The Importations of Merino Sheep.

Between 1800 and 1815, a noteworthy effort was made to improve the native stock by the importation of rams and ewes from Spain. The Spanish Merino sheep had long been famous for the weight and excellent quality of their wool, but on account of rigid exportation restrictions it had been practically impossible to bring representatives of the stock to this country. These restrictions were broken down about the year 1800, during the disorganization of the government of Spain following the Napoleonic invasion. Advantage of this state of affairs was taken by our ambassadors in Spain and France, Col. David Humphreys and Robert Livingston, as well as by certain other Americans who were abroad at that time. They secured a few of these valuable animals, which they shipped back to America. The only importations of importance into New England before 1809 were the flock of 70 ewes and 21 rams sent by Col. Humphreys in 1802.1 Although from the very first there was no doubt of the great improvement which the mixture of the Spanish with the native breed produced upon the latter,2 yet the ordinary farmer was slow in benefiting thereby. In the first place, the knowledge of the importations spread slowly, and then the prices at which the Merinos sold were so exorbitant,3 that few even of the most prosperous of gentlemen-farmers could afford to experiment with them. In general we may say that it was the lack of a commercial stimulus which retarded progress along this line, as well as along all others. The native breed, poor as they were, supplied enough wool and mutton for the farmer's own family. The demand for wool in the domestic 'Sheep Industry in U. S., p. 136.

2 The Massachusetts Agricultural Society printed in its Papers for 1807 two enthusiastic letters from Colonel Humphreys stating that the Merinos, both of pure and mixed blood, were hardier, better adapted to the climate of New England, and more easily nourished than the common or native breed. In addition they produced more and better wool and attained a larger size and greater weight. pp. 59-63.

3 Humphreys did not sell any until 1805; then he sold some at prices ranging from $1,000 to $1,500 apiece. Livingston sold his rams at $150 apiece. Sheep Industry in U. S., pp. 140, 167.

4 Livingston describes the position of sheep in American agriculture as follows: "Sheep have heretofore not been kept in any great numbers. They never made an object in American husbandry. Every farmer kept a few to run over his stubble, and pick up the hay that the horses and cattle wasted. There being no regular demand for wool, no more sheep were kept than supplied the farmer's family with what was necessary for their domestic manufacture of stockings, mittens, petticoats, coverlids, and coarse cloth for servants and children American Agriculture, p. 336.

industries was, it is true, steadily increasing, but it had not become strong enough to induce a systematic attempt to improve the breed. It was not until the newly established woolen factories1 had grown to be large consumers of wool that the New England farmers felt the impetus to increased production.

The attempts to improve the breed of sheep by the importation of the Merinos is a typical illustration of a larger movement towards the betterment of the agricultural industry as a whole, which began to make progress in the closing years of the eighteenth century. The impetus came from the patriotic impulses of men of education and of public affairs, who had come to learn of the "new husbandry" of Tull, Bakewell, and Young, which had created such a stir in England. Some of them had by personal observation been impressed with the contrast presented by the results of the improved system beside the wasteful and inefficient methods with which they were familiar at home.2 Others, like Washington, had learned of the English improvements at second-hand but had increased their knowledge by active correspondence with the leaders of the movement on the other side. The Revolution itself had its part in furthering this new movement. Not only did it arouse a new patriotism, but, in conventions as well as on the field, it brought together and made acquainted the leading men from the various states. When, after these exciting days were over, they had retired to their homes, they turned their energies to the improvement of agriculture.

The Agricultural Societies-Character of their Work.

In order to make their efforts more effective, these pioneers in agricultural improvement formed associations or agricultural societies, modeled in general upon those which had been organized abroad."

1 For a discussion of the number and size of these factories established before 1810, see supra pp. 273-274.

2 Such pioneers in the movement for agricultural improvement as Samuel Adams, David Humphreys, Elkanah Watson, as well as Jefferson and Livingston, had all had opportunities to observe the English and European methods in the years between the Revolution and 1810.

3 Washington corresponded with Arthur Young, William Strickland, with James Anderson, the Scottish economist and agriculturist, and with Sir John Sinclair, the first president of the British Board of Agriculture. The latter wrote numerous letters to such prominent men as James Madison, John Jay, Gouverneur Morris and James Monroe, which, it must be confessed, were on the whole neglectfully answered. See Sinclair's Correspondence. 2 vols. London. 1831, passim.

The predominance of foreign influences in the establishment of these societies is clearly apparent. In the preface to the Memoirs of the Philadelphia society

The nature of these societies and of the work they proposed to carry on is clearly revealed in the prefaces of their articles of association. They were not intended to be clubs of practical working farmers who might aid each other by the exchange of facts and ideas from experience, but rather groups of men of all professions who were to receive, adapt, and disseminate the knowledge of the progress accomplished in other countries. So the preface to the Laws and Regulations of the Massachusetts Society for Promoting Agriculture1 reads: "One great object of this Society will be, to obtain and publish an account of the improvements of other countries, and to procure models of the machines in which they excel. It will attend to whatever relates to rural affairs, and especially to promote an increase of the products of our lands, To encourage the utmost attention to these objects, the Society will, from time to time, offer such premiums as their funds will admit. They consider agriculture in all its various branches and connexions as highly interesting to all mankind. The wealth and importance of the community, is so intimately connected with, and dependent on the extent and success of agriculture, that every one who is desirous of advancing the happiness, prosperity, and dignity of his country, its commerce, and convenient subsistence of individuals, will lend his aid to this most useful institution." The appeal of the society organized in Philadelphia in 1785 is equally broad.3

These appeals were answered in the spirit in which they were

references are continually made to the superior agriculture of Europe and to the necessity of adopting and adapting its methods. "As other countries receive the benefits of our labours, in the products supplied to them, it is

fit that we should profit by their experience in the arts of cultivation p. viii. This society acknowledged its indebtedness to prominent European agriculturists by electing them to honorary membership. Arthur Young, William Bakewell, and Count Castiglioni, of Milan, were so honored.

1 Organized 1792.

2 Published in Boston, 1793. Agric. Repository, Vol I., pp. iii-iv.

3 Here we read: "THE PHILADELPHIA SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING AGRICULTURE, was formed by some citizens, only a few of whom were actually engaged in husbandry, but who were convinced of its necessity; and of the assistance which such an association, properly attended to, would afford to the interests of agriculture. Many citizens have a mistaken

idea, that their not being agriculturists, disqualifies them from becoming useful members of our Society The interests of Commerce, Arts, and Manufactures, form, with Agriculture, an indissoluble union; to which citizens of every class and calling, have it amply in their power to contribute." Memoirs, Vol. I. pp. ii, iv (note).

issued. An examination of the early membership of these societies shows that they were composed of men in whose lives agriculture was only one of many interests, and often the least important of all. There were in the Massachusetts society men of legal education, who had become prominent in political life, such as Samuel Adams, James Sullivan, then attorney-general of the state and later governor, General Joseph Lincoln, then Collector of the port of Boston, Christopher Gore, John Lowell and Jonathan Mason, all lawyers and active in politics and government. Besides these there were merchants, such as Stephen Higginson, Charles Vaughan and Azor Orne. We find also representatives of the other two professions, ministers and doctors, who, blessed with an outlook on the affairs of the community beyond their immediate duties, turned their attention to improvements in agriculture.1 The interest of such men as these in agriculture, although no doubt genuine, was nevertheless far different in nature and in intensity from that of the inland farmer who was toiling day in and day out on his 100 acres, endeavoring to make a living for himself and his family. The contrast in point of view which must have existed between the "literary" and the practical agriculturists is evident from such a statement as that of General Warren, in the American Museum. He gives his reasons for being interested in agriculture in the following words: "Agriculture has long been a favourite object with me. In a philosophic view, it is great and extensive; in a political view, it is important, and perhaps the only firm and stable foundation of greatness. As a profession, it strengthens the mind, without enervating the body. In morals, it tends to increase virtue, without introducing vice. In religion, it naturally inspires piety, devotion, and a dependence on providence, without a tincture of infidelity. It is a rational and agreeable amusement to a man of leisure, and a boundless source of contemplation and activity to the industrious."2

The influence of these societies on the progress of agriculture in this period, on the methods employed by the farmers in rural com

1 Such were the Rev. Manasseh Cutler and Cotton Tufts, the physician. The Philadelphia society included such famous persons as John Dickinson, the president of the state, Tench Coxe, merchant and publicist, and Hugh Brackenridge, lawyer and editor. It is interesting to note in this connection that the two most important treatises on agriculture published before 1800 in New England were the work of clergymen, Rev. Jared Eliot, of Killingworth, Connecticut, and Rev. Samuel Deane, of Portland, Maine. See Appendix C.

2 Op. cit., II. 344.

munities, was so slight as to be practically negligible. They were "a voice crying in the wilderness," forerunners of improvements comparable to those which had already taken place abroad. But for reasons which we shall presently set forth, the time was not ripe for the acceptance of their doctrines and propaganda. Their principal service was in preparing the way for future progress.1

The Contemporary Criticisms were Deserved.

Reviewing for a moment the evidence presented in the foregoing paragraphs, we can see clearly that the criticisms of New England agriculture at the beginning of the nineteenth century were fully deserved. The tillage of the fields was but a superficial scratching of the surface soil with clumsy tools; very little care was taken to preserve or increase the fertility of the soil by crop rotation or even by the simple and obvious method of applying manures; because of the neglect of root crops, the fodder for live stock was insufficient; the lack of nourishment, coupled with imperfect shelter and inattention to the principles of selection in breeding, had caused a general degeneration in practically all kinds of domestic animals. The same lack of intelligent effort, seen in the neglect of the productivity of his land and stock, is evident in the farmer's management of his orchards and woodlands. In general, the system of agriculture was not only extensive but even in many respects predatory; the farmers had little stimulus to get anything beyond a living, and in getting that they had little regard for the effects which their system of husbandry might have on the prosperity of future proprietors of their land.

'There were perhaps a dozen of these societies organized, principally in cities on the eastern seaboard, before 1800. Among this number were those organized in Charleston, S. C., in 1784; in Philadelphia, in 1785; in New York, 1791; and in Boston, 1792. Besides these there were a few smaller societies such as the Western Society of Middlesex Husbandmen, 1794; the Kennebec Agricultural Society, 1800; and the New Haven County (Conn.) Agricultural Society, 1803. In the smaller societies the practical farmers seem to have formed a large, perhaps a predominant element, but the initiative and direction came from men whose interest in agriculture was but subsidiary to other interests. See Carver, Historical Account, p. 56; and Butterfield, K. L., Art. Farmers' Social Organizations, in Bailey's Cyclopedia of American Agriculture, IV. 290–291. The manuscript Proceedings of the New Haven society are preserved in the library of Yale University. The transactions of some of the larger societies, such as those in Philadelphia and Boston, were published, along with various contributed articles. These publications are more valuable for the light they shed on the state of scientific knowledge of agriculture than for information on the current practices of farmers.