#this is technically the july 1830 one | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

goldeagleprice · 4 years

Text

The Mint and Coinage in 1837

by R.W. Julian

Some years in American numismatic history are more colorful than others but for the 19th century, we often think of 1873 as the most interesting. Yet 1837 has to be regarded as even more important in the collecting world as the critical changes of that year, in the opinion of many, outweigh those of 1873.

Dr. Robert M. Patterson had become mint director in early July 1835 and immediately set about making profound changes at the Philadelphia Mint, not only in the way that coins were struck but also in their artistry. The new director was determined to put American coinage on a par with the best Europe had to offer. Patterson had lived in Paris in the early 1800s and was well acquainted with the high standards of European coinage.

The 1837 half dollar. Images courtesy of Heritage Auctions

In March 1836 the first steam-powered coinage had taken place, forever replacing the old screw press in the striking of the large copper cents. As the months passed the smaller silver and gold coins were added to the output of the steam press. The new press did not strike all of the 1836 coins, however, the most notable exception being the lettered-edge half dollars.

Chief Coiner Adam Eckfeldt had tried to strike reeded-edge half dollars in 1836 on the new press but this was a partial failure because the press was not quite ready and there were ejection problems once the coins had been struck. As a result, only a few thousand of these special 1836 half dollars were made and today they are scarce.

The 1836 reeded-edge half dollar is especially interesting because some of the standard references, including in particular the Red Book, have incorrect entries. These special 1836 halves were coined on the old standard of 1792 (.8924 fine silver) and not the standard of 1837, (.900 fine.) This means that the 1836 reeded-edge half dollar is a must for a complete half dollar variety set, a fact not that well known among collectors.

This same reeded-edge half dollar, as well as its brother of 1837, is also rather special in that it marks the final act in a small drama that began several years earlier. Mint Director Samuel Moore, who served from 1824 to 1835, was of the opinion that E PLURIBUS UNUM did not belong on the coinage unless part of the Great Seal. He had consulted numerous people, including former President Thomas Jefferson, and came to the conclusion that this motto was nothing more than a punning way of saying UNITED STATES in Latin.

Mint Director Robert M. Patterson

The 1836 lettered-edge half dollars were the last coins on which the old motto was used in the 1830s. Moore’s successor, Robert Patterson, was equally adamant about the superfluous motto but did agree to its use on one more occasion, in 1849 when the Great Seal was put on the reverse of the new Longacre double eagle. In February 1873 Congress, in the mistaken belief that the motto should be on the coinage, wrote it into the mint law and it remains there to this day.

Patterson was also interested in re-codifying the mint laws in order to simplify a number of technical matters. To this end Congress accommodated him by passing a comprehensive mint bill in early 1837; it was signed into law by President Andrew Jackson on Jan. 18. In particular, the gold and silver coinage, for the first time, now had the same fineness, 900/1000.

For reasons that are not entirely clear, there was then a delay of 35 days until the first precious metal coinage was delivered by the chief coiner. This seems a rather long wait even though the weights and finenesses of all silver and gold coins were slightly altered. There was no doubt there was a period of adjustment as new rules went into effect but still, the delay existed.

The first delivery of precious metal coinage under the new January 1837 rules came on Feb. 22. The date was no doubt chosen for its association with President George Washington, well known for his interest in the early mint. The coiner delivered 151,000 halves, 45,000 dimes, and 60,000 half dimes. Warrant No. 1476 was prepared by the treasurer’s office for this delivery. It all seems normal and according to regulations until some other matters are taken into consideration.

In 1836 the last silver coinage delivery, that of 600 Gobrecht dollars, was under Warrant 1473 while the gold coinage of that day (40,500 half eagles) was under 1472. Thus the warrants numbered 1474 and 1475 are missing and there is no accounting for them. (The copper coinage was on a different warrant system; all of the 1836 cents were on one warrant, No. 146.)

The Gobrecht dollars struck in March 1837 used dies of 1836 but with medal turns.

(A document has been discovered which appears to indicate that the Gobrecht dollars delivered on December 31 under warrant No. 1473 were actually struck the first week of January 1837. Backdating was relatively common at the Mint though whether this affected the missing warrant numbers is uncertain.)

A missing warrant number is a very strange event in the Mint accounts of any period. We are, however, also faced with the curious problem of a lengthy delay of the first coinage from the passage of the new mint law on Jan. 18.

A letter written by the Director on June 30, a few weeks later, allows us to speculate on some forces that might have caused these circumstances to arise. Dr. Patterson noted in a letter to the Treasury that there had been frequent interruptions to the steam coining apparatus because of mechanical problems.

It may well be that these problems were connected with the ejection of the coins from the collar that reeded the edge. When a coin is struck in a close collar, the pressure of the dies on the faces of the coin forces the metal to expand outwards towards the grooves of the reeded collar. Perhaps the collars proved difficult to manufacture to precise specifications and the coins would not eject quickly enough after being struck.

At any rate, by late June 1837, these problems, whatever their nature, had been solved and one of the steam-powered presses had struck more than 400,000 cents in the preceding two weeks without interruption except, one presumes, for the changing of the dies. This works out to something better than 50 coins per minute, certainly a respectable showing for the period of early steam-powered coinage.

The Capped Bust design was used on dimes and half dimes during the first part of 1837. Images courtesy of Stacks Bowers

The odd delay may tell us that there were two deliveries of the coin prior to Feb. 22 but that they were all melted. It is possible, for example, that half dollar coinage resumed in January 1837 with the old screw press and, for whatever reason, the entire mintages of the two missing account numbers were simply melted.

Once the Mint resumed striking silver in the latter part of February, gold was not far behind. However, for the time being, half dollars were not struck in large numbers because the steam press then in use was meant for smaller coins – no larger than a copper cent – and work went slower as a result. The larger press was ready in due course, but not until a few weeks later.

In the meantime, one of the most interesting silver coins of 1837 was struck and about which there is still controversy. In December 1836 one thousand Gobrecht silver dollars had been struck as circulating coins but in late March 1837, there was a further coinage of 600 Gobrecht dollars.

Recent scholarship has shown that these 600 dollars of March 1837 were actually a test run on the new steam coining press. The 1000 pieces of December 1836 had been struck on the medal press without any problems but it was important to coin dollars on a steam press for efficiency. Because it was merely a test coinage run, the 1836 dies were used with the dies in medal turn. (In a medal arrangement the coin is turned side-by-side to show the reverse properly.)

The “medal” alignment was done for two reasons. The first, and perhaps most important, was that these March 1837 dollars were struck under the new law of January 1837 which mandated a silver fineness of 900/1000 rather than the .8924 used prior to that year. The second reason is more complex but it is known that Patterson did not like using outdated dies and the alignment change enabled an easy distinction between the December 1836 and March 1837 issues.

The 1837 coins are controversial because the dollars dated 1836 were restruck in the late 1850s but until the 1970s there was no way of distinguishing originals from restrikes. However, it is now known that originals of March 1837 in “medal” alignment are originals if and only if the eagle is flying “onward and upwards” – the so-called Die Alignment II – when the coin is properly rotated. All other pieces are restrikes from the 1850s.

Original Gobrecht dollars of March 1837 are extremely rare and it is a fortunate collector indeed that possesses one of these interesting coins. Because they are an absolute necessity for a complete variety set of United States silver dollars, there has been pressure from some collectors and researchers in recent years to classify restrikes as originals, a movement which has served only to confuse the true facts of the matter.

The dollars of 1837 are very rare because the regular mintage of 600 pieces was not released to the public but rather melted in November 1839. The only known original 1837 dollars are those proof pieces struck for collectors in honor of the new .900 fineness stipulated by the January 1837 mint law.

Gobrecht dollars were not the only design changes seen on coins of 1836–1837. Engraver Christian Gobrecht was also making small modifications to the obverse cent design in order to make it more pleasing to the eye. In 1835 there had been a major improvement and this was followed by other changes until Gobrecht and Patterson were generally satisfied with the new head of Liberty that came in 1839.

Director Patterson was so pleased with the artistic success of his new dollar that he planned to use the Seated Liberty motif on other silver coins as well. His first choices fell on the dime and half dime and the engraver was ordered to begin work on new dies for these denominations. Unlike the pre–1837 coins of these denominations, however, the law of 1837 specified that the value was to appear in a wreath rather than an eagle as had been seen since 1794. This made the reverse dies easier to prepare but also meant that coins would be more easily struck, there being no high points from the eagle to impede the obverse design being fully brought up.

By June 1837 all was in readiness, or nearly so, and Director Patterson asked for formal permission to begin striking Seated Liberty dimes and half dimes. Treasury Secretary Levi Woodbury showed the prototype coins to President Martin Van Buren and both agreed that the change was a major artistic improvement to our coinage; permission was quickly granted.

The Seated Liberty design was added to the dime and half dime in 1837. (Image courtesy of Stack’s Bowers)

There were the usual delays at the Mint while technical problems were sorted out, but in late June the first Seated Liberty dimes were minted, followed shortly thereafter by the new half dimes. As was usual during this era there was little overall public reaction to the new designs.

These new small silver coins of 1837 are also special in that there are no stars on the obverse. This was deliberate; in that the Gobrecht dollars dated 1836 also did not carry the usual stars on the obverse but did have them on the reverse.

For 1838 Patterson changed his mind about the obverse design of the dime and half dime and ordered that 13 stars surround the seated figure. Oddly enough, however, the dies sent to New Orleans in 1838 for these denominations had obverses without stars even though stars were already being used in 1838 at Philadelphia. (The New Orleans Mint opened in 1838.)

As with the 1837 silver dollar coinage (with dies of 1836) the no-stars dimes and half dimes of 1837 (or 1838 at New Orleans) are necessary for a complete type set of silver coins. Unlike the Gobrecht dollars of 1837, however, the dimes and half dimes without stars are easily obtained, the only consideration being the amount a collector is willing to pay for a higher-quality specimen.

Quarter dollars of 1837, as opposed to the smaller silver coins, are very much like their counterparts of 1836 and there is nothing to distinguish them from one another except for the change in weight and fineness. In a similar vein, the half dollars of 1837 are virtually identical to the scarce reeded-edge pieces of 1836 except for weight and fineness.

1837 quarter dollar. (Image courtesy of Stack’s Bowers)

On the 1836–1837 reeded-edge halves the denomination is changed to “50 CENTS” in place of the old “50 C.” but in 1838 this was changed once more, to “HALF DOL.” The 1837 half dollar, as with the other silver coins of this date – except for the quarter dollar, thus becomes another coin necessary for a complete variety set.

Unlike the dime and half dime, the half dollar dies sent to New Orleans for 1838 were of the new design rather than that used in 1837. The 1838–O half dollars were struck in a few pieces, less than 20, in early 1839. Because so many half dollars were struck at Philadelphia in 1837, however, that coin is easily obtained.

Gold coins of 1837 are mildly scarce for the half eagle and more so for the quarter eagle. The designs had been revised in 1834, when the weight had been lowered, but Patterson had never been all that pleased with the changes and Gobrecht executed a revised head of Liberty in 1839 for the half eagle (1840 for the quarter eagle), which was to remain in use for nearly 70 years.

The law of January 1837 also changed the fineness and weight of the gold coins by a small degree and, as with the silver coinage, coins of this year (or 1838 for the half eagle, 1838–1839 for the quarter eagle) are needed for a complete type set. These can be obtained without too much trouble, however, for both denominations.

Much of the gold struck in 1837 came from the French Indemnity. President Andrew Jackson had pressed the French government very hard over some debts owed from the Napoleonic era. In due course the payments, mostly in gold, began to arrive and were coined at the Mint.

For those collectors wishing a real challenge, putting together a complete set of the 1837 coins is not an easy task, especially for the Gobrecht dollar struck with 1836 dies in March 1837. Most of the other coins are obtainable with relative ease but in the highest grades there will be problems.

The post The Mint and Coinage in 1837 appeared first on Numismatic News.

#Precious Metals

0 notes

lainahastoomuchsparetime · 5 years

Text

…clearly I couldn’t think of a title for this post. Original Twitter thread found here.

Today we’re going to be trying to figure out the time period that Anne of Green Gables is set in and talking about the fashion of that time. This is going to be a multi-part series with a lot of images. Seriously, I have like 10 pages of notes and a LOT of pictures bookmarked.

So I’m gonna ask y’all to be patient with the speed on this one, okay?

Let’s start with what we know about the time period of Anne of Green Gables. (Not any of the sequels – in this thread, I will be treating AOGG as a standalone work.)

First, Montgomery wrote it in 1906 so it can’t be any later than that. In “Anne to the Rescue”, the Prime Minister who’s visiting Charlottetown is definitely John A. Macdonald. Marilla comments on his nose and that was something many political cartoonists caricaturized about him.

He was Canada’s first Prime Minister, and also technically the third as he served twice with another dude between his two terms. The first time was from 1867 to 1873 which is way to early to be Anne’s time period IMO.

Going by the fashion of the time alone, you’re looking at straight, tight sleeves and very slight bustles. Puffed sleeves don’t fit.

Purple dress by Southend Museum Services via Wikimedia commons. Red dress photo is public domain from the Met via Wikimedia commons. First fashion plate is public domain via Wikimedia commons and the second is by Nicole.c.s.y93 via Wikimedia commons.

John A. Macdonald’s second term was from 1878 to 1891. “Anne to the Rescue” takes place in January of Anne’s second year at Green Gables. December of Y2 is when Matthew gives Anne the Christmas dress, and that year the size of the puffs have gotten even larger.

Let’s backtrack slightly and define our time periods.

Canada became a country (according to white people) in 1867. I’m sure y’all knew that. In any of the time periods Anne could be set in, the British influence will still be very strong. Because of that, in this series, I’m going to use the British eras for reference. (Eras in British history refer to who was ruling at the time.)

Queen Victoria = the Victorian era. King Edward VII, her son = the Edwardian period. Victoria’s reign was 1837 to 1901, and Edward was on the throne 1901 to 1910, but there is actually some overlap when you’re talking fashion, since fashion changes aren’t instant. Like, if you look at early 1990s, they look very 1980s.

As well, sometimes the term Edwardian is retroactively applied to fashion things that happened during the actual Victorian period as Edward was a big leader and influencer of fashion. So some stuff from before 1901 can be considered Edwardian. I know it’s a bit complicated, but we’re all on the same page, yeah?

Also Victoria Day is May 20th this year. Her birthday was May 25th so our holiday is the Monday before the 25th. May long weekend is also my town-wide garage sale. Not related, just a fun fact.

As Canada is a Commonweath country, obviously the British influence was huge. And still is, to some extant. We have the Queen on our money, we have Victoria Day, Boxing Day, we spell thing with u’s. It was even greater in Anne’s time period, though. Canada was colonized under Queen Victoria’s reign. So when we’re talking fashion, it makes the most sense to me to look to that direction than to look to the US for context.

Another thing I find interesting – they have afternoon tea in Anne, and Queen Victoria was the one who made that a Thing. One of her ladies in waiting began having a small meal in the afternoon, usually around 4, as she couldn’t wait for til a 9pm dinner. (I get that. My blood sugar isn’t down for that schedule either.)

The lady would invite friends into her dressing room for it and Victoria caught wind of it and really liked the idea, and it became an elaborate thing. That’s where “tea gowns” are from. Which I’m not going to get into because this thread is going to be long enough, but look up sometime. That was in the 1850s and you can see how normalized it is in Anne by our time period.

I just thought that was neat lol.

So, 1870s fashion we talked about.

Moving into the 1880s, it’s not too different. Still narrow sleeves, and skirts narrow as well besides a brief resurgence of the bustle in the middle of the decade. This is, I believe, the fashion period that Marilla is using to make Anne’s dresses in the beginning of the book.

This, for instance, is a great picture from the mid 1880s – from this site, used with permission.

This was a wealthy family from Ontario wearing their best clothes, so this wouldn’t be so much everyday clothes but it helps you get the idea.

Random trivia, the lady on the bottom left with the very short hair – she may have been recovering from a bad illness. A lot of the time when women in this time period cut their hair very short, it was because they were very seriously ill and couldn’t manage the upkeep.

In general, your early 1880s has a lot of 1870s influence… typical for most decades of fashion. It’s pretty minimal in silhouette.

Brown plaid dress and floral dress by the Met via Wikimedia commons.

The bustles from the later half of the decade are kind of great though. (Bustles are the big butt bumps.) This isn’t even as big as they could get.

LACMA, Met, Met, they’re all public domain, I’m getting tired here, lol.

Going up to the very end of the 1880s, you’re still in that same area.

Some pictures from 1888. Pictures from here out are from Libraries and Archives Canada or the Met’s fashion plate collection. All are public domain. Click to enlarge I think.

And some stuff from 1889

Oh and this is a series of photos from I think an ice show in early 1889 which… what is going on in this ice show? There’s another I can’t find now, I think, where her skirt is just a tennis net?

Okay, back to establishing our timeline. Sleeves begin to puff as we move into 1890. Some of these pics have specific dates which is super cool.

So, we have March 1890, May 1890, and July 1890.

I particularly like this one from October 1890 that’s titled as “Nidd, Mrs. & Friend” and how much it looks like an awkward prom picture.

Last one from 1890, specifically December 1890.

Moving into 1891, the sleeves continue to get larger but usually not as huge as they’ll eventually become.

Also I keep wanting to make up backstory for these people. Like that second picture especially. Who are they?

More from 1891

Now the reason I’m focusing a little extra on 1891 is because that is the absolute latest that “Anne to the Rescue” could happen. John A. Macdonald was no longer Prime Minister after June 1891.

He was also dead.

I found a couple articles that referenced Macdonald visting P.E.I. in 1890, but it was a casual visit to a Senator friend in Charlottetown. The political meeting of the book seems to be purely fictional.

That Senator friend just happened to be Donald Montgomery, one of L. M. Montgomery’s grandparents. (Her father’s father, not the one she lived with after er mother died.)

Montgomery even met Macdonald on that visit. It happened in August 1890.

There’s an article out there called “The Hijacking of “Anne”” by Virginia Careless that puts the year Anne came to Green Gables as 1880. She uses the sequels to make this timeline and honestly? My suspicion is that as we get into sequels we’ll mostly discover that Montgomery wasn’t great at math.

Careless uses later events that I’m not looking at because I only want to use evidence from AOGG itself for this particular thread.

And I’m sorry, but puffed sleeves were NOT a thing in 1880.

Do you see a sleeve puff??

Careless says, “That date is more in keeping with her longing for puffed sleeves in 1880, when she came to Green Gables. In 1877, her eleventh year according to the Treasury, such sleeves were not possible with the fashions then current.”

NOPE makes no sense! I know the article is from 1992 but like. You got paid for that, Careless.

Going by the date of Macdonald’s visit to Charlottetown and his death, and the fashion trends of the time, I am comfortable saying Anne came to Green Gables between 1889 and 1891. Specifically I think she came in June 1890. I think Macdonald’s fictional visit happens in 1891, and Anne gets her dress in December 1891.

Thing in the sequels may contradict this, but that’s where I think we stand judging by AOGG alone.

The timeline I think works: 1890 – Anne comes to GG in June, is 11, Y1 1891 – Croup in January, Christmas dress, Anne is 12, Y2 1892 – Hair dye, Queen’s class, Anne is 13, Y3 1893 – Mostly just a lot of school, Anne is 14, Y4 1894 – Queen’s exam, white sands hotel concert, Anne is 15, Y5 1895 – Year at Queen’s, Matthew’s death, Anne is 16, Y6

Also you can’t just say any puffed sleeve fits Anne’s time period. Sleeve puffs in the 1830s are much lower than the ones in the 1890s (and beyond).

Plus it doesn’t work with the tea thing. Can you tell I’ve discovered a pet peeve?

I think that’s about good for today. Not the last thread you’ll be seeing on this though! We have many things to discuss.

Shout out to Library and Archives Canada and the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s fashion plate collection.

Both were big helps in this and future threads.

Editing Laina: #LainaReadsAnne will be returning live soon! I’m getting caught up on a few things, and then we’ll be getting back into recaps! My summer job just got in the way.

Peace and cookies, Laina

#LainaReadsAnne, but make it fashion ...clearly I couldn't think of a title for this post. Original Twitter thread found here.

#historical fashion

0 notes

bujoloveme · 5 years

Text

In the 1850s Burton was commissioned to build a rifle factory for Enfield rifles in England

He changed the world and you do not know him – part 3 by Jim Surkamp on July 9, 2015 in Jefferson County The Story of John Hall – Part 3 by Jim Surkamp and Featuring Eric Johnson, Weaponsmith and Firearms Expert.

VIDEO: The man who changed the world – of which you have never heard – Conclusion TRT: 18:54. www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2BkarHJsac

POST OFFICE: civilwarscholars.com/2015/07/der-mann-verändert-der-worl …

Made possible by the generous, community-oriented support of the American Public University System. The views in this video in no way reflect the politics of today's university. apus.edu

John_H_Hall_1781_1841

PREVIEW:

After 20 years of hard work and hard fighting at Harpers Ferry, Maine's Maine Hall at the gun factories worked to achieve a world-changing goal – the very first mechanized mass production of an object, each with interchangeable parts. It was the gun rifle he did it with. But those who saw what he did spread the good news like wildfire with Hall's extremely challenging method by taking Hall's ideas to other weapons factories. Only the best as James Henry Burton – replicated the operation as best as possible. Soon the method – the American factory system – caught the attention of manufacturing giants in England. After the civil war, the system of real machines and the associated measuring instrument concept were then directly transformed into countless other things that have shaped and shaped our everyday lives since time immemorial. The result is that today everything in the world is produced, except what the craftsman still does. Beautifully made by hand and what the farmer conjures up from nature – beautiful craftsmanship and art and food from the land are still appreciated, but the system of Hall is used to make things – things – from simple paper clips to space stations.

John Harris Hall, who died exhausted in 1841, never saw the true miracle of his endeavor – the production of a rifle on a truly vast scale that is so obvious to us today. This iconic man is so forgotten that no picture of him has appeared yet, and the weeds around his grave and his wife's grave have finally been freed from weeds in a lonely Missouri plot.

When the new methods of armaments were presented at the London Crystal Palace in 1851 at the Foresight Exposition, the British were stunned by these far-reaching advances and the mystery of answers. They sent a delegation to look at these publicly available inventions, to look for possible leases, and returned with arms armor worth nearly $ 100,000.

By the late 1840s and until the Civil War, the Springfield Armory became a clearinghouse for new ideas for each strip. Machine tool companies sprang up around Springfield.

James Henry Burton, born in 1823 in nearby Shannondale Springs near Harpers Ferry and a one-time machinist and armorer, understood the changes. Hall's gun shop, Burton wrote later, "did not house an occasional machine, but a mill facility that significantly changed the system and manufacturing economy."

In the 1850s, Burton was commissioned to build in England a rifle factory for Enfield rifles, which were used on both sides during the civil war. Burton later set up the Confederate Arms factories in Richmond, to which in April 1861, a large part of the machines were brought at Harpers Ferry.

As you know, John Hall was considered a Yankee back then The armorer Eric Johnson calls Burton "the rock star of the arms industry of the Civil War", which was even more innovative in the nature of the mini-ball.

Weapon expert and gunsmith Eric Johnson:

When I look at this piece and the model 1841, the name of a person comes to my mind. Because of the lack of a better term, he is a kind of rock star of the weapon system in Antebellum America. His name was James Henry Burton.

James Henry Burton began his career at Harper's Ferry and worked and learned in Baltimore and other places. He became quite a machinist and an excellent engineer. And he was so clever in what he did that he later sought his service. He had actually gone to England. And the irony is that he's teaching people in England at Enfield how to make a towed musket with American machines, American tools, and American manufacturing systems. And that kind of turn, because England produced the so-called Industrial Revolution. Well, this is where the Americans made it, and we started with John Hall and Simeon North and Eli Whitney – a whole system and idea of machines that make firearms, mass-produced and replaceable parts. And Burton becomes somebody who has come through the system. In the 1840s and 1850s he knows the system from the inside and outside. And he understands how to build a factory, how to get it running, and how to make progress so you can make a large number of rifles and muskets. Later, when the County Destroyed Richmond Arsenal Jefferson split with the state of Virginia and became part of the Confederacy, he effectively became one of the founding engineers and tanks of the Confederate weapons system. If you look at his story, he helped found Macon. He helped found Fayetteville, the Richmond Armory, Spiller & Burr. Oh my god, I remembered many, many, and many other Confederate small arms regulations Burton was involved with. But his knowledge and technical opinions were valuable.

After the Civil War, when government contracts dried up as fast as a desert flower after a spring rains, the infinite era of adapting arms factories to other similar production began.

Lucian Sharp hired prestigious maker Robbins & Lawrence to make his most popular state-of-the-art Sharps rifle before the war.

In 1873, Weed Sewing Machine bought Sharp's factory and converted the equipment for making weapons to sewing machines.

Albert Pope brought his idea to President of the Weed Sewing Company in 1878 and suggested that Weed produce English Hi-Wheeler bicycles that Pope would sell. Business was booming as Pope diversified into the long-standing Columbia brand, American style bike, motorcycles and a version of the automobile. – once again benefits from Hall's first mechanized and gage-based methods.

This manufacturing process, which began with Hall, was adapted to produce cars when the Duryea Brothers did exactly that in Springfield in the 1890s, even battery-powered cars. Of course, Henry Ford has pushed ahead mass production with the use of electricity to operate a moving assembly line.

The momentum continues today from Hall's heroic achievement days at Harpers Ferry in the 1820s. Perhaps the horribly damp, dust-filled air added to his grinding room, but his health had begun to fail in the late 1830s. In 1840, he and his family were permanently released. He died on February 26, 1841 in Moberly, Missouri. The next sixty years alone had proved the growing influence of this "American" way of making shoes, Waltham watches, watches, bicycles, clothing, rubber goods, and automobiles.

Today it is the way things are generally done. In fact, the structure of the modern Chip_gridWendell_Piez code reflects John Hall. According to Wendell Piez, a leading extensible markup language consultant, Hall's use of probes is similar to a key feature of standard computer code called the "verification level."

On October 7, the year of Hall's death in 1841, his widow Statira Hall, who died 13 years later, wrote in Colonel Talcott's Ordinance Division in Washington what her husband's heroic sacrifice and patriotism meant:

"No one can know how I am doing the great sacrifices of consolation and interest he has made. No one but me can imagine his days and nights of fear as he invents and perfects his machines. He never hesitated for a minute to sacrifice his own interest if he thought that would affect the interests of the government. If he had listened to the proposals of foreign governments in 1820, he now enjoys health and prosperity, but refuses because he thinks he should benefit his own government. "

However, he did not see the size of Hall's double power to initiate precision mass production because his jealous enemies in the Armory and Washington often shrunk his budget and sabotaged his operation, making the production of his rifle on a much larger scale impossible. The seemingly unrestricted scalability of any manufacturing, developed through computerization and nanotechnology, makes people living in 2015 who are grateful, and sometimes even awesome.

More recently, friends and family visited the weed-strewn cemetery with the stones for John and Statira Hall to pull the weeds away and restore their dignity to such a visionary man.

More at:

John Hall Part 1 youtube.com April 28, 3005 Web. June 20, 2015. TRT: 18:10 www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qaaK5YwFX0&feature=youtu.be www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qaaK5YwFX0

Flickr 64 pictures. www.flickr.com/photos/jimsurkamp/sets/72157653792657480

John Hall Part 2 youtube.com April 28, 3005 Web. June 20, 2015. TRT: 25:22. www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZ2IFf_mqvU

Flickr 71 pictures. www.flickr.com/photos/jimsurkamp/sets/72157654939923662

references:

Eric Johnson talks about the Burton Orb civilwarscholars.com June 9, 2011 Web. June 20, 2015.

Johnson, Eric. "Eric Johnson Discusses the Burton Ball" (video) (23:06). Accessed September 10, 2011. youtube.com April 28, 3005 Web. June 20, 2015.

Abbot, Jacob. (July 1852). "The Armory in Springfield". Harper's New Monthly Magazine. New York, NY: Harper and Bros. Vol. 5, ed. 26, pp. 145-162. To press

Benes, James J., "An Industry Is Growing: Lathes for Computers." American Machinist, August 1996.

Bilby, Joseph G. (1997). "Civil War firearms: their historical background and their tactical use." Combined Publishing: Conshohocken, PA. To press. Page 51

Eby, Cecil B. (1985). "The execution of Ebenezer Cox." Journal of the Jefferson County Historical Society. Vol. LI. To press.

Fairbairn, Mrs. E. W. (1961). "Lockwood House (Quarter of the Purser)". Journal of the Jefferson County Historical Society. Vol. XXVII. To press.

Fitch, Charles H.; W. P. Trowbridge. (1880) Report on the production of interchangeable mechanisms. Report on the Making of the United States at the Tenth Census in Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Pp. 611-704.

Fitch, Charles H. (June 1884). "The Rise of the Mechanical Ideal." Magazine of American History. Vol. 11, pp. 516-527.

Gilbert, David T. (1995). "A Walker Guide to Harper's Ferry, West Virginia." Harpers Ferry, WV: Harper's Ferry Historical Association. Pp. 84-86. To press.

Hounshell, David A. (1994). "From the American System to Mass Production, 1800-1932." Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Press. To press.

Huntington, R.T. (1972). "Hall's Breechloaders". York, Pa.: George Shumway Publisher.

Louden, Elizabeth – The Paymaster's Quarter (Lockwood House) WRITTEN DESCRIPTION AND HISTORICAL DATA. HOS No. WV-179. Harpers Ferry National Historical Park, eastern end of Fillmore Street, Harpers Perry, Jefferson County, WV. Summer 1995

Roberts, Dr. William L. THE AMERICAN LIBERTY COLLECTION; No. 39 – US Hall Model 1819 Loading Flintlock Rifle; U.S. Hall Model 1819 Breechloading Percussion Rifle;

Smith, Merritt R. (1975). "Harper's Ferry Armory and the New Technology The Challenge of Change." Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. To press.

Smith, Philip R., Jr. (April 1962) "The Hall Rifle Works." West Virginia History Journal. Vol. 23 Printing. Pp. 218-223

Tate, Thomas K. "Of the Iron Eyelids: The Biography of James Henry Burton, Armorsmith of the Three Nations." Bloomington, In: Author House. To press.

Willis, Nathaniel P. (1840). "American landscapes or land, sea and river pictures of transatlantic nature." 2nd painting by William H. Bartlett.

The Springfield Armory: Forge of Innovation – Springfield Armory 1812-1865 Technological Development – forgeofinnovation.com Start Date Not Available.

Museum Collection of the National Historic Site of Springfield Armory – Online Database: Title: RIFLE, MILITARY – US RIFLE MODEL 1819 BREECHLOADING FLINTLOCK HALL .52 Manufacturer / manufacturer: HARPERS FERRY ARMORY Date of manufacture: 1837 Catalog number: SPAR 952

Title: CARBINE – US CARBINE MODEL 1842 BREECHLOADING PERCUSSION HALL .52 Manufacturer / manufacturer: HARPERS FERRY ARMORY Date of manufacture: 1842 Catalog number: SPAR 950 rediscov.com January 22, 1998 Web. June 20, 2015.

NPS.com – John Hall, John Henry Burton, Lockwood House

National Firearms Museum – Fairfax, Virginia

ancestry.de – John and Statira Hall (1788-1854) trees.ancestry.com February 26, 2004 Web. June 20, 2015.

Daily National Intelligencer (Washington, DC) April 3, 1841 Volume: XXIX Issue: 8778 Page: 3.

Alexandria Gazette (Alexandria, VA) April 3, 1841 Page: 3.

Virginia Free Press (Charlestown, Virginia) April 1, 1841.

Photo Credits:

German: The main entrance of the Crystal Palace, Hyde Park, London, which housed the 1851 World's Fair, the first World's Fair. Contemporary engraving German: Main entrance of the Crystal Palace in London's Hyde Park, scene of the Great Exhibition of 1851, the very first World's Fair. Contemporary engraving; Image-PD-old. source[edit] www.uh.edu; originally from Tallis & # 39; history and criticism of the Crystal Palace. 1852 de.wikipedia.org November 27, 2002 Web. June 20, 2015.

Tallis & # 39; History and description of the Crystal Palace as well as the World Economic Exhibition of 1851; archive.org January 26, 1996 Web. June 20, 2015.

Honda Accord assembly line motortrend.com November 11, 1996 Web. June 20, 2015.

Ford_assembly_line _-_ 1913 de.wikipedia.org November 27, 2002 Web. June 20, 2015.

paperclips File: Wanzijia.jpg Uploaded by Hawyih ~ commonswiki Created on May 28, 2007 de.wikipedia.org November 27, 2002 Web. June 20, 2015.

Sir Charles Anthony Brooke born 1829 antiquemapsandprints.com 6 December 1998 Web. June 20, 2015.

Gordon Grant doak.ws June 3, 2002 Web. June 20, 2015.

The dance lesson Thomas Eakins – 1878 Metropolitan Museum of Art – New York, NY the-athenaeum.org May 23, 2002 Web. June 20, 2015.

Homespun Thomas Eakins – 1881 Metropolitan Museum of Art – New York, NY the-athenaeum.org May 23, 2002 Web. June 20, 2015.

Adirondack Woods, Guide and Dog Winslow Homer – 1889 Montgomery Museum of Fine Arts (Alabama) the-athenaeum.org May 23, 2002 Web. June 20, 2015.

Under the vegetables (also known as boy in a corn field) Winslow Homer – 1887 Private collection the-athenaeum.org May 23, 2002 Web. June 20, 2015.

Mechanical engineering of the 1850s smithsonianlegacies.si.edu October 31, 2001 Web. June 20, 2015.

Enfield rifle factory de.wikipedia.org November 27, 2002 Web. June 20, 2015.

Ruins of the Richmond Arsenal after its destruction in April 1865 de.wikipedia.org November 27, 2002 Web. June 20, 2015.

Columbia Light Roadster smithsonian.tumblr.com January 4, 2012 Web. June 20, 2015.

Ford Model T assembly worldsciencefestival.com June 16, 2006 Web. June 20, 2015.

Columbia bicycles columbiamfginc.com December 6, 1998 Web. June 20, 2015.

Columbia automobile de.wikipedia.org November 27, 2002 Web. June 20, 2015.

nanotechnology gmu.edu February 20, 1998 Web. June 20, 2015.

from WordPress http://bujolove.enfenomen.com/2019/02/27/in-the-1850s-burton-was-commissioned-to-build-a-rifle-factory-for-enfield-rifles-in-england/

#bullet journal

0 notes

ebenvt · 5 years

Text

The Story of Eskort By Eben van Tonder 19 February 2019

Important note: Information from previous work I did and what is readily available on the internet; this is not approved by the company, Eskort Ltd, nor do I write this on behalf of the company.

Background

In the Natal Midlands, on the banks of the Boesmans river lays the largest bacon plant in South Africa, that of Eskort Ltd..

At my last visit I was 30 minutes early and instead of reporting to reception, I decided to drive a few hundred meters further and up the hill, right next to the bacon plant to Fort Dunford. The Fort is situated exactly 500m apart with the bacon plant nestled between the Boesmans River and the Fort.

Fort Dunford is indicated with the red marker. Take note of the position of the Boesmans River, the Eskort plant, the Fort and the Hospital.

It was built by Dunford in response to the Langalibalele Rebellion in 1873. The location of the old military site at Bushmans River drift, overlooked by Fort Dunford is where the Voortrekker leader Gert Maritz originally set up camp along the river.

The curator, Siphamandla, saw me driving up. I was the only visitor and he came running up to give me a proper welcome. I told him I will be at Eskort but when we are done, I’m coming back to see the Fort.

While waiting in reception at Eskort, I took a photo of a stone that was laid by J. W. Moor in 1918. He was the first chairman of “The First Farmers Co-Operative Bacon Factory Erected in South Africa”, the Eskort factory. I was intrigued!

I saw Wynand, visited the Fort briefly and was on my way back to Johannesburg.

At the airport, I started digging through piles of information online and a story emerged, so remarkable that despite being exhausted, during the flight back to Cape Town I frantically kept reading documents I downloaded onto my phone before departure. At home, I went straight to bed. I kept waking with every new connection made. Bits of information jolted me from deep sleep to a light slumber. Here is what I discovered.

Introduction

The origins of the Eskort Bacon factory is tied up with the story of the development of the Natal Midlands in the mid-1800s to the early part of the 1900s. It is embedded in the broader context of the existence of a very strong English culture in Natal. The Natal colony was created on 4 May 1843 after the British government annexed the short-lived Boer Republic of Natalia. A unique English culture continued. This bacon factory became one of the cornerstones of the creation of a meat industry in South Africa and contributed materially to the establishment of a meat curing culture in the country. The historical importance is seen in the fact that the South African roots of large scale industrial meat curing are English and not German.

The broader international context of its establishment in a cooperative can be traced back to Peter Bojsen who created the first cooperative abattoir and bacon curing plant in the world in Horsens, the Horsens Andelssvineslagteri, in 1882 in Denmark. By 1911 the first such cooperative factories were built in England, namely the St. Edmunds Bacon Factory, modeled in turn after the factory at Horsens. The 1918 development in Estcourt, Natal would, no doubt, have been a continuation of the model.

In terms of curing technology, the bacon plant produced its bacon in the most sophisticated way available at the time, using the same techniques employed by the Harris Bacon operation of Calne in Wiltshire. Following WW1, its curing techniques progressed from the Wiltshire process of the Harris operation (and through Harris, to Horsens where the technique was developed) to the direct addition of sodium nitrite to curing brines through the work of the legendary Griffiths Laboratories.

The great benefit of the dominant English culture of the Natal Midlands was in the fact that they had access to the Harris operation in Calne and the St. Edmunds Bacon Factory more so than the fact that the English population of the Midlands could have provided a possible market for their bacon. The population in Natal at the time and even in South Africa remained relatively small and the goal of creating such a sophisticated operation was to export.

In terms of access to local markets, I have little doubt that they relied heavily on the Imperial Cold Storage and Supply Company Ltd. of Sir David de Villiers Graaff (1859 – 1931) who was a contemporary of JW Moor (1859 – 1933). They were born a mere 6 months apart with David in March 1859 and John (JW Moor) in September of the same year.

One can say that David with his Imperial Cold Storage and Supply Company in Cape Town was a follower of Phillip Armour in Chicago with the establishment of refrigerated rail transport and cold storage warehouses throughout Southern Africa (just as Phil Armour did in the US). David probably met Phil in Chicago in the mid-1880’s and possibly again in the early 1890’s, who, in all likelihood, showed him his impressive packing plant and gave him the idea of refrigerating railway carts. John (JW) Moor, on the other hand, was in technical detail and broad philosophy, a follower of the Dane, Peter Bojsen in his creation of the first farmer’s coop for slaughtering and production of bacon and its marketing in England and the English operations of C & T Harris with their Wiltshire bacon curing techniques.

The location of the plant in Estcourt is in all likelihood closely linked to the existence of Fort Dunford and the close association with the military of the Moor family as is evident not only through the heritage of their grandfather but through their close involvement in the schooling system and the introduction of cadet training. The possible involvement of the Anglo Boer war hero, Louis Botha is fascinating.

The context of its creation is, more than anything, to be understood by two realities. One was the first World War. The second, the Moor family of Estcourt with a wider lens than a focus on JW Moor. To understand the Moor family, we must understand their heritage and how they came to South Africa.

Immigrating to South Africa

Immigration back then was done as it is today, through entrepreneurs who made money by facilitating movement to the new world and who sell their products through colourful displays and exciting tales of success and a new life. Between 1849 and 1852, almost 5000 immigrants arrived in Natal through the various schemes. One such an agent was Joseph Byrne who chartered 20 ships to ferry passengers to Natal between 1849 to 1851. One of the 20 ships was the Minerva which set sail on 26 April 1850 with 287 passengers from London. A festive atmosphere must have prevailed on the voyage to Natal and the promise of a new life. (Dhupelia, 1980)

On 4 July 1850, they arrived in Durban and the Minerva was wrecked on a reef below the Bluff. All occupants and cargo ended up overboard. Two of the passengers aboard was Sarah Annabella Ralfe who was traveling with her family and Frederick William Moor. (Dhupelia, 1980)

Romance and Settlement

F.W. Moor lifted the young Sarah Annabella Ralfe from the waters and carried her to the safety of the shore. It is not known if they were romantically involved before this event but romance bloomed afterward and the couple was married in June 1852. (Dhupelia, 1980) They settled in the Byrne valley which Byrne cleverly included in the total package he was selling back in England.

The Moors and the Ralfes were interested in sheep farming and the wet conditions at Byrne, close to Richmond were not favourable. In 1869 F.W. Moor moved to a farm Brakfontein, on the Bushman’s River at Frere close to Estcourt. Here the conditions were more suitable. “The farm was some five miles (8 km) south-west, of Estcourt and he obtained it from the Wheeler family in settlement of a debt. This farm has some historical interest. It was the site of the Battle of Vecht Laager in 1838 when Zulu impi of Dingaan clashed with the Voortrekkers who had settled there. It was on this farm that F.R. Moor and his wife settled on their return to Natal, his father having moved to Pietermaritzburg. Moor and his wife stayed for some years in a house built by the Wheelers until he built a larger house which he called Greystone. It was on this property that Moor’s seven children were born and it was here that he carried out his adventurous farming activities.” (Morrell, 1996)

Sara and FW, in turn, had 5 children. Two of these were F. R. Moor, born on 12 May 1853 in Pietermaritzburg and J. W. Moor born in September 1859 in Estcourt.

Strong Military Traditions

The Moor family had strong military connections going back to the father of F.W. Moor (FR and JW’s grandfather). FW was the youngest son of Colonel John Moor. Col Moor was an officer in the Bombay Artillery in the service of the British East India company. FW was born in Surat in 1830 and returned to England on the death of his father. “He and his mother settled first in Jersey and later in Hampstead while he trained to be a surveyor and, not entirely satisfied with his position in England, he decided to emigrate to Natal.” (Dhupelia, 1980)

The military connection of the Moor family is highlighted when one considers that when FR Moor was in high school, he and other students considered it desirable that the school should have a cadet corps. FR attended the Hermannsburg School situated approximately 15 miles (24 km] from Greytown and founded in the early 1850’s by the Hanoverian Mission Society.

Moor, as a senior student at the school, was deputed to write to the Colonial secretary seeking permission for the school to initiate the movement. Permission was granted and in 1869 a cadet corps of 40 students, between the ages of 14 and 18 years, was formed with a teacher, Louis Schmidt, as the captain and 16 years old F. R. Moor and John Muirhead as the first lieutenants.

Moor thus played a role in the establishment of the cadet movement and in giving Hermannsburg School the distinction and honour of being the first school not only in Natal but in the British Empire to have a cadet corps. Though the Hermannsburg cadet corps lasted only until 1878 its example was followed by Hilton College and Maritzburg High School in 1872. Yet another pupil of this first boarding school in Natal who was to make a name for himself in politics and was to be later closely associated with Moor was Louis Botha.” (Dhupelia, 1980)

Initial Capital

The Moor family became one of the large landowners in the Natal Midlands. Some of these families brought wealth from England and some, as was the case with the Moor family, made their money in other ways. The two most likely ways to make a fortune in those days were in Kimberley on the diamond fields or riding transport between Durban and Johannesburg.

After school, in 1872, the young FR Moor went to Kimberly to make his fortune. JW was still in school when FR left for the diggings where he remained for 7 years. The 19-year-old Moor made his first public speech on behalf of the diggers while in Kimberley “standing on a heap of rubble”. “Later he was twice elected to the Kimberley Mining Board which consisted of nine elected members representing the claim holders for the purpose of ensuring the smooth and effective running of the mines and diggings. This experience probably gave him confidence as well as experience in public affairs.” (Dhupelia, 1980) He later served as Minister of Native Affairs between 1893–1897 and 1899–1903. He became the last Prime Minister of the Colony of Natal between 1906 and 1910.

“While FR Moor was in Kimberley he met Cecil John Rhodes, another strong personality with outstanding qualities of leadership. There is some indication that the two men were closely associated during these years for the Moor and Rhodes brothers belonged to an elite group of 12 diggers who were teasingly named “the 12 apostles” and who associated with each other because of their common interests. Moor’s daughter, Shirley Moor, claims that her father would not have associated with Rhodes for he disliked him and in the 1890’s he abhorred Rhodes’ role in the Jameson Raid and held him responsible to a certain extent for the Anglo-Boer war of 1899.” (Dhupelia, 1980)

“After Moor got married, he felt that there was no security in remaining on the fields. He consequently sold his claims to his brother George, and returned to Natal in 1879 to take up farming having been very successful financially at the diamond fields.” (Dhupelia, 1980)

Dhupelia states that FR was “later joined (in Kimberley) by two of his three brothers.” As far as I have it, he had only two brothers with his siblings being George Charles Moor (whom we know took his diggings operation over); Annie May Chadwick; John William Moor and Kathleen Helen Sarah Druwitt, according to geni.com. If both brothers joined him, this would mean that JW also spent time on the diggings. (This needs to be corroborated.) It would explain why JW shared in the wealth that his brother obtained in Kimberley.

Success in Farming

FR’s success in farming related to JW, the main focus of our investigation, in that they conducted many of their farming activities as joint ventures. This is why I suspect that JW joined FR for a time on the diggings. Morrell (1996) states that “Moor displayed a considerable initiative and a pioneering spirit in his farming activities, making a name for himself as had his father who was one of the first in the colony to introduce imported Merinos from the valuable Rambouillet stock in France. Estcourt was one of the four villages in Weenen County and most farmers kept cattle, sheep, and horses. By 1894 Moor, in partnership with his brother J.W. Moor, was engaged in farming ventures over an area of 20 000 acres [8097,17 ha]. Their stock consisted of 6000 to 7000 sheep and they were among the largest breeders of goats in Natal possessing 1200 goats. Moor, in fact, acquired the first Angora goats in Natal where the interest in the mohair industry was considerable in the 19th century. In addition to the sheep and goats, Moor engaged in ostrich farming, for he believed there was a good market for the sale of ostrich feathers. He also kept horses and cattle and imported Pekin ducks.” (Morrell, 1996)

The British Market in Crisis

Walworth reported that by 1913 in the UK, “imported bacon had largely secured the market.” This was according to him one of the reasons for a rapid decline in the pig population with a 17% reduction in numbers from 1912 to 1913. (Walworth, 1940) Conditions in 1917 and 1918 were desperate in the UK with meat supply falling by as much as 30%. Stock availability, increased prices, and war rationing all played a role. Canada responded to the shortage of pork in 1917 and their export of bacon and ham increased from 24 000 tonnes to 88 000 tonnes in 1917. Corn was in short supply during the war, but it was in reaction to meat shortages that rationing was finally introduced in the UK in 1918. (Perren)

It is clear that the two countries well positioned to respond were Canada and South Africa. New Zealand was focussing on exporting frozen meat, as was Australia. Walworth leaves the South African response to bacon shortages out (except one comment that South Africa was one of the countries that eventually responded) but it is clear from the Estcourt case that the response was there.

The immediate context of the establishment of the bacon company is the war but in the early 1900’s, the pork industry in the UK was in a bad state in terms of industrializing the process of bacon production. Producers were unable to compete in price or quality with imports. The reasons are interesting. Much of the curing in the UK was done by small curing operations or farmers who used dry curing. A large variety of pig breeds made it difficult. Small volumes or a large variety of bigs vs a large variety of a standard pig – the latter suits an industrial process. Fat was highly prized in many of the curing techniques, as it is to this day, but for lard to be cured takes a year. Again, it does not fit the industrial model. The main reason for high-fat content in bacon was due to imports from America who generally produced a much fatter pig on account of its diet. (Perren)

Market trends moved away from fat bacon and a leaner pig was required which the UK farmers were unable to deliver in the volumes required. The consumers also called for a milder bacon cure that we achieved with the tank curing method. The predominant way that bacon was cured in the UK was dry curing which resulted in heavily salted meat.

In April 1938, at the second reading of the Bacon Industry Bill before the British Parliament, the minister of Agriculture Mr. W. S. Morrison summarised the conditions in the bacon market in the UK pre-1933 as follows. “As far as the curers (in the UK) are concerned, lacking the proper pig as they did, and a regular supply, they could not achieve the efficiency in large-scale production and the economies which were within the power of their foreign competitors. Nor could they achieve adaptation to the changed taste of the public, and the change in taste was, indeed, largely the result of the foreign importation.” The change of taste he was talking about was a movement away from fatty bacon to lean bacon and a milder cure (less salty). The solution in terms of the fatty bacon was to breed less fatty pigs but the UK market failed to deliver such pigs. My suspicion is that this was not due to a technical inability or ignorance of the British farmers, but due to the deeply entrenched nature of the specialized, small scale dry curing operations. Having gotten to know butchers from the UK, now in their 70’s, who stem from such traditions, I understand that they hold their trade in such high esteem that they would rather amputate a limb than compromise the dry curing traditions they were schooled in.

The fact is that for whatever reason, the UK pork and bacon market pre-1933, was fragmented and Morrison stated that “the factories in this country worked to a little more than half of their capacity with consequent high costs. The cheaper and quicker process of curing bacon (i.e. tank curing) made little headway and the whole industry was in a very weak position to stand competition even of a normal character.”

In response to the enormous size of the UK bacon market and the inability of local curers to convert to tank curing, foreign curers moved aggressively to fill the void. This aversion of the British to convert from dry curing to tank curing did not disappear after the war and would continue to be the basis of bacon exports into the UK following 1918 when the war ended. Mr. Morrison continued that “what was in store for the industry was not competition of a normal character. In the years 1929 to 1932 there ensued a scramble for this bacon market.” “In 1932 the importation rose to 12,000,000 cwts. or more than twice as much as it had been in the five-year period preceding the War.”

The British market started to respond after major government programs to change the bacon production landscape in the UK and tank curing was adopted to a large extent.

Agricultural Operations and the Establishment of a Bacon Cooperative

Back in Natal, farmers saw the benefit of various forms of cooperation precisely due to their small numbers and the fact that cooperation gave them access to larger markets and more stable prices. The children growing up in the Natal Midlands were encouraged after completing their schooling, to join one of the many farmers’ associations (FA). “The “reason for being” of these agricultural societies was to hold stock sales. As Nottingham Road’s James King (founder member of the LRDAS in 1884) said. “The worst drawback was the lack of markets”. (Morrell, 1996). It was this exact issue that JW addressed with his bacon cooperative.

“Their function was thus primarily marketing and their fortunes were generally judged by the success or failure of sales. The sale of stock differs markedly from that of maize (the product which sparked the cooperative movement in the Transvaal). In Natal. the market was very localised with local butchers and auctioneers generally dealing with farmers in their area.” (Morrell, 1996)

“A variety of factors increased the importance of cattle sales particularly in the late and early twentieth century. Catastrophic cattle diseases, particularly Rinderpest (1897-1898) and East Coast Fever (1907-1910) reduced herds dramatically making it all the more important for farmers to realise the best prices available for surviving stock. The number of cattle in Natal was reduced from 280 000 in 1896 to 150000 in 1898. This amounted to a loss of £863 700 to farmers.” (Morrell, 1996)

“It was only in the area of stock sales (sheep, cattle and to a lesser extent, horses) that cooperative marketing operated. Foreign imports began to undercut local products, particularly once the railway system was developed. In 1905, on behalf of the Ixopo Farmer Association, Magistrate F E Foxon objected to the government allowing imported grain.” (Morrell, 1996)

In other domains (such as dairy and ham products), cooperative companies were formed. These were joint stock companies, generally headed by prominent and prosperous local farmers (JW Moor and George Richards of Estcourt, for example), who raised capital from farmer shareholders. The members of the Board were generally the major shareholders. Farmers who joined were then obliged to supply the factory/dairy with produce, in return for which they got a guaranteed price and, If available, a dividend.” (Morrell, 1996) This was the basis of the operation of the Farmers’ Cooperative Bacon Factory.

“The small size of the local market put pressure on farmers to export. The capacity of Natal’s manufacturing industries was minuscule. It began to expand around 1910 yet by 1914 there were no more than 500 enterprises in the whole colony.” “So it happened that many prominent farmers were also directors of agricultural processing factories.” (Morrell, 1996)

Generally, it seems that as FR’s political involvement increased, his attention to farming decreased and he relied increasingly more on JW to take care of their farming interests. JW himself was politically active, but never to the extent of FR. JW Moor became MP for Escort while he was director of Natal Creamery Limited and Farmers’ Cooperative Bacon Factory.”

It is interesting that, as was the case around the world, pork farming followed milk production. This was what spawned the enormous pork industry in Denmark and to a large extent, sustains the South African pork farming industry to this day.

“It was Joseph Baynes, a Byrne settler and dairy industry pioneer who established a milk processing plant in Estcourt under the name of the Natal Creamery Ltd. where JW was a director. “This factory was located adjacent to the railway station. Baynes died in 1925 and in 1927 the factory, which by this time was owned by South African Condensed Milk Ltd. was bought by Nestlés. Today the factory produces Coffee, MILO and NESQUIK.” (Revolvy)

In 1917 a group of farmers, including JW Moor, met in Estcourt to discuss the establishment of a cooperative bacon factory. The Farmer’s Co-operative Bacon Factory Limited was founded in August 1917 and the building of the factory started. When the plant opened its doors, it was done on 6 June 1918 by the Prime Minister General Louis Botha. We can not overstate the massive symbolic nature of the leader of a country in the midst of war opening a food production facility.

The products were marketed under the name Eskort. It takes about a year to get a factory up and running and it was no different in the plant in Natal. When they were ready to supply the UK, the war was over but not the shortages. In 1919 the factory started exports to the United Kingdom. The honour went to the SS Saxon who carried the first bacon from the Estcourt plant exported to the United Kingdom, in June 1919. The products were well received.

A fire in 1925 caused significant damage to the factory. Production was relocated to Nel’s Rust Dairy Limited in Braamfontein, Johannesburg while renovations were being done at the plant. Despite this, the company still won the top three prizes at the 1926 London Dairy Show. (openafrica.org)

They were ready with streamlined efficiency when the second World War broke out and supplied over one million tins of sausages to the Allied forces all over the world and over 12 tonnes of bacon weekly to convoys calling at Durban harbour. (Revolvy)

“Early in 1948 plans for a second factory in Heidelberg, Gauteng, were drawn up and the factory commenced production in September 1954.” (openafrica.org) In “1967 the Eskort brand was the largest processed meat brand in South Africa. In 1998 the company was converted from a cooperative to a limited liability company.” (Revolvy)

An interesting side note must be made here. A few years ago I started writing a story about the creation of the modern industrial bacon production methods. The basic plot of the story is that I chose to ride transport between Cape Town and Johannesburg as my means of raising the initial capital to set up a bacon curing plant. In the story, I then traveled to Denmark and then to England to learn from the Danes and in particular, the Harris family in Wiltshire, how to produce bacon. The purpose of the venture was to export the bacon and supply the Imperial Cold Storage and Supply Company. The similarity of my plotline and how the bacon plant in Estcourt came about is striking. Without any knowledge of JW Moor, by simply looking at the Southern African context of the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, their course of action was logical.

Another interesting aspect is that I, in reality, did this. When I knew that I had to learn how to produce bacon, my first trip was to Denmark. From there I traveled to England where I spent almost a full year in a Tulip plant in Bristol to learn.

The interesting thing is that Tulip is a Danish company, wholly owned by Danish Crown and a direct outflow of the creation of the cooperative curing plant at Horsens. In the ’70 and ’80 the Danish abattoirs and large processing companies consolidated and formed Danish Crown. The Danes created Tulip in England to, in a way, set up their own distribution company in England for the vast quantities of bacon they produced in Denmark. Essentially, they created their own client. In later years Tulip became involved in every aspect of the pork industry in England and currently is the largest pork farmer in the UK. Exactly as it was logical for my path to lead to Tulip, so, it was logical for JW’s path to lead to the Harris operations and a cooperative bacon plant. Given the same set of variables, the best choices are obvious to all, no matter from how far in the future you look back at decisions of the past.

Technological Context

The technical aspects behind the curing technology employed at the new plant are of particular interest. The establishment of the operation in 1918 placed it right in the transition time when science was unlocking the mechanisms behind curing and an understanding developed (beginning in 1891) that it was not saltpeter (nitrate) that cured meat, but nitrite.

The second technical fact of interest was the form of cooperation that was chosen to house the bacon plant. From Denmark to England farmers saw the benefit of the cooperative model to solve the problem of “access to markets” and this was no different in South Africa.

Tank Curing or using Sodium Nitrite

In terms of curing brines, the scientific understanding that it was not saltpeter (nitrate) curing the meat, but somehow, nitrite was directly involved came to us in the work of Dr. Edward Polenski (1891) who, investigating the nutritional value of cured meat, found nitrite in the curing brine and meat he used for his nutritional trails, a few days after it was cured with saltpeter (nitrate) only. He correctly speculated that this was due to bacterial reduction of nitrate to nitrite. ( Saltpeter: A Concise History and the Discovery of Dr Ed Polenske).

What Polenski suspected was confirmed by the work of two prominent German scientists. Karl Bernhard Lehmann (1858 – 1940) was a German hygienist and bacteriologist born in Zurich. In an experiment, he boiled fresh meat with nitrite and a little bit of acid. A red colour resulted, similar to the red of cured meat. He repeated the experiment with nitrates and no such reddening occurred, thus establishing the link between nitrite and the formation of a stable red meat colour in meat. (Fathers of Meat Curing)

In the same year, another German hygienists, one of Lehmann’s assistants at the Institute of Hygiene in Würzburg, Karl Kißkalt (1875 – 1962), confirmed Lehmann’s observations and showed that the same red colour resulted if the meat was left in saltpeter (potassium nitrate) for several days before it was cooked. (Fathers of Meat Curing)

This laid the foundation of the realisation that it was nitrite responsible for curing of meat and not saltpeter (nitrate). It was up to the prolific British scientist, Haldane (1901) to show that nitrite is further reduced to nitric oxide (NO) in the presence of muscle myoglobin and forms iron-nitrosyl-myoglobin. It is nitrosylated myoglobin that gives cured meat, including bacon and hot dogs, their distinctive red colour and protects the meat from oxidation and spoiling. (Fathers of Meat Curing)

Identifying nitrite as the better (and faster) curing agent was one thing. How to get to nitrite and use it in meat curing was completely a different matter. Two opposing views developed around the globe. On the one hand, the Danish method favoured “seeding” new brine with old brine that already contained nitrites and thus cured the meat much faster. (For a detailed treatment of this matter, see The Naming of Prague Salt)

In Denmark, during the 1800’s, a wet curing method was invented using a combination of stitch pumping and curing the meat in curing tanks with a cover brine. (Wilson, W, 2005: 219) Brine consisting of nitrate, salt and sugar were injected into the meat with a single needle attached to a hand pump (stitch pumping). Stitch pumping was either developed by Prof. Morgan, whom we looked at earlier or was a progression from his arterial injection method. (Bacon Curing – a historical review)

The meat was then placed in a mother brine mix consisting of old, used brine and new brine. The old brine contained the nitrate which was reduced through bacterial action into nitrite. It was the nitrite that was responsible for the quick curing of the meat.

Denmark was, as it is to this day, one of the largest exporters of pork and bacon to England. The wholesale involvement of the Danes in the English market made it inevitable that a bacon curer from Denmark must have found his way to Calne in Wiltshire and the Harris bacon factories. The tank-cured method, as it became known, was adopted by C & T Harris. (Bacon Curing – a historical review)

A major advantage of this method is the speed with which curing is done compared with the dry salt process previously practiced. Wet tank-curing is more suited for the industrialisation of bacon curing with the added cost advantage of re-using some of the brine. It allows for the use of even less salt compared to older curing methods. (Bacon Curing – a historical review)

Clues to the date of the Danish invention come to us from newspaper reports about the only independent farmer-owned Pig Factory in Britain of that time, the St. Edmunds Bacon Factory Ltd. in Elmswell. The factory was set up in 1911. According to an article from the East Anglia Life, April 1964, they learned and practiced what at first was known as the Danish method of curing bacon and later became known as tank-curing or Wiltshire cure. (Bacon Curing – a historical review)

A person was sent from the UK to Denmark in 1910 to learn the new Danish Method. (elmswell-history.org.uk) The Danish method involved the Danish cooperative method of pork production founded by Peter Bojsen on 14 July 1887 in Horsens. (Horsensleksikon.dk. Horsens Andelssvineslagteri)

The East Anglia Life report from April 1964, talked about a “new Danish” method. The “new” aspect in 1910 and 1911 was undoubtedly the tank curing method. Another account from England puts the Danish invention of tank curing early in the 1900’s. C. & T. Harris from Wiltshire, UK, switched from dry curing to the Danish method during this time. In a private communication between myself and the curator of the Calne Heritage Centre, Susan Boddington, about John Bromham who started working in the Harris factory in 1920 and became assistant to the chief engineer, she writes: “John Bromham wrote his account around 1986, but as he started in the factory in 1920 his memory went back to a time not long after Harris had switched over to this wet cure.” So, early in the 1900’s, probably sometime between 1899 and 1910, the Danes invented and practiced tank-curing which was brought to England around 1911. (Bacon Curing – a historical review)

It only stands to reason that the power of “old brine” must have been known from early after wet curing and needle injection of brine into meat was invented around the 1850’s by Morgan. Before the bacterial mechanism behind the reduction was understood, butchers must have noted that the meat juices coming out of the meat during dry curing had special “curing power”. It was, however, the Danes who took this practical knowledge, undoubtedly combined it with the scientific knowledge of the time and created the commercial process of tank-curing which later became known as Wiltshire cure. (Bacon Curing – a historical review)

It is of huge interest that the Eskort brand of bacon, to this day, bear the brand name of Wiltshire cure. Wiltshire is an English county where Calne is located which housed the Harris factory. (C & T Harris and their Wiltshire bacon cure – the blending of a legend) There is no doubt in my mind that the same curing was practiced in Estcourt in 1918, as was done in the Harris factories in Calne and that this is the historical basis for the continued reference on the Eskort bacon packages as Wiltshire Cure.

At a time before the direct addition on nitrite to curing brines, the only two ways to cure bacon was either dry curing or tank curing. Dry curing requires about 21 days as against 9 days for tank curing. The Bacon Marketing Scheme officially established tank curing in the UK. (Walworth, 1940)

It would not have been possible for the plant to use sodium nitrite in its brine in 1918. Where the Danes and the English favoured tank curing, the Germans and the Americans liked the concept of adding nitrite directly to the curing brines. This was however frowned upon due to the toxicity of sodium nitrite. In America, the matter was battled out politically, scientifically and in the courts. The Naming of Prague salt deals in great detail with this fascinating history. It became the standard ingredient in bacon cures only after WW1. The Germans used it during the war due to a lack of access to saltpeter (nitrate) which was reserved for the war effort and the need to produce bacon faster to supply to the front. The American packing houses in Chicago toyed with its use due to the speed of curing that it accomplishes.

The timeline, however, precludes its use in the Bacon factory in Estcourt in 1918. In fact, Ladislav Nachtmulner, the creator of the first legal commercial curing brine containing sodium nitrite, only invented his Prague Salt, in 1915. Prague Salt first appeared in 1925 in the USA as sodium nitrite became available through the Chicago based Griffith Laboratories in a curing mix for the meat industry. (The Naming of Prague Salt)

In Oct 1925 in a carefully choreographed display by Griffith, the American Bureau of Animal Industries legalised the use of sodium nitrite as a curing agent for meat. In December of the same year (1925) the Institute of American Meat Packers, created by the large packing plants in Chicago, published the document. The use of sodium Nitrite in Curing Meats. (The Naming of Prague Salt)

A key player suddenly emerges onto the scene in the Griffith Laboratories, based in Chicago and very closely associated with the powerful meatpacking industry. In that same year (1925) Hall was appointed as chief chemist by the Griffith Laboratories and Griffith started to import a mechanically mixed salt from Germany consisting of sodium nitrate, sodium nitrite and sodium chloride, which they called “Prague Salt.” (The Naming of Prague Salt)

Probably the biggest of the powerful meat packers was the company created by Phil Armour who gave David de Villiers Graaff the idea of refrigerated rail transport for meat. More than any other company at that time, Armour’s reach was global. It was said that Phil had an eye on developments in every part of the globe. (The Saint Paul Daily Globe, 10 May 1896, p2) He passed away in 1901 (The Weekly Gazette, 9 Jan 1901), but the business empire and network that he created must have endured long enough to have been aware of developments in Prague in the 1910’s and early 20’s. (The Naming of Prague Salt)

Drawing of David de Villiers-Graaff in his mayoral robes. The drawing appeared in a newspaper in Chicago on 11 April 1892 when he was interviewed at the World Exposition. He traveled to Chicago the first time in the mid 1880’s when he probably met Armour.

There is, therefore, no reasonable way that the bacon factory in Estcourt could have used sodium nitrite directly in 1918. If Armour’s relationship was with JW Moor, this could have been a possibility since I suspect that Armour was experimenting with the direct addition of nitrite to curing brines as early as 1905, but his relationship, if any, would have been with David de Villiers Graaff who was a meat trader at heart and did not have any direct interest in a large bacon curing company until ICS acquired Enterprise and Renown, long after the time of David de Villiers Graaff (the 1st). Besides this, where would they have found cheap nitrite salts in South Africa in 1918? This takes the 1918 establishment of the company back to the technology used by the Harris family in Calne which was mother brine tank curing, the classic Wiltshire curing method which was later exactly defined in UK law.

At the demise of the Harris operation, many of the staff were taken up into the current structures of Direct Table which is, according to my knowledge, one of the only remaining companies in the world who still use the traditional Wiltshire tank curing method for some of its bacons. It undoubtedly is the largest to do so. In the Eskort branding of its bacon, the reference to Wiltshire cure it is a beautiful reference back to the origins of the company which pre-dates the direct addition of sodium nitrite.

The Griffith Laboratories became the universal prophet of the direct addition of nitrite to curing brines. They appointed an agent in South Africa in Crown Mills. Crown Mills became Crown National and Prague Powder is still being sold by them to this day. It could very well have been Crown Mills who converted Eskort from traditional tank curing to the direct addition of sodium nitrite through Prague Powder.

It must be mentioned that the butchery trade was well established in South Africa long before the cooperative bacon factory was established in Estcourt. Bacon curing was one of the first responsibilities of the VOC when Van Riebeek set the refreshment station up in 1652. Swiss, Dutch, German and later, English butchers were scattered across South Africa. The largest and most successful of these companies in Cape Town was Combrink and Co., owned by Jakobus Combrink and later taken over by Dawid de Villiers Graaff who changed the name to the Imperial Cold Storage and Supply Company. I suspect that most of these operations used dry curing.

A last comment on the kind of curing is in order. The British dry curers responded to the change in taste to a milder, less salty cure by introducing EQ Cure or Equilibrium curing. This is done by weighing a fixed ratio of dry ingredients off per kg of meat to be cured. In smaller operations, the salts and spices are weighed off for every belly or loin to be cured, ensuring the right ratio of salt and spices to meat. In larger, industrial plants today, the same is achieved with the aid of tumblers and industrial mixers, but industrializing dry curing was not possible in the early 1900’s.

Peter Bojsen and cooperative Bacon Production

The second technical aspect is the form of cooperation that was established and a few words must be said about Peter Bojsen for those who are not familiar with him. Cooperative bacon production was the buzz word in the early 1900’s, but where did this originate?

It started in Denmark. The Danes were renowned dairy farmers and producers of the finest butter (Daily Telegraph, 2 February 1901: 6) They found the separated milk from the butter making process to be excellent food for pigs. The Danish farmers developed an immense pork industry around it. (Daily Telegraph, 2 February 1901: 6) The bacon industry was created in response to a ban from England on importing live Danish pigs to the island. The Danish farmers responded by organising themselves into cooperatives who build bacon factories which supplied bacon to the English market. (Daily Telegraph, 2 February 1901: 6) This established bacon curing as a major industry in Denmark.

“On 14 July 1887, 500 farmers from the Horsens region joined forces to form Denmark’s first co-operative meat company. The first general meeting was held, land was purchased, building work commenced and the equipment installed.” (Danishcrown.com) “On 22 December 1887, the first co-operative abattoir in the world, Horsens Andelssvineslagteri (Horsen’s Share Abattoir), stood ready to receive the first pigs for slaughter.” (Danishcrown.com)

The dynamic Peter Bojsen (1838-1922) took center stage in the creation of the abattoir in Horsens. He served as its first chairman. He created the first shared ownership slaughtering house. In years to follow, this revolutionary concept of ownership by the farmers on a shared basis became a trend in Denmark. Before the creation of the abattoir, he was the chairman of the of Horsens Agriculture Association and had to deal with inadequate transport and slaughtering facilities around the market where the farmers sold their meat at. (Horsensleksikon.dk. Horsens Andelssvineslagteri) Peter was a visionary and a creative economist. The genius of this man transformed a society.

In 1911, the St. Edmunds cooperative bacon factory was opened in England in Elmswell, with Danish help. It is clear that the concept of the Horsens plant crossed the English channel. It is plausible that its creation reached the ears of a group of farmers in a very “British” part of the empire, in Estcourt, Natal not just with the Whitshire Tank curing of the Harris operation, but the cooperative movement in bacon production from St. Edmunds in 1911.

Pulling the Military Connections Together

The location of the Estcourt plant is of interest virtually right next to Fort Dunford, between the fort and the Bushmans river. My suspicion is that the land belonged to the army and that Moor, either JW or with the help of FR, secured rights to purchase it. This could have been done only by a family who had very cozy relationships with the military and had friends in high places in the persons of Louis Botha and FR Moor himself.

Fort Dunford is indicated with the red marker. Take note of the position of the Boesmans River, the Eskort plant, the Fort and the Hospital.

Just look at the defenses of the Fort. There were three defenses. The first would have been the Bushmans river. Secondly, there was a moat around the fort, 2 meters deep and 4 meters wide. Then, one part of the staircase could be pulled up in case two of the defenses were bridged. It is clear from the map that even the hospital was strategically located to be within the general protection of the Fort and the Boesmans River bend.

There is a second interesting contribution that the military post could have made to the establishment of the bacon plant. It is known that men from Elmswell and Wiltshire were drafted into service in South Africa. Could it have been that some of these men actually worked at the cooperative bacon plant in Elmswell? These records can quite easily be checked and will be worth the effort.

Strong circumstantial evidence, however, points to more than just a coincidental relationship between the location of the plant and the military establishment. Probably more important than the affinity of Moor family for the military was the fact that FR Moor was the political leader of the Natal colony until the Union of South Africa was created in 1910 and the fact that the old school friend of FR, General Louis Botha was in 1918, the Prime Minister of the Union of South Africa. Whichever way you look at it, it is hard not to recognise the close proximity of the Eskort plant to the military installations. What could be the uniting thought that pulls all these facts together? (Of course, in part, predicated on the fact that the factory is in the original location)

Looking at the state of the British Empire and wartime circumstances in the UK, I believe offers the answer. The military context goes much deeper than schoolboy comradery, family nostalgia or friends in high places. 1918 was the beginning of the last year of the Great War. On the one hand, it is hard for us to imagine the unified approach that the Empire had towards the war and every citizen in every Empire country. The empathy and support that the war elicited in South Africa generally, but especially in Natal, so closely linked with the UK in spit and culture was enormous. One source reports that in Estcourt school staff subscribed a portion of their salary monthly to the Governor-General’s Fund in support of the war. (Thompson, 2011) It is outside the scope of this article to delve deeper into the unprecedented effort that was being expended by the South African population and the people in Natal in particular in support of the troops but reading the accounts of what was being done in Natal is quite emotional.

On the other hand, directly responding to wartime shortages in the UK was an international effort. Bacon, in those days, was not just a luxury. It was staple food. The production of bacon was a matter of national importance debated in parliament. It was a key food source sustaining the British navy. Many people only had bacon as food every day. They would boil the bacon before eating it. The parents who had to work the next day had the actual meat and the kids only had the water. Eduard Smith made the remark in his landmark work, Foods (1873), that in this way both the parents and the children went to bed “with a measure of satisfaction.” Bacon had strategic importance to the military and in the first world war, spoke to the general food situation in war-ravaged England.

The fact that the bacon company was established in Estcourt in 1917 shows clearly that South Africa was ready to step in to prop up meat and bacon supply in particular to the UK. Was there direct involvement from the South Africa leader, General Louis Botha who possibly passed on a request from London to all Empire states to assist in the supply of meat and bacon in particular? It is a matter of conjecture, but a tantalising possibility. These are speculations that can be corroborated by looking at the correspondence of Botha. FR Moor himself had direct communication with London and Botha may have simply opened the factory in support of the idea. FR’s letters along with that of JW have to be scrutinised for leads. The one reason that makes me suspects that there may have been a direct request from Botha or some early support for the venture is the location of the factory, right next to the Fort. In my mind, it swings the possibility for direct involvement from Botha from possible to probable. (Facts from correspondence should solve the matter)

The stone in Estcourt was unveiled by JW Moor on Jan 7, 1918, almost a full year before the Armistice. The Farmer’s Co-operative Bacon Factory Limited was founded in August 1917, 16 months before the end of the War. The factory was opened on 6 June 1918 by the Prime Minister General Louis Botha, 6 months before the Great War ended. This is remarkable.

The shortages in the UK in 1917 and 18 were dire. The end of the war was not in sight and calls went out across the Empire to assist. Meat supply, at this time, diminished with 30% in the UK. In this context, it is easy to see how military land was either made available or that it would have been strategically prudent to locate such an installation close to a military site, but again, it would have required high-level support (involvement?).

For the South Africans, the call for help would have been close to home. Delville Woods took place in 1916, a year before the company was created. In the month when it was founded, August 1917, Lieutenant-General Sir Jacob Louis van Deventer had just taken over command of the mostly South African troops involved in the German East African campaign. His offensive started in July 1917. The entire East African region remained very active for the duration of the war.

When the fighting was all done almost 19 000 South Africans lost their lives. The madness of the time can best be described by the opening sentences of Dickens’ Tale of Two Cities. It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair… Such would have been the experience of the men and woman involved in the war while setting up the Farmer’s Co-operative Bacon Factory on the banks of the Boesmans River in Estcourt, Natal. (1)

Conclusion

The Eskort factory is a historical site where many interesting cross-currents meet. Its uninterrupted existence from a time before nitrite was directly added to brine makes it unique in the world! Apart from Danish Crown and Tulip, I know of very few other companies.

Besides this, tied up in the story of its creation is a romantic immigrant, a family, defining themselves through diamond digging and making powerful friends; re-investing its fortunes in farming and establishing a food company that exists till this day. We see the use of tank curing which predates the direct addition of nitrite to curing brines. The global influence of Griffiths who probably converted Eskort to an operation using the direct application of nitrite to curing brines following WW1. We see the influence of the Danish Cooperative system, probably through the St. Edmunds Bacon Factory. Besides any of these, we see hard work, imagination and high character and a particular response to a specific call for help.

What is the purpose of this study? Besides the fascinating context of the Eskort operation, is there anything we can learn from the past? I offer a few suggestions.

1. Stay on top of the game. Use the best and latest technology available to stay well ahead in the race. A 1914 US newspaper article, from the Deming Headlight, called the Danish cooperative bacon factory “the last word as to efficient scientific treatment of the dead porker.” The article was entitled A Cooperative Bacon factory. (The Deming Headlight (Deming, New Mexico), Friday 8 May 1914, Page 6.)

2. Use the best corporate structure, appropriate for the time.

3. This point probably dovetails into the previous one – ensure that the business is well funded.

4. Think big! No, think massive! By no account was any of the plans of JW Moor or any of his brothers or their father ever small!

5. The factory was built with a specific market in mind. “It was built for exports”, even though saying it like this may be too specific. Lets state it this way – “technology was chosen to attract the right clients.” A modern-day example may be investing in a tray ready packaging line for fresh meat for the retail trade or cooked bacon for the catering trade.

6. Things are not as bad today as they were during the world wars. If anything, we have more opportunities. No matter what is happing in our country, this can be our age of wisdom, our epoch of belief, season of light and our spring of hope!

A last comment must be made about the legacy of the bacon plant. There can be little doubt that it had a large impact on the meat processing landscape in South Africa over the years. It provides a fertile and productive training center for many men and woman to later either set up their own curing operations or work at other plants across the country, thus transferring the skills inherent in the Estcourt plant to the rest of the country. In this regard, the impact of the visionary work of the Moor family is volcanic. It is interesting to talk to executives in Eskort and to realise how many people in top positions in curing operations across the county started their careers at the Eskort plant in Estcourt in the Natal Midlands.

These are some of the obvious lessons I take away from the study. This is insanely exciting!

Further Reading:

The speech was given by Mr. W. S. Morris, the Minister of Agriculture at the second reading of the BACON INDUSTRY BILL before the UP parliament on 11 April 1938 3.40 p.m.

History-of-Estcourt

Walworth, G.. 1940. Imperial Agriculture London, George Allen & Unwin Ltd.

The Mother Brine

Note

(1) 1917 and 18 were very interesting years besides for the creation of the bacon plant in Estcourt. On 8 June, two days after the start of production, the South African financial services group Sanlam was established in Cape Town. 1917/ 1918 was the year when the RAF was founded with another interesting South African connection. On 17 August 1917, General Jan Smuts released his report recommending that a military air service should be used as “an independent means of war operations” of the British Army and Royal Navy, leading to the creation of the Royal Air Force in 1918. (Hastings, Hastings, 1987)

References

https://www.danishcrown.com/danish-crown/history/

Dhupelia, U. S.. 1980. Frederick Robert Moor and Native Affairs in the Colony of Natal 1893 to 1903. Submitted in part fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in the Department of History in the Faculty of Arts at the University of Durban-Westville. Supervisor: Dr. J.B. Brain; Date Submitted: December 1980. Download: Dhupelia-Uma-1980

Dommisse, E. 2011. First baronet of De Grendel. Tafelberg

Max, Bomber Command: Churchill’s Epic Campaign – The Inside Story of the RAF‘s Valiant Attempt to End the War, New York: Simon & Schuster Inc., 1987, ISBN 0-671-68070-6, p. 38.

Morrell, R. G.. 1996. White Farmers, Social Institutions and Settler Masculinity in the Natal Midlands, 1880-1920. A Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Economic History. University of Natal. Durban, March 1996

http://www.openafrica.org/experiences/route/24-drakensberg-experience-route/participant/925-eskort-limited-factory-shop

Perren, R. Farmers, and consumers under strain: Allied meat supplies in the First World War. The Agricultural Historical Review. PDF: Richard Perren

The Saint Paul Daily Globe, 10 May 1896

Thompson, P. S.. 2011. Historia Vol 56 no 1, The Natal home front in the Great War (1914-1918) On-line version ISSN 2309-8392; Print version ISSN 0018-229X. The Historical Association of South Africa c/o Department of Historical and Heritage Studies, University of Pretoria.

Walworth, G.. 1940. Feeding the Nation in Peace and War. London, George Allen & Unwin Ltd.

The Weekly Gazette, 9 Jan 1901

Wilson, W. 2005. Wilson’s Practical Meat Inspection. 7th edition. Blackwell Publishing.

http://www.elmswell-history.org.uk/arch/firms/baconfactory/article2.html”>

http://www.elmswellhistory.org.uk/arch/firms/baconfactory/baconfactory.html

https://www.revolvy.com/page/Estcourt

Where I referenced previous articles I did, the links are provided in the article and I do not reference these again.

The Story of Eskort The Story of Eskort By Eben van Tonder 19 February 2019 Important note: Information from previous work I did and what is readily available on the internet; this is not approved by the company, Eskort Ltd, nor do I write this on behalf of the company.

#Bacon History #Eskort Ltd.#wiltshire curing

0 notes

robbialy · 6 years

Photo

Crispin and Scapin, 1863 by Daumier. Honoré Daumier (born Feb. 20/26, 1808, Marseille—died Feb. 11, 1879, Valmondois, France), prolific French caricaturist, painter, and sculptor especially renowned for his cartoons and drawings satirizing 19th-century French politics and society. His paintings, though hardly known during his lifetime, helped introduce techniques of Impressionism into modern art. Background and early life Traits of Daumier’s ancestry—a violent temperament, a generous and rather fanciful turn of mind, and an easily aroused capacity for pity—all form part of his character. His mother’s family was from a village in which samples of unique ancient sculptured reliefs—fierce primitive human heads—had been found. His grandfather and father both worked in Marseille as “glaziers”—that is to say, dealers in frames (or passe-partout pictures) and decorative tableaux that they painted themselves. His godfather was a painter. When Daumier was seven, his father abandoned his business in order to go to Paris and, like so many Provençals, seek his fortune as a poet. He was presented to the king, Louis XVIII; but his swift fall from favour—he was famous only for a fortnight—unbalanced him mentally. After apparently being confined for many years, he died in the Charenton asylum. Daumier received a typical lower middleclass education, but he wanted to draw, and his studies did not interest him. His family therefore placed him with an old and fairly well-known artist, Alexandre Lenoir. Lenoir, a student and friend of Jacques-Louis David, a leading classicist painter, was more an aesthetician than a painter. He had a pronounced taste for Rubens, one of whose works he kept in his collection. A connoisseur of sculpture, he had saved the most beautiful medieval and contemporary sculptures from the Revolutionaries, which inspired a lasting interest in Daumier. Daumier was then not at all the uncultured, self-taught genius that most art historians of the late 19th and early 20th centuries have depicted. He did not rise from an artistic void—he was the child of artists, however modest and unsuccessful they had been in making a name. Added to the advantage of this ancestry, he also benefitted from a more interesting artistic education than his contemporaries. At the age of 13 his father’s breakdown forced Daumier to seek paying work. He first became a messenger boy for a bailiff and, from this experience, acquired his familiarity with the world of the lawcourts. He worked next as a bookseller’s clerk at the Palais-Royal. The Palais-Royal, with its arcades surrounding the garden, was one of the busiest spots in Paris, and there Daumier saw, parading before his employer’s window, all the characters of the Comédie humaine, about whom he would later talk with his friend Balzac: not only men and women of fashion, intellectuals, and artists but also “captains of industry,” or swindlers, as they were commonly called—all of whom lent themselves to caricature. Daumier’s development was thus complete at that moment when, about 1825–28, he decided to give up everything to embark on the artistic career of which he had dreamed so long. He was a young man of about 18 or 20, from a family of painters, who had had an opportunity to admire Rubens, had learned to analyze sculpture, and had been able to observe the appearance and behaviour of different classes of society. Physically he was ugly, at least according to the taste of his time. Heavyset like Balzac, although probably smaller, he had small but lively eyes and a large nose. He always kept a pipe in his mouth, in order to mask his Provençal accent and the frequent lisp of his native region. Daumier could not, of course, live from painting or from sculpture as he had set out to do. He therefore accepted commissions for lithographs—portraits and, at a very early age, cartoons of morals and manners (caricatures de moeurs), the first of these dating from 1822, when he was scarcely 15 years old and was just beginning to produce lithographs. Although some of his first works were signed, many others were not: they were portraits of celebrities that were signed by another native of Marseille, Zéphirin Belliard, Daumier’s elder by 10 years and the author of a lavish Iconographie des contemporains. For the most part these portraits were mediocre, modelled on another artist’s style, but they constituted an excellent apprenticeship for someone interested in the human physiognomy. His life, devoted entirely to his work, was to be divided into two parts: from 1830 to 1847 he was a lithographer, cartoonist, and sculptor; and, beginning in 1848 and lasting until 1871, he was an Impressionist painter whose art was reflected in the lithographs he continued to produce. Constant work was not a burden to him; while producing 4,000 lithographs and 4,000 illustrative drawings, he sang sentimental songs whose foolishness made him laugh, and, “unconcerned with his works, he was always out drinking cheap wine with barge captains.” Satirical lithographs In 1830 Daumier began his satirical work: his busts lampooning certain contemporary types and his many lithographs. He enjoyed the company of grandiloquent men and mainly associated with men of the left. It was at this time that Charles Philipon, a liberal journalist who had founded the opposition journal La Caricature, invited him to become a contributor. King Louis-Philippe generally tolerated jokes at his expense, but, when unduly provoked, rather than bring suit against a paper, he preferred to seize it, a procedure that meant ruin for its staff and financial backers. Only once during his reign did he deal severely with an offender—with Daumier in 1832, and then only after the second of the artist’s most violent attacks. Sentenced to six months in prison, Daumier spent two of them in the state prison and four in a mental hospital, the king apparently wanting to show that one had to be mad to oppose and caricature him. After his release in February 1833, Daumier was never again indicted, even though in his cartoons he continued to attack a regime, a form of society, and a concept of life that he scorned, while at the same time creating unforgettable characters. Daumier’s types were universal: businessmen, lawyers, doctors, professors, and petits bourgeois. His treatment of his lithographs was sculptural, leading Balzac to say about him that he had a bit of Michelangelo under his skin. Daumier’s sculptures have still not been sufficiently studied. The 15 or so small busts that he modelled in clay for the window of the satirical journal for which he worked and that remained there some 30 years occupy an important place in the history of sculpture. Scarcely differing from official busts, but with the accentuation of a detail that made them caricatures, they constitute an unforgettable gallery of the politicians of the July monarchy. The complete series has not been preserved: it included a Louis-Philippe, which Daumier hid, and other pieces that were broken in moving. A few copies of the busts were cast in bronze in the 20th century, and their originality is the more striking when they are compared with similar pieces of that period. Daumier’s only close friends were sculptors, all of them romantic, poor, and ardent left-wingers. Although intimate with these few friends, Daumier did not form part of any of the many artistic or literary coteries of the time. He was not inclined to frequent salons, or even saloons. When he went to a café, it was with his neighbours on the Île Saint-Louis, where he lived between 1833 and approximately 1850 in a studio on the quay d’Anjou. This old studio still exists, at the top of a house overlooking a world of roofs and open windows, behind which his models lived. Nor did his wife, to whom he was very attached, his dear “Didine” (Léopoldine), mix in artistic circles; she was a dressmaker. In 1848 Daumier believed the era of social justice for which he had militantly fought for 20 years had arrived, and he took part in the official competition for the representation of the republic that was to replace the portrait of the king in all the municipal buildings of France. His rough sketch was beautiful, and, had he agreed to complete the painting, he would have received the prize. Impressionist techniques He did not do so, however, for he had become preoccupied with new technical studies; earlier than others, he had discovered Impressionism—faces and bodies devoured by the surrounding light and becoming one with the atmosphere. He painted a great deal, and the more so as his studies in the new technique did not interest the satirical journals to which he now submitted drawings devoid of humorous meaning. He was supported by Charles Baudelaire and by that poet’s friends. The two men had met in 1845 and saw each other more frequently after 1848. Baudelaire, who “adored him,” wrote in 1857 the only significant article on Daumier to appear in the painter’s lifetime. Daumier was indeed the first of the Impressionists. As early as 1848, his lithographs show contours effaced by light. Two factors, however, prevented this fact from being noticed: the lack of interest in his lithographs shown by historians of painting and the lack of research to establish the exact dates of the lithographs. These dates were not necessarily those of their appearance. It has been shown, for instance, that the Impressionist lithographs, which appeared around 1860, had been rejected by journals in 1848 as being too bold, too modern. Because of this lack of demand, Daumier’s Impressionist lithographs are not very numerous, but his painting shows that he was won over to Impressionism. The paintings, also, were too few in number to assign him his true place in the history of Impressionism—before Manet and Monet, both of whom admired him greatly. The dating of Daumier’s paintings has given rise to controversy. Nineteenth-century art historians and those prior to 1938 dated them largely in relation to the paintings of his contemporaries. But it now seems more reasonable to date them from his lithographs, for it is not likely for an artist who changes styles frequently to work differently when drawing on a lithographic stone than when painting on canvas. When Daumier imagined a form, he would fashion and refashion it numerous times in his lithography. It is not likely that he would wait four to six years after he had stopped dealing with it in his lithographs to treat it in his painting. The question may be studied again, but not on the basis of documents of the period, for Daumier’s notebooks were too abbreviated, and critiques by his contemporaries were rare, since he seldom showed his works, and they went largely unnoticed. Daumier’s paintings are highly original, both in their style and in the subjects they present. He created the painting of morals and manners (la peinture de moeurs) featuring in his work the everyday life on the Île Saint-Louis and its quays, such as children playing in the water, one of them brought back to its parents after an accident; horses leaving a water trough; washerwomen wearily returning up the stairs from the river or fighting against the wind, their bundles in their arms; drinkers in a pub; and masons on a scaffold. He was stirred by the theatre, then by railroads, which he used as a means of showing galleries of faces as powerful in their impact as those of the Ventre législatif (“Legislative Belly” or “Vile Body of the Legislature”). Earlier, the Palais de Justice had provided him with the opportunity of drawing his dramatically impressive lawyers (see photograph). Then he went to Valmondois, on the outskirts of Paris, and depicted rustic scenes. Much of his painting was devoted to artists’ studios—not studios of a studied picturesqueness but those where artists were concerned with creating works of art. These subjects are found again in his lithographs, together with topical subjects, such as seaside resorts, hunting, and winter scenes, all of which, having been commissioned, seemed to inspire him less. Thus he transposed into his painting what had until then belonged to the domain of the caricatures of morals and manners. Daumier was not often inspired by religious subjects, except for the image of Christ, insulted and ridiculed, in which there appears to be personal allusion—that of a man who each day hoped to draw his last cartoon so that he could devote himself to painting. On the other hand, mythology excited him during his Rubens period under Lenoir; but in this case, obviously, the subject was only a prop for the painting. On several occasions Daumier painted historical subjects. He painted Camille Desmoulins, the Revolutionary leader, rousing the crowd in 1789; and his Emigrants of 1857 is an allusion to the authoritarian empire of Napoleon III, a painting that echoes the words of the proscribed Victor Hugo: “It is not I who am proscribed, it is liberty; it is not I who am exiled, it is France.” The types that Daumier created did not always survive him. He created a Louis-Philippe, but above all Robert Macaire (the typical businessman of Louis-Philippe’s reign). His Bons Bourgeois probably served as a reference for the French middle class up to the 1940s. In any case, his Lawyers remain up-to-date. Following tradition, Daumier took pupils who learned their craft by copying and imitating his works. Two of them are known by name: Boulard and Gill. Their works are known—incorrectly—as faux Daumier, for works are only false when one is unable to see that they are the exercises of pupils. Less solitary than he is said to have been, and admired by the new school, notably by Manet, Daumier grew old: sadly, for he would have liked to give up his lithographic work in favour of painting, but he could not do so. But he was happy in the knowledge that his lithographs preserved their force, as Hugo said in 1870 when Daumier symbolized his great satirical poem Les Châtiments by a crucified eagle. In 1871, Daumier, who had discreetly refused to be decorated by the empire, became a member of the leftist Paris Commune. He was almost blind during his last years. His drawings, like those of Edgar Degas, gained a magnificent wholeness. He had one last joy, an exhibition at the Durand-Ruel Gallery in 1878. People began to say that his paintings were at least as good as his lithographs, though it was more the republican than the artist that they wished to celebrate. As a cartoonist, Daumier enjoyed a wide reputation, although as a painter he remained unknown. His fame was not based, any more than it is today, on critical appreciations but, rather, on the smiling or laughing admiration of those who read the satirical journals.

0 notes

geofframbler · 7 years

Text

Ballonastic Rochester, Kent.

The invention of the balloon was a technical and theatrical marvel of the 19th Century; balloons wherever they were inflated or exhibited drew huge crowds.

Rochester was well placed to be on the balloonist’s circuit because it had a gasworks . Early gas-filled balloons were inflated with hydrogen that was both expensive and difficult to transport, but this was soon replaced with coal/town gas that was more readily available and was, so to speak, ‘on tap’.

The first record found of a balloon ascent in Rochester was from the Bull Inn on Wednesday 6th June 1827 . The entrance fee to the yard was 2s, whilst access to the Bull’s ballroom, that had been made available to accommodate ladies, was 3s. This was a considerable amount of money, approximately £9 and £13.50 at today’s prices , so it’s little wonder that crowds assembled early to secure vantages points on the bridge and castle, as well as other elevated positions around the city .

The balloonist on this occasion was Henry Green, brother of the celebrated Charles Green. He was to be accompanied on his assent by an associate and Mr. Rawlings, a Rochester man, who had paid £10 [£880] for the privilege .

The inflation of the balloon, which required 20,000 cubic feet of gas, commenced around 12 noon under the superintendence of Mr. Bacon an engineer to the Rochester gas works. Once fully inflated the balloon stood 60ft high and had a circumference of 40ft.

At 5pm the ropes were loosened to commence the ascent when the wind caught the balloon and dashed it against nearby houses causing two or three rents in the balloon. With assistance from those on the ground the balloon was pulled back down. Although the balloon had been damaged Henry Green did not want to disappoint the crowds and therefore decided that as the tears were below the cone he would attempt another ascent. However with less gas it was necessary to lighten the load so Mr. Rawlings was not able to take his expected ride. The second attempt was more successful and the balloon eventually made a safe landing 35 minutes later in a bean field between Rainham and Newington3 and . The reporter for the South Eastern Gazette recorded disappointment that the numbers that turned out was not as great as expected or the exhibition deserved.

Presumably to offer some recompense to Mr. Rawlings, a further Rochester ascent was planned for Thursday 19th July 1827 but it needed to be abandoned because of very “boisterous and unfavourable weather”. Although the “numerous and respectable crowd were disappointed they did not betray any angry feelings” . Not to be deterred Mr. Green tried again on Tuesday 24th July from an unspecified location in Rochester. The inflation, watched by a crowd of several thousand, began around 4pm with gas from the Rochester gasometer. At 5:30pm Mr. & Mrs. Green and Mr.Rawlings took their seats in the car. The balloon was loosed and rose majestically into the air to the sounds of a band and the acclamations of thousands of people. The balloon eventually landed, with assistance from some farm workers, in a field about 5 miles outside Southend. The voyage, which was not uneventful, lasted 13/4 hours during which it travelled a circuitous route of 78 miles .

No further press reports of balloon flights from Rochester have been found – as of yet – until 1838 when Mr. John Hampton made ascents from Rochester. However Henry Coxwell, in his memoirs, recalls watching with his father from the Chatham Lines, an ascent from Rochester in 1828 .

Henry Coxwell from Wouldham, who was to become a self-confessed Balloonatic and champion of the military use of balloons, recalls witnessing an ascent by Mr. Green from Rochester, which he described as the first event of its kind in this part of Kent. He goes on to describe the balloon travelling across Chatham Dockyard and eventually landing in Essex.

As Henry Coxwell is recalling an event he witnessed when he was eight or nine, he could have been mistaken as to the actual year and the significance of the event as the first known ascent landed in Rainham, Kent, not Essex as Henry recalled. He was almost certainly not describing an ascent in 1838 as at the age of 19 he would not have been short enough, as he described, to stand in front of his father so his father to use his shoulder as a rest for his spyglass. One is therefore left to wonder whether he witnessed the 26 July 1827 ascent that was by Henry Green, that did land in Essex and probably would have passed over Chatham Dockyard.

If this is the case perhaps the launch-site could have been on the common land close to the gasworks? This possibility has a number of things going for it; proximity to the gasometer, some distance from buildings that caused damage during the earlier ascent, and the Chatham Lines would have been a better vantage point than the castle for viewing an ascent from the common. Some reports of the 6 June 1838 ascent state it was from the Bowling Green of the Bull Inn. It is possible that there was a Bowling Green in the Bull Yard but no evidence for this has been found, and it was a busy coaching inn. Rochester though did have a bowling green. The 1633 Medway Alnwick Map, which is more of a diagrammatic representation of Rochester than a map, shows a bowling green adjoining the New Churchyard (cattle market / Corporation St. car park) – approximating to an area between the now Northgate and Blue Boar Lane. What hasn’t been determined is whether the Bull Inn owned or leased the land described as the Bull Bowling Green

Interest in ‘balloonfests’ seemed to wane in the 1830’s until Charles Green on 7 November 1836, made an epic 18-hour voyage from London in a huge balloon, crossing the channel and reaching the Duchy of Nassau (Germany). This established a new record for a balloon flight that lasted until the end of the 19th Century. To celebrate the successful voyage the balloon was renamed the Royal Nasseu . Residents of Rochester would probably have been able to see the balloon that was 157 feet in circumference and 80 feet high, early on in its voyage as it crossed the Medway seven miles south of Rochester . With press interest reawakened balloon ascents were once again reported.

Jumping ahead to 1838 and the ascents from Rochester undertaken by the balloonist John Hampton in that year - incidentally in the same year that he became the first Englishman to make a successful parachute descent .

The first record of an ascent in Rochester by John Hampton was made from “the City Tea Gardens, Eastgate, Rochester” on possibly 5th July 18387. The same ascent, as reported in the West Kent Guardian, stated it had been rescheduled from the 3rd, because of torrential rain, to Wednesday 4th July, and that the ascent was from the City Bowling Green, Eastgate . The “stupendous machine’ was inflated with gas that had been laid on from the main pipes of the street in Eastgate. “Several temporary ascents were made in the course of the evening for the purpose of gratifying the aspiring propensities of individuals among the highly respectable company assembled in the Gardens who, for a gratuity were allowed to accompany the aeronaut to the extent of several fathoms of line” 11. Mr. Hampton made the untethered ascent alone. The wind took the balloon in the direction of the confluence of the Thames and Medway. This not being a desirable place to land Mr. Hampton released gas and deployed a grappling hook to safely land in the parish of Hoo around 8pm .

In a short piece in the Maidstone Journal & Kentish Advertiser published 17th July 1838, it was reported that Mr. Hampton planned a second ascent in his balloon from the city Bowling Green, Rochester, near the town pump. Indeed he did make a second ascent in his balloon, the ‘Albion’, from the City’s bowling green in Eastgate on the evening of Tuesday 17th July .

Reports of this ascent describe the balloon being ‘liberated’ from its tethers at about 7:15pm and bounding “through the air with the rapidity of an eagle.” It headed off in the direction of Hoo but as it gained height it was “driven at a fearful velocity towards the main ocean” leaving Mr. Hampton with no choice other than to ditch into the sea about 13 miles from Sheerness . Hampton and his balloon were picked up by a brig and eventually conveyed to Gravesend .

The accounts of these two ascents (4th & 17th July 1838) give a few more clues as to the location of the City’s ‘aerostation’. In all probability both ascents took place from the same location because of the complexity of laying on a gas supply. The Eastgate pump – now relocated beside the Guildhall Museum - was positioned approximately opposite the Queen Charlotte pub, the site of which may have been ‘clear’ in 1838 and may well have faced onto land / marshes that continued on from the cattle market. A news report, unrelated to ballooning, reports that a meeting of the ‘Rochester True Blue Club’ took place in 1836 at Mr. Bulling’s bowling green, Cock Inn, Rochester . Although long-gone the Cock Inn was near what is now 172 High Street - the cafe opposite the Queen Charlotte PH – and thereby indicating the possibility that there was a bowling green in Eastgate. Taking all accounts of these two balloon ascents into consideration, and matching it with other news reports and local information, it seems quite possible that Rochester’s first ‘aerostation’ was not far from what is now the Queen Charlotte pub. But where was Rochester’s Tea Garden, or more precisely, as there could have been more than one, the garden from which John Hampton made his ascent in July 1838? In 1863 there was a business known as the “City Tea Mart” at Star Hill - could it have been trading 25 years earlier with a tea garden?

Further balloon excitement in Rochester was witnessed a few days later on Tuesday, 31st July 1838 when Mr. Green and four companion voyagers in the Royal Nassau balloon, descended in a field on Wichland farm on the Strood bank of the Medway, a short distance above Rochester Bridge. The huge balloon and the “multitudes of people from across the three towns” who rushed to the spot where it landed, did considerable damage to the crop . "The stupendous machine” left Vauxhall at 6:45pm and the aeronauts accompanied by Mr. Green alighted at 8:10pm. The party stayed a short while at the Crown Inn before departing Rochester at 11:30pm .

No further Balloonastic stories associated with Rochester have yet been found but it appears that ascents in tethered balloons continued to provide an attraction for some time at fetes. An advert for an event organised by the Ancient Order of Foresters to be held on the grounds of Mr J L Edwards, Maidstone Road, Rochester on 28 June, listed balloon ascents as one of the attractions . [Mr. James Latchford Edwards rented "Upper Delce Farm, St. Margaret's, from the Rochester Bridge Trust .]

Our Own Balloonist - Henry Tracy Coxwell of Wouldham

One cannot end the Rochester account of ballooning without a little more information about Henry Tracy Coxwell who was born in the Parsonage in Wouldham in 1819. He was the youngest son of a navel commander and was inspired to take up ballooning after witnessing a balloon ascent from Rochester by Mr. Green. Henry went on to train as a dentist but adopted the name of Henry Wells for his ballooning, as he didn’t want his patients to think a Balloonatic was treating them. In 1848 he gave up dentistry and became a professional balloonist. He set up a balloon manufacturing company in Seaford, Sussex, and no doubt making use of his scientific training, specialised in ascents to make meteorological observations and to take aerial photographs. This probably led him to recognising the potential benefits that balloons could bring to the military. Coxwell made various demonstrations to the British army with limited success, but the benefits that would come with having observation balloons was recognized by the Germans when the Franco-Prussian war broke out, and who put him in charge of forming two balloon companies for them .

Geoff Rambler. 12 December 2015

0 notes

nofomoartworld · 7 years

Text

Hyperallergic: Jimmie Durham Retrospective Reignites Debate Over His Claim of Native Ancestry

Jimmie Durham, “Head” (2006), wood, papier-mâché, hair, seashell, turquoise, metal tray, 10 x 16 x 16 in, Fondazione Morra Greco, Naples, Italy (courtesy of kurimanzutto, Mexico City)

MINNEAPOLIS — The traveling retrospective Jimmie Durham: At the Center of the World opened last week at the Walker Art Center. It is a massive exhibition, with nearly 150 works dating from 1970 to the present, and accompanied by a 320-page catalogue. That a solo exhibition of this size and scope would be devoted to an artist who has claimed Native American heritage is noteworthy, especially given how little space is usually given to Native artists in mainstream museums. The only problem is that Durham isn’t a member of any Native American tribe; available information and the statements he has made about his origins leave much room for doubt and debate about his Native ancestry.

Organized by the Hammer Museum in Los Angeles, At the Center of the World was curated by the Hammer’s senior curator, Anne Ellegood, with curatorial assistant MacKenzie Stevens. After its run at the Walker Art Center — where it was coordinated by curator Vincenzo de Bellis, with Misa Jeffereis — it will travel to the Whitney Museum in New York and then the new Remai Modern in Saskatoon, Canada.

Jimmie Durham, “Malinche” (1988–92), guava, pine branches, oak, snakeskin, polyester bra soaked in acrylic resin and painted gold, watercolor, cactus leaf, canvas, cotton cloth, metal, rope, feathers, plastic jewelry, glass eye, 70 x 23 5/8 x 35 in, Stedelijk Museum voor Actuele Kunst (SMAK), Ghent, Belgium (photo © SMAK / Dirk Pauwels)

In an interview published in Interventions and Provocations: Conversations on Art, Culture, and Resistance (1998), Durham told Susan Canning that he grew up in a household that spoke Cherokee in the home. According to Lucy Lippard’s glowing piece about him, “Postmodernist ‘Savage’” (1993) in Art in America, he belonged to the peyote-smoking Native American Church. Mary Modeen wrote that Durham is one quarter Cherokee. His bio, originally posted on the Hammer’s website and now gone (though available on archived versions of press materials), states that he is “a Native American of Cherokee descent.”

However, Durham has also said that he is not Cherokee. Following the appearance of Lippard’s “Postmodernist ‘Savage’” in 1993, he wrote a letter to the magazine, which it published, where he wrote: “I am not Cherokee. I am not an American Indian. This is in concurrence with recent US legislation, because I am not enrolled on any reservation or in any American Indian community.”

The Indian Arts and Crafts Act

The “recent US legislation” Durham was referring to was the Indian Arts and Crafts Act (IACA), passed in 1990, which makes it illegal to sell art if you falsely claim to be American Indian, Native American, or a member of any federally recognized tribe. “It’s essentially a truth in advertising law,” Bree Black Horse, an attorney who specializes in Indian law, told Hyperallergic.

Even if Durham’s claims to Cherokee heritage are true, he can’t legally sell his work in the United States, explains Black Horse, because he’s not a tribal member. The works exhibited as part of At the Center of the World aren’t for sale, “so technically doesn’t run afoul of the law, but it definitely violates the spirit of the law,” Black Horse says.

In a 1993 article, Jonathan Tilove of the Newhouse News Service, wrote that following the passage of the IACA, two galleries in Santa Fe and San Francisco canceled Durham shows. Following those events, Geoffrey Stamm, assistant general manager of the Indian Arts and Crafts Board, “warned that when enforcement begins, ‘if Jimmie Durham is selling art work as a Cherokee and he does not have certification from the tribe, he will be arrested,’” Tilove wrote. “Durham apparently took the threat seriously. He has since written Art in America citing the law and declaring, ‘I am not an American Indian.’”

Durham has also not lived in the United States for 30 years — first settling in Cuernavaca, Mexico beginning in 1987 and then in Europe since 1994 — and has stopped making art about Native identity. However, At the Center of the World prominently features his earlier works, complete with Native imagery, works that use the Cherokee language, works that reference Cherokee history, and works that imply the artist’s Native identity.

Jimmie Durham, “Self-portrait” (1986), canvas, cedar, acrylic paint, metal, synthetic hair, scrap fur, dyed chicken feathers, human rib bones, sheep bones, seashell, thread, 78 x 30 x 9 in, Whitney Museum of American Art, New York (photo ©Whitney Museum)

To give an example, one of the first works you see as you enter the show is a sculptural self-portrait of the artist from 1986. It’s a canvas outline of Durham’s body, painted in a shade of brown. “My skin is not really this dark,” he has written on one of the legs, “but I am sure that many Indians have coppery skin.” One of the sculpture’s only three-dimensional elements is the male anatomy, painted yellow and orange, which is flanked with the words “Indian penises are unusually large and colorful.”

As part of programming for the show, the Walker invited Chayenne Arapaho artist Hock E Aye VI Edgar Heap of Birds and Navajo contemporary Native arts scholar Shanna Heap of Birds to speak last week about their own work in the field. During the question and answer session, Shanna Heap of Birds responded to a question about Durham’s Native identity that she had only recently learned of the controversy.

“When I think about Durham’s work — the 40 plus years that he put into it and also looking at the impact that he had on various discourses — like Jean Fisher I think that art is not reducible to identity,” she said. “It has to be seen, like [Fisher] said, as a material realization, as a philosophical act, how you live your life.” As a Navajo woman herself, Heap of Birds said she didn’t feel she had the right to tell someone whether they are Native American or not. She added: “Because that’s their experience. It’s not my business. I know who I am.”

Tribal Sovereignty

Durham’s supporters cite the fact that the artist has never sought Cherokee citizenship as a reason why it’s acceptable for him to say he’s Cherokee without actually being a member of a tribe. His refusal to seek citizenship is seen as an an act of defiance toward established systems for categorizing and confirming Native American identity. “Blood quantum is a bunch of racist nonsense,” Durham said in a 2002 article by Daniel Grant. “Saying you are Indian or not sounds good, but it also makes people choose one ancestry over another. I don’t see urban Indians as second class citizens, or reserve Indians as the epitome of all that is truly red.”

But curator and Anishinaabe poet Heid E. Erdrich, of Minneapolis, argues that you can’t reject something of which you were never a part. “He frames his lack of status as some sort of rejection,” Erdrich told Hyperallergic. “For us, it’s a rejection of Native sovereignty, which we’re bound to uphold as citizens and descendants of our nations.”

“A tribal nation gets to self-determine who is citizen and who isn’t, and that’s the law. That’s our law,” said Seneca choreographer and curator Rosy Simas, who, along with Erdrich and a group of other Native artists and curators, has been meeting with the Walker to try to make changes to the exhibition. “So when someone decides to say, ‘Oh, I’m Cherokee and I don’t care what other Cherokee people say or the Cherokee Nation says,’ or, ‘My lineage doesn’t show that I’m Cherokee but I’m going to say that I’m Cherokee,’ it’s completely disrespecting the sovereignty of that nation.”

Unclear Origins

Lippard wrote that Durham was born into the Wolf Clan in 1940, in Nevada County, Arkansas. Meanwhile, in a recent issue of Flash Art, Jennifer Piejko wrote that he was born in Washington, Arkansas, which is in Hempstead County. “His family inhabited a Cherokee reservation for over a century, following the Indian Removal Act of 1830,” Piejko wrote.

However, there is no birth record of the surname Durham for 1940 in Nevada County or Hempstead County, according to America Meredith, a Swedish-Cherokee writer and scholar, and editor of First American Art Magazine. “Durham was careful to never mention a family member’s name or list his birth date, but MacKenzie Stevens’s Selected Chronology in the At the Center of the World catalogue listed his birthday as July 10, 1940,” Meredith said in an email.

Kathy Griffin White, a Cherokee genealogist, did find record of a Jimmie Bob Durham’s birth in Harris, Texas in 1940, from the Texas Department of Health. The information White found suggests “he is not telling the truth about his birth,” she said in an email.

Detail of Jimmie Durham, “The Indian’s Family” (1985) (photo by the author for Hyperallergic)

Meanwhile, Meredith and White point to a page on findagrave.com, a crowd-sourced website, that features a photo of Durham’s parents, Jerry Loren Durham and Ethel Pauline Simmons Durham. The image of this couple is the same as the one Durham uses, along with the caption “The Indian’s Parents (frontal),” in his piece “The Indian’s Family” (1985) , which is now on view at the Walker. “They had two older daughters and another son, which matches Durham’s descriptions of his family,” Meredith said. “Ethel was born in Shover Springs, Hempstead County, Arkansas, and Jerry was likely born in Sutton, Nevada County, Arkansas.”

The findagrave.com entry lists Willie and Dallie Durham and Alden Fruman Simmons and Minnie Lou Card Simmons as Jimmie Durham’s grandparents. Durham mentions Dallie Harris, who married Willie Durham, in My Book, The East London Coelacanth, Sometimes Called, Troubled Waters; The Story of British Sea-Power, Begins With a Chapter Titled: Metal-Fatigue and Social Politics, published on occasion of his exhibition at the Institute of Contemporary Arts in London in 1993. “After 300 years of being Cherokee, she could still do an old-fashioned English fry-up,” Durham wrote of his grandmother, “with Cherokee tomatoes, eggs that came from what is ultimately a Chinese bird, sausages from the Tartars and all.”

According to census records found by White, the parents of Durham’s grandmother, Dallie Harris (1837–1957), were Jerry and Mary Harris. White says there is a John Harris listed on records of Western Cherokee in Arkansas, published in 1828, but Durham’s great-grandfather Jerry Harris was born in Georgia, according to his census records. White adds that the fact Durham’s family members are listed on census records from the 19th century at all is further indication that they were not Cherokee. “The Cherokee were never on a US census until 1900,” she said.

On its website, First American Art Magazine has published extensive resources related to the publication’s research into Durham’s genealogy. Just this week, Meredith and nine other artists and scholars published an open letter denouncing Durham’s claims to Cherokee identity.

Hyperallergic attempted to contact Durham to discuss these issues through his gallery in Europe, Michel Rein, as well as through the Walker Art Center, but received no answer.

Disclaimer

Beneath the main introductory wall text for Durham’s retrospective at the Walker, in small print, is a disclaimer. It reads:

While Jimmie Durham self-identifies as Cherokee, he is not recognized by any of the three Cherokee Nations, which as sovereign nations determine their own citizenship. We recognize that there are Cherokee artists and scholars who reject Durham’s claims of Cherokee ancestry.

That disclaimer was added following a meeting between Walker curator Vincenzo de Bellis, director Olga Viso, the Hammer’s senior curator Anne Ellegood, and four Native artists and curators: Heid E. and Louise Erdrich, Dyani White Hawk, and Rosy Simas. The meeting followed an earlier meeting with Simas and White Hawk several months ago, after which some of the publicity language around Durham’s Native identity was eliminated, according to White Hawk.

“I did leave feeling like they were genuinely, actively listening and concerned, and hopefully they will take up some of our requests,” White Hawk said after last week’s four-hour meeting.

According to the Walker’s Public Relations Assistant Director, Meredith Kessler, the disclaimer that now appears beneath the introductory wall text at the start of the exhibition and on a small sign in the museum’s store near the exhibition catalogue, “respects [Durham’s] preference for how he chooses to self-identify.” She added: “We understand that Jimmie Durham has supporters and detractors because of his Cherokee ancestry claim. We respect both points of view and welcome conversation about the complex set of Native sovereignty and identity issues that public response to the exhibition might elicit.”

Durham’s Place in the Canon

White Hawk had hoped the note could have been placed inside each of the catalogues, though right now it just exists as a sign near the books. The note is important, she said, because it will live on after the exhibition closes. “Exhibitions come and go, but that catalogue lives on in the libraries well beyond any of us,” White Hawk said. “I haven’t seen a catalogue of this size by a mainstream institution written about a solo exhibition by a Native artist with this much academic attention.”

Jimmie Durham, “Tlunh Datsi” (1984), puma skull, shells, turquoise, turkey feathers, metal, sheep and deer fur, pine, acrylic paint, 40 1/2 x 35 3/4 x 31 3/4 in, private collection, Belgium

Even focusing on the controversy around Durham means there’s less attention paid to other Native artists, says Cherokee scholar Lara Evans, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture. “I wish we were talking about other Cherokee artists,” she told Hyperallergic. “And talking about the controversy is one of the ways that conversation completely gets derailed into talking about issues of authenticity and promoting an artist who probably doesn’t need promoting as a Native artist.” Evans named Shan Goshhorn, Jeffrey Gibson, Kade Twist, and Kay WalkingStick as some of the prominent Cherokee artists who don’t get enough attention.

Art historian Nancy Marie Mithlo, who challenged Lippard’s framing of Durham as a native artist way back in 1993 (in a piece recently republished by First American Art), said that not much has changed in the past 24 years. “There is largely a willed ignorance about contemporary Native American identity and issues, especially in the arts world,” she told Hyperallergic.

Gwen Westerman, a Dakota and Cherokee artist, said “ethnic fraud” is not a new problem. Neither is how little attention is paid to Native experts who call out mainstream institutions for mistakes. “When Native artists and curators expose a forgery, they are challenged on their authority,” she told Hyperallergic. “Somehow the theft of Native identity is trivialized, and as Native artists and curators we must speak out and keep speaking out about artists like Jimmie Durham. His work continues to be sold and publicized as the work of a Native artist, and museums are complicit in this fraud when they continue to actively or tacitly promote him that way.”

Westerman sees the dialogue around Durham as an opportunity to change the narrative of the way mainstream institutions interact with Native communities. “It is their responsibility to do better in the future,” she said. “They can begin by admitting that it was a mistake to bring this show here to the heart of Ojibwe and Dakota country.”

For White Hawk, the Walker needs to back up its engagement with the Native communities through action. Referencing last month’s controversy over Sam Durant’s “Scaffold” sculpture — when the artist and the Walker chose to remove the sculpture from the Minneapolis Sculpture Garden due to outcry by Dakota community members over its reference to traumatic events in their history — White Hawk saw that the Walker is capable of making change.

“The ‘Scaffold’ situation was not perfect, but they chose to take action and they didn’t have to do that,” she said. “Hopefully this is a turning point. Hopefully the institutions that are involved in this will become more connected to Native artists, Native scholars, Native writers and professionals, and those connections will be built and hopefully there can be a more longstanding relationship with our communities through this experience.”

Jimmie Durham, “Zeke Proctor’s Letter” (1989), acrylic paint, ink, and enamel spray paint on paper, 32 1/8 x 22 in each, Hammer Museum, Los Angeles (photo courtesy kurimanzutto, Mexico City)

Jimmie Durham: At the Center of the World continues at the Walker Art Center (725 Vineland Place, Minneapolis, Minnesota) through October 8.

The post Jimmie Durham Retrospective Reignites Debate Over His Claim of Native Ancestry appeared first on Hyperallergic.

from Hyperallergic http://ift.tt/2tqJNeD via IFTTT

#IFTTT #Hyperallergic

0 notes