds: Prince William and Fairfax (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1904).
103
Figure 6-10: Maneuver Grounds: Prince William and Fairfax (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1904).
104
land for sale, at which time it was purchased by his wife, Marjorie, who immediately sold it to Charles A. and Blanch McCoy. The McCoys retained the property for less than a year and in November 1934 conveyed it to Carolyn D. Cameron (Prince William County Deed Book 80:485; 81 :222; 92: 1 41 , 1 68; 94:398). Although the land in the vicinity of the Cundiff domestic complex was devoid of structural features in 1923, when Prince William County was mapped by the United States Post Office Department (1923), and in 1944, when a topographic quadrangle sheet was prepared of the area, a solitary building stood at the end of a lane that descended from Route 29. This modest-sized frame dwelling incorporated into its fabric part of the older Meadowville house's foundation remains (U.S.G.S. 1944; Koski-Karell 1987:59, 69-74).
In February 1953, Susan T. Waite, who was Mrs. Carolyn D. Cameron's sister and her legal heir, deeded Mrs. Cameron's land to Henry B. and Eleanor W. Johnson, residents of the state of Maryland. The Johnson couple retained the property for nearly 1 1 years, in January 1964 selling it to CRB, Inc. of Maryland. That corporation promptly re-deeded the tract to Mrs. Johnson, at which time her husband formally renounced his dower rights to the land. On May 24, 1973 Mrs. Eleanor W. Johnson conveyed her property (then described as 1 19.510 acres) to the Marriott Corporation. Later, a deed of correction was filed, as a means of modifying the plat that had been prepared (Prince William County Deed Book 267:138; 313:642-644; 686:773; 710:160).
Table I
WILLIAM CUNDIFF'S INVENTORY, JANUARY 24, 1822 (Prince William County Will Book L430-433)
Personal Property Value in Dollars
Cesar 350.00
Adam 350.00
Randal 40.00
Levi 400.00
Harry 300.00
London 175.00
Edmond 50.00
Fanny 300.00
Matilda 300.00
Cynthia 250.00
Violet and child, Hannah 350.00
Benjamin 175.00
Charity 100.00
Franky and child, Isabella.. ..250. 00
John 175.00
Judah 100.00
Anny 150.00
Sally 150.00
1 bay horse 20.00
one gray horse 50.00
1 bay horse 60.00
1 bay horse 60.00
1 bay mare 10.00
1 horse colt 20.00
105
1 horse colt 15.00
1 bay mare -. 50.00
1 bay mare ...45.00
1 bay mare 20.00
1 bay mare 60.00
1 yoke unbroke oxen 20.00
10 milk cows at $8 @ 80.00
bull and steer at $12 @ 24.00
9 young cattle at $5 @ 45.00
2 beef steers at $20 @ 40.00
3 calves at $2 @ 6.00
58 sheep at $1.50 @ 87.00
wagon and lead chain 65.00
horse cart and gear 30.00
oxcart 25.00
4 sets wagon gear 20.00
parcel old plow gear 1.00
5 scythes and cradles 5.00
3 mowing scythes 3.00
2 old mowing scythes 1.00
3 small harrows 9.00
1 big harrow 6.00
2 cultivators 3.00
4 carry plows 10.00
3 coulter plows..... 3.00
3 shovel plows 3.00
4 swingletrees and some iron. ...2. 50
5 double swingletrees 2.50
6 clivises 1.50
bar shear and coulter 2.00
plow and coulter 1.75
6 hoes ...1.50
4 grubbing hoes 2.00
dung fork, 3 shovels and spade.. 1.50
1 still and worm 15.00
1 wheat fan 7.50
1 Ig. oak chest 4.00
2 grindstones 1.00
1 whip saw 7.00
cross-cut saw, planes, augers. .4. 00 1 ironbound cask and barrels. ...3.00 1 old tub 4.00
4 stone pots 1.33
1 oven and pot 1.00
1 clock 60.00
1 sideboard 30.00
1 china press 40.00
1 desk and bookcase 15.00
1 lot of books 5.00
1 walnut table .4.00
8 beds, bedsteads and furniture at $40 @... .320.00 4 counterpanes at $5 @ 20.00
106
1 Ig. looking glass 2.00
dressing glass and table 3.00
Ig. walnut chest 1.75
1 old walnut table 2.00
case and bottles 1.50
pine chest 1.00
pine press 1.00
1 gun 5.00
4 old chairs 1.25
5 flag chairs 0.625
3 trunks 7.50
dressing table and glass 1.00
2 flax wheels 4.00
4 cotton wheels 5.00
1 Ig. iron pot 2.50
5 pots, 3 ovens, tea kettle... 10.00 4 axes 4.00
1 woodenware 2.00
4 stone pots 1.33
6 pewter basons, 4 pewter plates. ...5.00
2 tin pans and a parcel of lumber in the dairy.. ..3. 33 all the crockeryware and glass. 12.75
12 silver teaspoons and ladle... 15.00 waiters 3.00
3 candlesticks 2.00
medicine scales 1.00
1 buffet 2.00
1 walnut table 4.00
1 doz. Windsor chairs 12.00
stock of hogs 64.50
4 pewter basons 3.00
April 1, 1822 recorded at court.
107
Archeological Investigations Jacqueline Hernigle
The location of the Meadowville complex was well known through historic documents, primarily those related to the Second Battle of Manassas in 1862. In addition, the triassic sandstone foundation of the main house had been left visible in 1 987 by the Hazel-Peterson Companies' demolition of the twentieth-century frame structure that rested upon part of the Meadowville foundations. Therefore, the initial phase of archeological research was intended to obtain a construction date for the main house. In addition, the archeological research was designed to locate outbuildings dating from the historic occupation of the Meadowville complex, as well as determine their possible function.
These archeological investigations were planned to determine general archeological integrity of the site, particularly the presence, or absence, of intact subsurface historic or prehistoric features and artifacts in undisturbed stratigraphic contexts. On a more general level, high archeological potential to contribute significant information to current archeological, anthropological, and historical research questions was also deemed an important consideration (see Criterion D of the National Register of Historic Places).
Phase I Archeological Investigations:
As the specific location of the main house foundation was already known, the Phase I testing of Meadowville concentrated on locating the outbuildings, which would have been adjacent to the main house. To this end, shovel test pits (here after called stp's) were excavated within the main yard area of the Meadowville plantation complex, directly to the west of the house foundation. A transit was used to establish a grid system, aligned to Virginia grid north (nine degrees east of magnetic north) over the site area. The grid was utilized both for the shovel test pits, and later excavation units.
A total of 1 7 stp's were excavated in the yard area, which yielded artifacts dating from the occupation of Meadowville during the late eighteenth century through the twentieth century. Although the majority of the artifacts were architectural (nails, window glass, brick fragments), the recovered artifacts also included remains such as ceramics, glass, coins, as well as modern plastic fragments.
The soil stratigraphy within these stp's indicated a redeposited layer of soil covering the site area tested (directly west of the foundation). This is probably a result of either the 1987 Hazel-Peterson Companies' demolition of the twentieth-century structure that rested on the original house foundations, or landscaping done by the occupants of that early twentieth- century structure. This clay cap (5YR 3/2 dark reddish brown) overlies the original ground surface of loamy clay (10YR 3/4 dark brown), beneath which is culturally sterile clay subsoil ( 5YR 3/4 dark reddish brown) with decaying triassic sandstone bits. The soil stratigraphy within the partially enclosed area further to the west contained different soil configuration. A possible plowzone composed of loamy clay (10YR 3/3 dark brown), overlies culturally sterile clay subsoil (5YR 3/4 dark reddish brown).
Shovel test pits 1 through 6 were situated in an area with possible sandstone piers, as well as a roughly square depression. Stp 1 contained a common machine-cut nail (c1830- 1 990) and a fragment of nineteenth-century utilitarian American grey stoneware. Stp 2 yielded
108
one fragment of window glass, three fragments of container glass, modern press-decorated plate glass, one fragment of whiteware (d 805-1 990), one piece of utilitarian stoneware with Albany slip and Bristol glaze (d 890-1 920). Five wire nails (d 880-1 990) and three machine- cut nails (d 830-1 990) were also recovered. In addition, stp 2 yielded a 1964 Lincoln head penny. Stp 3 contained a Bakelite curtain pull (d 907-1 930), two fragments of clear container glass, a piece of machine-made chain, and a single wire nail (d 880-1 990). Stp 4 contained a single milky white quartzite flake, two fragments of clear container glass, and a copper screw (d 830-1 990). Stp 5 contained a single modern aluminum beer can. Stp 6 yielded a single piece of unidentifiable long bone, a burnt fragment of whiteware (d 805-1 990), a fragment of utilitarian earthenware ("Piercyware" d 790-1 809), three unidentifiable nails, and a ferrous spoon/fork handle fragment. In general, these artifacts told us little about the structure presumed to have existed on that spot; however, they did confirm the early nineteenth century to the early twentieth-century dates of occupation obtained through historical research.
Shovel test pits 7 through 1 2 were placed in an area also containing possible above- ground evidence of an ancillary structure for Meadowville plantation. A pile of triassic sandstone and hand-made brick was thought to indicate a potential chimney fall from the structure. Stp 7 contained unidentifiable ferrous fragments, one fragment of olive container glass, one fragment of clear container glass, one fragment of ironstone (d 840-1 990), and one fragment of utilitarian American grey stoneware. Stp 7 also encountered a subsurface historic feature of laid triassic sandstone at a depth of 0.8 feet below ground surface. Stp 8 contained an unidentifiable fragment of ferrous material, a fragment of modern green container glass, and a piece of utilitarian stoneware with Albany slip and Bristol glaze (d 890-1 920). Stp 9 yielded a fragment of unidentifiable long bone, four fragments of window glass, two fragments of aqua container glass, one piece of melted glass, one fragment of unidentifiable ferrous material, one machine-made fence staple (d 870-1 990), two machine-cut nails (d 830-1 990), and one steel two-tined fork fragment (d 750-1 800). This stp also contained two fragments of nineteenth- century utilitarian American grey stoneware, and one piece of a blue transfer-printed whiteware plate (d 830-1 870). Stp 10 contained a single wire common nail (d 880-1 990), a fragment of modern brown container glass, and a fragment of burnt whiteware plate (d 805-1 990). Stp 1 1 contained modern hard plastic (d 91 5-1 990), one fragment of unidentifiable long bone, two machine-cut nails (d 830-1 990), one fragment of nineteenth-century utilitarian American grey stoneware, three fragments of ironstone (d 840-1 990), and one fragment of ironstone with a maker's mark (s1 897-1 990). Stp 12 contained a single wire finishing nail (d 850-1 990), a fragment of clear container glass, one fragment of nineteenth-century utilitarian American brown stoneware, one piece of ironstone (d 840-1 990), and one fragment of creamware (d 762-1 820). These artifacts recovered, and the feature encountered during the excavation of this group of stp's, were indicative of an earlier occupation of the Cundiff family or their slaves, instead of the seemingly later use of the area tested in stp's 1 through 6.
Shovel test pits 13 through 18 were situated to adequately sample the remaining yard area adjacent to the house foundations where the possibility of outbuildings was less likely than the area sampled previously. Stp 1 3 yielded no artifacts. However, stp 1 4 contained two wire nails (d 880-1 990), two machine-cut nails (d 830-1 990), two fragments of window glass, and one piece of hard plastic (d 91 5-1 990). Also recovered from stp 14 was a prehistoric triassic sandstone scraper. The remainder of the shovel test pits contained no artifacts. This area was probably used historically as a paddock for livestock, or as a kitchen garden, and therefore contained no structures other than fencing.
Phase II Archeological Investigations
The second phase of archeological investigations began as a result of the excavation
109
of the shovel test pits, which were invaluable in determining where to locate larger, and more intensive, excavation units. The excavation units were positioned to sample two main areas, the main house area and the yard area directly to the east.
Excavation unit 1 was placed directly adjacent to the main house foundations (described in detail below) in an effort to determine the date of construction. Excavation units 2 through 9 were placed over the outbuilding discovered by shovel test pit 7 (Map with excavation units). These excavation units varied in size, depending upon the requirements of the archeological research; however, all were excavated following natural stratigraphic levels with trowel and shovel, with artifacts recovered after the soil was carefully screened through a one-quarter inch mesh screen. A total of 3,477 artifacts were recovered from Meadowville, including those located during the Phase I survey efforts.
Meadowville Main House Area:
The majority of the foundations of Meadowville plantation's main house were readily visible after their exposure in 1 987 by the Hazel-Peterson Companies (Koski-Karell et al 1 987). The triassic sandstone foundation was constructed dry-laid in two stages; the first stage resulted in the construction of a 15 foot square foundation, approximately 1 .5 feet in width, which extended two feet below the ground surface. A three-by-eight foot chimney footing of large river cobbles was constructed on the north wall of that structure. The structure may have been either one-and-one-half stories or a full two stories in height.
From historic research, this early Meadowville structure could not have been constructed earlier than d 787 and most likely between d 790 and 1 800. This small structure may have been constructed to satisfy the lease terms agreed to with Mann Page III; the terms required that a dwelling house, as well as outbuildings, be built. Three years, between 1787 and 1790, was the usual time allotted for this construction.
The second stage of historic construction completed an L-shaped structure sometime between d 800 and the first decade of the nineteenth century. This style was fairly common in the early nineteenth-century Piedmont (fig. 6-11). The rectangular addition measured 15 feet in width by 30 feet in length, with the building materials and styles identical to that of the stage one foundation. There were visible signs of this addition evident in the north wall of the rectangle, where it joined the earlier foundation. This dwelling had a total of three large chimneys, with two new chimneys constructed on the east and west sides of the rectangular portion of the structure. These chimney footings were also constructed of large river cobbles, as was the first chimney. This structure was listed as "destroyed" during the Civil War (d 862-1 865).
After a period of abandonment, the third and final use of the historic foundation occurred during the 1940s (fig. 6-11). The rectangular portion of the foundation was incorporated into a modern frame structure. An addition of cinder block and cement was extended to the south of the historic foundations, and a cinder block water access line added at a diagonal off the northeast corner of the structure. Two chimneys of modern machine- made brick were also constructed upon the nineteenth-century river cobble footings. The final addition to the twentieth-century dwelling was the construction of a raised set of steps, constructed from machine-made bricks, topped with a mill wheel of unknown origin. This modern structure was subsequently razed in 1987.
110
44PW478 "Meadowville"
o it.
Kcv:
40 ft. I
I * I possible sandstone piers I Q 1 shovel test pits
:_!] modern additions
A Overburden from Hazel-Pcicrson demolition
Figure 6-1 1 : Plan View of Meadowville Complex, Showing Archeological Excavation Units.
111
Excavation Unit 1:
Excavation unit 1 was a six-by-six foot unit placed on the corner of the original house foundation and chimney footing, both to sample the fill within the cellar space, and also to locate and sample any builder's trench for a construction date (fig. 6-12). Level 1 (10YR 3/3 dark brown clayey loam) was fill located inside the structure's cellar space, that extended to an average depth of 1 .7 feet beneath the ground surface. Level 1 contained a total of 270 artifacts, including faunal and organic remains, architectural materials, hardware, agricultural implements, Civil War period ammunition, ceramics, and personal adornment items. In particular the dated ceramics, nails, furniture hardware, and buttons recovered provided the most information toward establishing the date of level 1. Using the mean dating formula (South 1977), a mean date of c1880 for level 1 was reached. The late nineteenth-century date of fill is compatible with the date of abandonment by John Y. Cundiff.
Level 5 was directly below level 1 inside the cellar space, and consisted of clay (5YR 3/4 dark reddish brown) with charcoal flecks and exfoliating triassic sandstone bits. Level 5 was a very thin layer of soil, an average of 0.2 tenths of a foot in thickness. The 25 artifacts recovered from this level included glass, ceramics, faunal remains, and nails. Of this number, only three fragments of ceramics provided a mean date of c1797 for the bottom of the cellar space. While the three artifacts do not constitute a statistically valid sample size, the date is consistent with the c 1790- 1800 date of construction obtained through historic documents for this first stage of the Meadowville house.
The exterior of the foundation in unit 1 consisted of strata 2, 3, 4, and 6. Level 2 (10YR 6/6 mottled brownish yellow clay mixed with 2.5YR 3/4 dark reddish brown loamy clay) was not excavated due to it's evident disturbed, redeposited nature. This level is most likely the result of mechanical grading during either the 1944 construction of the modern house on top of historic Meadowvi lie's foundations, or the 1987 demolition of the modern house by the Hazel- Peterson Companies (Koski-Karell 1987:56;63). Level 3 (2.5YR 4/3 reddish brown), a thin lens of loamy clay, partially over lay strata 2 and 4. This level, related to the grading episode, was removed to allow excavation of the strata beneath it. Level 4 (2.5YR 3/4 dark reddish brown clay with inclusive river pebbles) was excavated, but contained no artifacts.
Subsequent to the removal of strata 3 and 4, the triassic sandstone foundation of the original 1 5 foot square Meadowville house was exposed. Directly adjacent to these foundation stones the builder's trench was uncovered. During the construction of a dwelling with no full English cellar, trenches were usually dug to seat the foundations. This opened area would have been as wide enough to accommodate the workmen as well as the wall. In the case of Meadowville, there was a small cellar space excavated to an approximate depth of two feet below ground surface, with slightly sloping sides that served as trench space for the work on the foundation exterior. Consequently, these construction techniques left a space directly adjacent to the foundation stones open during construction, into which trash from the construction period could fall. Once construction was finished, the open trench was backfilled. Therefore, the artifacts contained within the builder's trench provide archeologists a good date for the construction of the dwelling.
The builder's trench within unit 1 was designated level 6. Level 6 (10YR 3/2 very dark grayish brown clayey loam) was excavated to a depth of 0.6 tenths of a foot, at which point the excavation was terminated. The trench exhibited a slight decrease in width, or sloping, toward the bottom of the trench due to the excavation method used for the cellar space. This trench feature was partially excavated to provide a sample of artifacts within the trench for dating. A
112
Grid North
i
44PW478 "Meadowville"
Unit 1 Planview
Unit 1 North Profile
Kev:
Scale:
Oft.
1 ft.
\yM Triassic sandstone foundation E brick
Figure 6-12: Plan View of Unit 1.
113
total of 10 artifacts were recovered within level 6, including ceramics, glass, faunal remains, mortar, and nails, Three pieces of ceramics and nails provided a mean date of c1800 for the construction of the Meadowville main house. As stated previously, while the sample size does not constitute a valid sample, nevertheless the mean date confirms the d 790-1 800 date of construction obtained through historic documents.
Meadowville Yard Area:
The yard area directly to the east of the main house foundations contained visible remains of potential outbuildings to the domestic complex of Meadowville plantation. The excavation of shovel test pit 7 had encountered evidence of a subsurface laid stone feature, which hinted at the possibility of an outbuilding. Possible sandstone piers were also visible on the ground surface. The yard area was considered a likely place to begin to locate the remains of the outbuildings, because of the intensity of activity surrounding the main house. The potential for locating outbuildings was considerably lower the further away from the main house the excavation was situated.
Historic research was utilized to determine the possible range of historic outbuildings that could have been necessary at Meadowville plantation. A private ice house was also listed and taxed as a luxury item in 1814 (Prince William County Property Tax lists 1814-1815). As a domestic complex, the yard area of Meadowville could be expected to possibly contain a smokehouse, well, detached kitchen, and garden area. As a successful farm, Meadowville plantation would have had numerous outbuildings associated with the running of a farm, such as a dairy barn, animal pens, tobacco and hay barns, as well as sundry sheds.
William Cundiff also owned as many as 24 taxable slaves, who would have resided in cabins on the Meadowville plantation. Unfortunately, the historic documents say nothing about the number of commonplace structures such as slave cabins; however, if a maximum number of adult (over age 16) co-resident pairs is taken from the slaves listed at Meadowville, and it is assumed that one couple resided in one cabin, then it would follow that there could have been no more than seven slave cabins necessary at Meadowville at any time. Of course there are some inherent problems with this assumption. First, it assumes that one couple/family resided in one cabin, when actually the structures could have been constructed to house two couples/families or more. And finally, the theory assumes that couples were formed from within the Meadowville plantation slave population. Slaves could have formed unions with slaves residing on nearby plantations. However, the theory does provide a testable hypothesis for future researchers.
Excavation Unit 2:
To adequately test the above mentioned hypotheses, a total of seven excavation units were excavated within the yard area, located to the east of the main house foundation. Excavation units 2 through 9 were of various sizes, the dimensions determined by research requirements. All units were excavated following natural stratigraphic soil levels.
Unit 2, a 10-by-10 foot excavation unit, was opened because of the laid sandstone feature initially encountered in stp 7 (fig.s 6-11 and 6-13). Initially, the mound of soil, sandstone, and brick fragments visible on the surface surrounding unit 2 was believed to be evidence of a chimney fall from an ancillary structure of the nineteenth-century Meadowville domestic complex. Unit 2 contained three stratigraphic soil layers, the first of which was from
114
the twentieth-century grading and resurfacing of the area. Level 1 (5YR 4/3 reddish brown clay with triassic sandstone rubble) covered two-thirds of the excavation unit. The artifacts recovered, including the sandstone and brick fragments, from this disturbed level range from the late eighteenth to the twentieth century. These were retained as a representative sample of artifacts from the redeposited clay level that was encountered in the other units.
Level 2 of excavation unit 2 (10YR 3/3 dark brown silty clay) contained brick and charcoal flecks throughout. This level was the late nineteenth-century ground surface, prior to the deposition of the clay (level 1 ) in the twentieth century. The thickness