Information to Users

Home , Antebellum architecture, Haller Nutt, James Brown Clay, Stephen Duncan

INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter free, while others may be from any type of computer printer.

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book.

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/321-0600

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. “SUCH A PARADISE CAN BE MADE ON EARTH:”

FURNITURE PATRONAGE AND CONSUMPTION

IN ANTEBELLUM NATCHEZ, MISSISSIPPI

1828-1863

Jason T. Busch

A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the University of Delaware in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree cf Master of Arts in Early American Culture

Summer 1998

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number: 1391755

This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

UMI 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. “SUCH A PARADISE CAN BE MADE ON EARTH:”

FURNITURE PATRONAGE AND CONSUMPTION

IN ANTEBELLUM NATCHEZ, MISSISSIPPI

1828-1863

Jason T. Busch

Approved: ______J. Ritchie Garrison, Ph.D. Professor in charge of thesis on behalf of the Advisory Committee

Approved: James-C. Curtis, Ph.D. tor, Winterthur Program in Early American Culture

Approved: c JohnC/Cavanaugh, Ph.D. Vice Provost for Academic Programs and Planning

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

My difficult yet challenging journey through the furniture patronage and consumption of antebellum Natchez has included the support and guidance of many

individuals and institutions. First and foremost, I would like to thank the National Park Service and the Historic Natchez Foundation for funding my summer research,

primarily with a Lower Mississippi Delta Region Initiative Grant. I hope that my thesis will be useful to future scholarship and interpretation in Natchez and throughout this region.

I owe the highest debt of gratitude to my thesis advisor, J. Ritchie Garrison. Ritchie has done more than just provide suggestions. He has instructed my research plan and helped to formulate both my ideas and writing. A constant source of encouragement, Ritchie has always been able to perceive my problems and situations, acting as much as a friend as an advisor.

I can never repay the moral support and advice that both Stephen Harrison and Richard Murphy have graciously offered me while working on my thesis. Their intelligence and skill in material culture and decorative arts is exemplary, and their shared knowledge and experience in the museum field will guide my future career.

I owe an equally large debt of thanks to Mary Warren (Mimi) and Ron Miller of the Historic Natchez Foundation. Not only did Mimi and Ron first encourage me to write my thesis on the antebellum furniture in Natchez, but they also shared with me a strong foundation of research that has been indispensable to my study. Mimi and

Ron have literally opened many doors, and provided numerous opportunities for me.

iii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I also wish to alphabetically thank the following people and organizations for the time, knowledge, and experience that they have shared with me: Carter Bums, Kathleen Catalano, Wendy Clark, and the staff and summer scholars at the Historic Natchez Foundation; Laura Chase; Wendy Cooper; Anna D’Ambrosio; Deborah Ducoff-Barone; William Erwin, Jr., Donald Fennimore; the staff of the Filson Club Historical Society; Mary Herbert and the staff of the Maryland Historical Society and Library; the staff of Hill Memorial Library, Kathleen Jenkins, Louisiana State University; the staff of the Inter-Library Loan Department, University of Delaware; Bruce Laverty; Dan Lewis; Jack Lindsey; M’Lissa Kesterman and the staff of the Rare Books and Special Collections Department, the Public Library of Cincinnati and Hamilton County; Tom McGehee; Jeff Meyer; the staff of the Mississippi Department of Archives and History Library; Roger Moss; Carol Petravage; Richard Peuser and the staff of the National Archives; Jodi Pollack; Alyson Reichgott; Thomas Gordon Smith;

Doug Southard; Betty Stewart; Peter Stickland; Brent Sverdloff and the staff of the Historical Collection, Baker Library, Harvard University School of Business Administration; Page Talbott; Catherine Hoover Voorsanger; Virginia Ward; Deborah Waters; Gregory Weidman; and the staff of the Winterthur Museum and Library.

Most importantly, I wish to thank the owners, friends, and staff of Arlington, Lansdowne, Melrose, Rosalie, and Stanton Hall. These people, as well as David Calcote, Caroline & Paul Brown Harrington, and the owners and staff of Auburn, Monmouth, and Weymouth Hall, shared with me their unbelievable collections of antebellum furniture. I dedicate this thesis to the people long past and present that have continued to preserve the rich material culture of Natchez, Mississippi.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES...... vi LIST OF FIGURES...... vii ABSTRACT...... xii

TEXT...... 1

APPENDIX: GEORGE J. HENKELS’ FURNITURE INVOICE TO HALLER NUTT...... 241

BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 245

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF TABLES

1 The 1851-1859 Furniture Orders of Robert H. Stewart

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF FIGURES

1 Ottoman, labeled by Meeks & Stewart, New York City, 1839 ...... 72

2 Label of Meeks & Stewart, New York City, 1839...... 73

3 Bed, inscribed in lead on interior of front cornice rail, “H or W C Schnenck,” c. 1850-1860...... 74

4 Armoire, inscribed in ink on back, “Care,” “Leverich,” N O.” (New Orleans), and “Natchez,” probably New York City, c. 1840 ...... 75

5 Bed, inscribed in ink on bottom rail, “JTMcMurren [sic] / Care Stanton & Buckner / Natchez,” c. 1835-1850 ...... 76

6 Table, retains remnants of label of Joseph Meeks & Sons, New York City, c. 1829-1835...... 77

7 Rocking Chair, labeled by Joseph Meeks & Sons, New York City, c. 1829-1835...... 78

8 Label of Joseph Meeks & Sons, New York City, c. 1829-1835...... 79

9 Divan (one of a pair), labeled with the stencil of J & J.W. Meeks, New York City, c. 1836-1846 ...... 80

10 Ottoman (one of three), attributed to J & J.W. Meeks, New York City, c. 1835-1845...... 81

11 Stenciled Label of J & J.W. Meeks, New York City, c. 1836-1846 ...... 82

12 Broadside of Joseph Meeks & Sons, New York City, 1833 ...... 83

13 Sofa (one of a pair, part of a suite) attributed to John Henry Belter, New York City, c. 1857-1859 ...... 84

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 14 Arm Chair (one of four, part of a suite), attributed to John Henry Belter, New York City, c. 1857-1859 ...... 85

15 Side Chair (one of twelve, part of a suite), attributed to John Henry Belter, New York City, c. 1857-1859 ...... 86

16 Table (one of a pair, part of a suite), attributed to John Henry Belter, New York City, c. 1857-1859 ...... 87

17 Etagere, attributed to John Henry Belter, New York City, c. 1850-1860 ...... 88

18 Reclining Arm Chair, probably Boston, c. 1830 ...... 89

19 Design for Reclining Chair, c. 1830...... 90

20 Design for Henkels’ Antique Furniture, Philadelphia, 1861 ...... 91

21 Design for Henkels’ Library Furniture, Philadelphia, 1861 ...... 92

22 Bookcase, probably Philadelphia, c. 1860 ...... 93

23 Bookcase, probably Philadelphia, c. 1860 ...... 94

24 Armoire, attributed to Robert H. Stewart, Natchez, 1862 ...... 138

25 Armoire, attributed to Robert H. Stewart, Natchez, 1862 ...... 139

26 Design for Large Union Rocking Chair, Heywood Chair Manufacturing Company, Gardner, Massachusetts, c. 1855-1880? ...... 140

27 Design for Child Bent Rocking Chair, Heywood Chair Manufacturing Company, Gardner, Massachusetts, c. 1855-1880? ...... 141

28 Design for Spindle Grecian Chair, Heywood Chair Manufacturing Company, Gardner, Massachusetts, c. 1855-1880? ...... 142

29 Camp Chair, labeled by E. W. Vaill, Worcester, Massachusetts, c. 1860 ...... 143

30 Label ofE. W. Vaill, Worcester, Massachusetts, c. 1860 ...... 144

31 Armoire, labeled by Edward Hixon, Boston, c. 1840-1850 ...... 145

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 32 Label of Edward Hixon, Boston, c. 1840-1850 ...... 146

33 Design for Rococo Revival Sofa, Foster & Lee, New York City, c. 1855-1860...... 147

34 Sofa, possibly New York City, c. 1855-1860 ...... 148

35 Design for Grecian Sofa, Foster & Lee, New York City, c. 1855-1860...... 149

36 Sofa, possibly New York City, c. 1855-1860 ...... 150

37 Bed, labeled with the stamp of Charles Lee, Manchester, Massachusetts, c. 1856-1860 ...... 151

38 Stamp of Charles Lee, Manchester, Massachusetts, c. 1856-1868 ...... 152

39 Armoire, probably Baltimore c. 1830-1840...... 153

40 Bureau, labeled by William McCracken, New Orleans, c. 1850-1855 ...... 192

41 Desk, labeled by William McCracken, New Orleans, c. 1855-1860 ...... 193

42 Label of William McCracken, New Orleans ...... 194

43 Design for Desk, Foster & Lee, New York City, c. 1855-1860 ...... 195

44 Secretary, once labeled by C. Flint & Jones, New Orleans, c. 1850 ...... 196

45 Hall Stand, labeled with the stencil of C. Flint & Jones, New Orleans c. 1840-1850...... 197

46 Hall Stand, c. 1830-1850 ...... 198

47 Armoire, c. 1850-1860 ...... 199

48 Dressing Table, probably New York, c. 1850-1860...... 200

49 Arm Chair (originally part of a set), probably New York, c. 1850-1860 ...... 201

50 Hall Stand (originally part of a set), c. 1850-1860 ...... 202

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 51 Hall Chair (one of a pair, originally part of a set), c. 1850-1860 ...... 203

52 Desk, c. 1855-1860...... 204

53 Armoire, c. 1850-1855...... 205

54 Armoire, c. 1850-1855...... 206

55 Armoire, c. 1850-1855...... 207

56 Bureau, c. 1850 ...... 208

57 Bureau, c. 1850 ...... 209

58 Arm Chair, probably Philadelphia, c. 1845 ...... 210

59 Side Chair, probably Philadelphia, c. 1845 ...... 211

60 Arm Chair, probably Philadelphia, c. 1845 ...... 212

61 Side Chair, probably Philadelphia, c. 1845 ...... 213

62 Rocking Chair (one of a pair), labeled by John Hancock & Company, Philadelphia, c. 1830-1840...... 214

63 Rocking Chair, labeled by John Hancock & Company, Philadelphia, c. 1830-1840...... 215

64 Label of John Hancock & Company, Philadelphia, c. 1830-1840 ...... 216

65 Sofa Table, signed “By / David Bodensick From Baltimore / And Sold By Mr.Cook & Perkins [sic] / Philadelphia, PA.” Baltimore, c. 1830 ...... 217

66 Winged Armoire, labeled with the stencil of Cook & Parkin, Philadelphia, c. 1830...... 218

67 Stenciled Label of Cook & Parkin, Philadelphia ...... 219

68 Table, labeled with the stencil of Barry & Krickbaum, Philadelphia, c. 1835 .....220

69 Dressing Table, labeled with the stencil of Charles H. White, Philadelphia, c. 1824-1835...... 221

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 70 Sofa (one of a pair), labeled with the stencil of Charles H. White, Philadelphia, c. 1824-1835...... 222

71 Stenciled Label of Charles H. White, Philadelphia, c. 1824-1838 ...... 223

72 Bed, probably Philadelphia, c. 1825-1830 ...... 224

73 Hat Stand, probably Philadelphia, c. 1825-1830 ...... 225

74 Sideboard, labeled by Charles H. White, Philadelphia, c. 1824-1835 ...... 226

75 Table (one of a pair), labeled by Charles H. White, Philadelphia, c. 1824-1835...... 227

76 Label of Charles H. White, Philadelphia, c. 1824-1830...... 228

77 Revolving Sofa, probably Philadelphia, c. 1850-1855 ...... 229

78 Stand for Revolving Sofa, probably Philadelphia, c. 1850-1855 ...... 230

79 Revolving Sofa, labeled with the stencil of Charles H. White, Philadelphia, 1852-1857 ...... 231

80 Stenciled label of Charles H. White, Philadelphia, 1852-1857 ...... 232

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ABSTRACT

This thesis uses extant furniture with a Natchez provenance to understand the local, domestic, and international connections of Natchezians, and the distribution and function of material goods within the antebellum cotton economy. Coupled with

relevant primary source documents, the furniture reveals consistent patterns of patronage and consumption among the most wealthy southerners from the lower Mississippi delta between approximately 1828-1863

Natchez took full advantage of the vibrant furniture trade with the north and east. Woodworkers, local auction houses, and merchants realized early that as cotton was shipped out of Natchez, furniture from Boston, Cincinnati, Philadelphia,

and New York could be imported to appease the consumer needs of increasingly

successful planters. Many of these planters were originally from the north and choose to order furniture personally or through their agents. These same planters, as well as Natchez furniture retailers, also took advantage of the growing furniture retail market

in New Orleans. Distribution of the furniture depended on strong business relationships established between commission merchants, local furniture retailers,

planters, and manufacturers. This study of patronage and consumption in Natchez demonstrates broader issues affecting the furniture-making industry during the antebellum period. Cities like Boston, Cincinnati, Philadelphia, and New York increasingly dominated furniture

design and production. They competed with each other for markets, such as the south.

Marked furniture in Natchez proves that planters desired different aesthetic

xii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. interpretations of the Grecian style. Both marked and unmarked objects indicate that traditional methods of furniture connoisseurship for earlier time periods needs to be modified to understand nineteenth century furniture manufacture and distribution. This study shows that while skill did not necessarily degrade in the nineteenth century, design aesthetic was redefined. Furthermore, furniture selection could no longer be considered a formula of social emulation, as availability and gender

increasingly came to affect selection. Essentially furniture patronage and consumption in antebellum Natchez is significant to a study of nineteenth century economics,

business history, gender history, and decorative arts.

X lll

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. THE PLANTERS OF NATCHEZ

Despite the growing interest in southern decorative arts in the last ten years,

there is still little known about furniture patronage and consumption patterns in the

cotton growing regions of the antebellum south, particularly the lower Mississippi

River valley. Recent scholarship on the furniture of Charleston, Savannah, and the

Appalachian or back country of Virginia and the Carolinas before 1840, has been

complemented by studies of the antebellum furniture trade in Arkansas, Mobile, and

New Orleans. It appears, however, that the highest concentration of extant furniture

made or used in antebellum America is in Natchez, Mississippi. Much of this furniture

remains intact in houses still owned by descendants of the original antebellum families,

while the rest is in houses under the administration of professional and cultural

organizations. Accompanied by a rich cache of family, probate, business, and

government papers that place the objects in context, the furniture in Natchez provides a

unique opportunity to document the consumer habits of one of the wealthiest areas of

antebellum America. While the furniture this study focuses on was only owned by rich

planters in Natchez, the purchasing patterns of this group can be broadly applied to

other elites and middling consumers throughout the lower Mississippi delta. 1 Perhaps

1 The Lower Mississippi Delta is a term broadly used today to denote portions of Illinois, Missouri, Kentucky, and Tennessee, and all of Mississippi, Louisiana, and

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. more importantly, a study of the antebellum furniture in Natchez helps to define the

complex patterns of furniture distribution that involved the entire country in the early to

mid-nineteenth century. Objects marked by their maker or retailer and written

documents confirm connections with northern and eastern furniture makers and dealers.

These connections suggest patterns of style and taste, while also providing a better

understanding as to how large scale manufacturing was molding furniture patronage

and consumption in America before the Civil War. 2

Natchez astonished its antebellum visitors. In July of 1863, Union general

Thomas Kirby Smith, then stationed in Natchez, wrote his wife the following:

Natchez is a beautiful little city of about 7000 or 8000 inhabitants, a place for many years past of no great business significance but rather a congregation of wealthy planters and retired merchants and professional men, who have built magnificent villas covering for the City a large space of ground. Wealth and taste, a most genial climate &

Arkansas (definition taken from Research Program Application, Lower Mississippi Delta Research Initiative). It is reasonable to assume that during the antebellum period the delta encompassed portions of Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arkansas, which contained the sugar and cotton plantations of Natchez planters.

2 For examples of recent scholarship on the south, see £. Bryding Adams, “Mortised, Tenoned, and Screwed Together: A Large Assortment of Alabama Furniture,” in Made in Alabama A State Legacy , ed. E. Bryding Adams (Birmingham, AL: Birmingham Museum of Art, 1995); Swannee Bennett and William B. Worthen, Arkansas Made A Survey o f Decorative, Mechanical, and Fine Arts Produced in Arkansas, 1819-1870, vol. 1 (Fayetteville, AK: University of Arkansas, 1990); Stephen G. Harrison, “Furniture Trade in New Orleans, 1840-1880: The Largest Assortment Constantly on Hand” (master’s thesis, University of Delaware, 1997); Robert A. Leath and Maurie D. Mclnnis, “Beautiful Specimens, Elegant Patterns: New York Furniture for the Charleston Market, 1810-1840,” in American Furniture 1996, ed. Luke Beckerdite (Hanover, NH: The Chipstone Foundation, 1996); Page Talbot, Classical Savannah Fine and Decorative Arts 1800-1840 (Savannah, GA: Telfair Museum of Art, 1995).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. kindly soil have enabled them to adorn these, in such a manner as almost to give the Northerner his realization of a fairy tale ... One continuously wonders that such a Paradise can be made on Earth.’'

Similarly, the Vicountess of Avonmore wrote in her book, Teresina in America (1875),

that “Natchez, before the war (Civil War), had been the Bath or Clifton of the South,

and the residences had more the appearance of wealth and style than those of any

Southern city, with the exception of Charleston and New Orleans.”-*

Antebellum Natchez was dominated by about forty families who were referred

to by the contemporary term of “nabob,” or “man of great wealth.” D. Clayton James,

who has written the seminal book on the history and culture of Natchez during the

antebellum period, defines the nabobs as “the town’s privileged class ... separated from

the masses primarily by distinctions of property and economic power.” This group,

which changed according to the immigration of new planters and the economic

conditions of existing members, was dominated by successful men of northern and

eastern origin. They were merchants and professionals who also became planters,

amassing fortunes from slave labor. Class stratification was important to the nabobs, as

Howard S. Falk, an employee of the Woodville Manufacturing Company just south of

Natchez, stated in the late-nineteenth century. They “could illy brook contradiction

3 Letter from General Thomas Kilby Smith to his wife, July 19, 1863 [typescript in the Clifton Research File, Historic Natchez Foundation, Natchez, Mississippi (hereafter the Historic Natchez Foundation will be cited as HNF)]; as quoted in Ronald Miller, “Historic Architecture and Interiors at Natchez, The Bath or Clifton of the South,” 1 (unpublished lecture in the collection of HNF).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and opposition from their equals ... they were slow to regard any as their equals except

those of their own class.” A Philadelphia banker visiting Natchez in 1840 echoed

Falk’s memoirs. “All seem to view me with suspicion. I have experienced no Southern

hospitality...my opinion of Southern hospitality - consider the dream to be realized as

all dream.” Class stratification had become an issue by the 1830s. As “frontier”

Natchez developed, mobility decreased and social structure became more defined.

Kinship became utterly important.^

The immigration of nabobs to Natchez primarily occurred between the 1820s

and 1830s, all of them lured by “King Cotton.” Many soon became nouveau riche,

earning their wealth from investment in northern securities, family inheritance from

local intermarriage, and cotton. General John Quitman, a planter originally from

Pennsylvania, commented as early as 1820 on how “cotton planting is the most

lucrative business that can be followed” in Natchez. Joseph Holt Ingraham, who taught

before the Civil War at nearby Jefferson College in Washington, Mississippi, provides

an enlightening observation of the cotton craze among Natchez capitalists:

A Plantation well stocked with hands, is the ne plus ultra of every man’s ambition who resides at the South. Young men who come to

4 D. Clayton James, Antebellum Natchez (Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University, 1968) 136, 137, 146, 149; Morton Rothstein, “The Natchez Nabobs: Kinship and Friendship in an Economic Elite,” in Toward a New View o f America: Essays in Honor o fArthur C. Cole, ed. Hans L. Trefousse (New York: Burt Franklin and Co., 1977) 97; Howard S. Fulkerson, Random Recollections o f Early Days in Mississippi (Vicksburg, MS; 1885) 16; Journal of J. W. Faires (?), Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. this country ‘to make money,’ soon catch the mania, and nothing less than a broad plantation, waving with the snow white cotton bolls, can fill their mental vision...Not till every acre is purchased and cultivated- not till Mississippi becomes one vast cotton field, will this mania, which has entered into the very marrow, bone and sinew of a Mississippian’s system, pass away.

By 1860, Adams County, Mississippi and Concordia Parish, Louisiana, the areas

including and immediately surrounding the city of Natchez, contained more millionaires

than any other locality in America. 5

Antebellum Natchez was located in the geographical center of “the world’s

richest cotton growing region.” By the early 1830s the vast number of plantations

owned by the planters were located outside of Natchez and Adams County; they

stretched far into the parishes and counties of Louisiana and Arkansas, and up through

northern Mississippi. The wealthiest planters distanced themselves from the plantations

that supported them, choosing to live in Natchez as absentees. The nabobs’ choice to

5 Letter to Frederick H. Quitman from John A. Quitman, January 16, 1822, as partially reprinted in Katharine M. Jones, The Plantation South (New York; Bobbs-Merrill, 19S7) 236; Sim C. Callon; David G. Sansing; and Caroline Vance Smith, Natchez An Illustrated History (Natchez, MS; Plantation, 1992) 77; William K. Scarborough, “Lords or Capitalists? The Natchez Nabobs in Comparative Perspective,” The Journal o f Mississippi History (August, 1992) 243; Joseph Holt Ingraham, The South-West. By A Yankee (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1835) 84-86, as reprinted in Natchez National Historical Park Natchez, Mississippi Historic Resource Study (Boston: Ann Beha Associates, 1995) 36; Thomas A. H. Scarborough, “Cotton, Planters, and Plantations in the Natchez District, 1760-1880,” in Natchez On The Mississippi A Journey Through Southern History 1870-1920, eds., Joyce L. Broussard and Ronald L. F. Davis, (Northridge, CA: California State University School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1995) 15.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. become absentee landowners of plantations is not a reflection of their commitment to

Natchez, as they spent their money on their own houses, furnishings, families, and

friends. In Natchez, the nabobs built palatial townhouses and suburban villas that

reflected conservative styles in architecture but the most fashionable taste in

furnishings, almost all of which was made or retailed in the fashion centers of New

Orleans, Cincinnati, and the large cities of the east coast. Joseph Holt Ingraham stated

in 1835, “Several individuals possess incomes of from forty to fifty thousand dollars,

and live in a style commensurate with their wealth.” Lecturer J. S. Buckingham

observes in 1840 that Natchezians were: “the most elegant, both in dress, appearance,

and ease and polish of manners, that I had yet seen in the United States.” The

appearance of this wealth, whether it be in the form of dress or furniture, was of high

concern to the nabobs.^

6 Ronald Miller, “Historic Architecture and Interiors at Natchez, The Bath or Clifton of the South,” 1, 9; James, 147-148, 150; Mary Warren (Mimi) Miller and Ronald W. Miller, The Great Houses o f Natchez (Jackson, MS: University Press of Mississippi, 1986) x; Ronald Miller, “Historic Preservation in Natchez, Mississippi” Antiques (March, 1977) 539; As a result of their complex property holdings outside of Natchez, Adams County, and Mississippi, it is difficult to accurately estimate the worth of any one planter at any particular time during the antebellum period; Rothstein, “The Natchez Nabobs: Kinship and Friendship in an Economic Elite,” 102; Natchez National Historical Park, 42; The term “suburban villa” was perhaps first used to refer to the mansions surrounding the city of Natchez in Adams County by Frederick Law Olmsted in the early 1860s. Andrew Jackson Downing defines the term with examples of architectural designs in The Architecture o f Country Houses (New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1850).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Comprising only about one percent of the population in Natchez during the

entire antebellum period, the nabobs exercised an extraordinary amount of social and

economic influence. This strong influence eventually discouraged further immigration

from ambitious entrepreneurs and potential planters hoping to taken advantage of

economic opportunity. By the 1850s, Natchez had become geographically isolated,

inaccessible by railroad, and limited commercially only to river traffic. Isolated,

strategically unimportant, and bound by ethnic, familial, and, particularly, economic ties

to the north, Natchez was spared from devastation while occupied by the Union army

for most of the Civil War7 *

The cotton economy that had supported Natchezians before the war collapsed

when peace came. Capital was so heavily invested in land and slaves that all attempts

at establishing manufacturing enterprises were thwarted during the antebellum period.

As a result, the wealth of most planters disintegrated in the face of black emancipation

and the loss of their labor supply. The vast majority of nabobs were forced to retrench

in all aspects of consumption, including the purchase of stylish furnishings, the most

visible manifestation of their wealth.**

Succeeding generations, still suffering from a depressed economy, assured

responsibility for keeping and caring for the possessions of their ancestors, tangible

7 James, 160; Natchez National Historical Park, 2.

8 James, 160.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. tokens of a mythic “paradise” that existed in Natchez during the first half of the

nineteenth century. Despite the rich cache of objects as well as documents on the

material life of the nabobs, a systematic analysis of the furniture in antebellum Natchez

has never before been conducted. This lacuna is surprising considering the sizable

literature on the antebellum architecture and lives of the nabobs in Natchez.

Furthermore, since the early-twentieth century, numerous theme and guide books that

include Natchez continue to identify the houses and collections that are in need of

study. Likewise, several articles or books on specific houses that contain most of their

original antebellum contents have clearly established a foundation for further study of

the decorative arts.^

9 Ronald W. Miller, “Historic Preservation in Natchez, Mississippi,” 539; For literature on preservation in Natchez after the Civil War, see Michael Fazio, “Architectural Preservation in Natchez, Mississippi: A Conception of Time and Place,” Southern Quarterly 19 (1980) 136-149 and Ronald W. Miller, “Historic Preservation in Natchez, Mississippi,” Antiques 3 (March, 1977) 538-548; For literature on the political, economic, and social worlds of the nabobs and other antebellum Natchezians, see D. Clayton James, Antebellum Natchez (Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University, 1968); Morton Rothstein, “The Natchez Nabobs: Kinship and Friendship in an Economic Elite,” in Toward a New View o f America: Essays in Honor o f Arthur C. Cole, ed. Hans L Trefousse (New York: Burt Franklin and Co., 1977); and William K. Scarborough, “Lords or Capitalists? The Natchez Nabobs in Comparative Perspective,” The Journal o f Mississippi History (August, 1992); For examples of theme and guide books and articles that include Natchez houses and decorative arts, see “Antiques in Domestic Settings Ante-Bellum Homes in Natchez,” Antiques (March, 1942) 190-191; Joseph T. Butler, American Antiques 1800-1900 A Collector s History and Guide (New York: Odyssey, 1965); Wendell Garrett, Victorian America Classical Romanticism to Gilded Opulence (New York, Rizzoli, 1993); Katharine S. Howe and David B. Warren, The Gothic Revival in America, 1830-1870 (Houston, TX: The Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, 1976); Nola Nance Oliver, This Too is Natchez (New York: Hastings House, 1953); Celia Jackson Otto, American Furniture o f the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The following study analyzes the complex connections between planters and

furniture makers and retailers. The evidence comes primarily from seven townhouses

or suburban villas in Natchez that are preserved with a significant amount of their

original furniture (c. 1825-1861). The antebellum furniture of five of these mansions--

Melrose, Stanton Hall, Rosalie, Arlington, and Lansdowne—has been cataloged to

record basic information on each object and to document any marks attached by maker,

retailer, or original owner. Several other objects with a Natchez provenance assist the

task of identifying makers and retailers that antebellum customers patronized. The

cataloguing project has located twenty-nine marked objects from the antebellum

period, acquired by makers and retailers from Boston, Manchester, and Worcester,

Massachusetts, as well as Philadelphia, New Orleans, and New York. At least the

same number of objects are marked with an inscription or stamp not yet identified. It is

possible to safely attribute a few unmarked objects to particular makers, and several

Nineteenth Century (New York: Viking, 1965); Celia Jackson Otto, “Pillar and Scroll: Greek Revival Furniture of the 1830s,” Antiques (May 1962): 504-507; John Ownes and Reid Smith, The Majesty o f Natchez (Prattville, AL: Paddle Wheel Publications, 1969); and Mrs. Raymond Tyree, Natchez Ante-Bellum Homes (Natchez, MS: Tom L. Retchings, 1964); For articles and books on specific houses in Natchez, see William Nathaniel Banks, “Melrose in Natchez, Mississippi” Antiques (March 1987) 650-657; Mary Warren (Mimi) Miller and Ronald W. Miller, The Great Houses o f Natchez (Jackson, MS: University Press of Mississippi, 1986); Natchez National Historical Park Natchez , Mississippi Historic Resource Study (Boston: Ann Beha Associates, 1995); and Caroline Vance Smith, “Stanton Hall in Natchez, Mississippi” Antiques (March 1988) 704-713.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. catalogued objects not in the five sample houses serve as interesting comparisons

because of their overall similarity in form and ornamentation.

Manuscripts and other primary source documents clarify evidence from the

furniture. Newspaper advertisements, city directories, and census records throughout

the antebellum period identify the changing names of Natchez furniture makers and

retailers, and shifting furniture distribution practices. The business records of one

Natchez retailer document orders that he placed with makers and dealers in Cincinnati,

New Orleans, and the northeast. Credit reports, bankruptcy records, and contemporary

publications are also useful for providing more information about the businesses of

these makers and retailers, and, in particular, their connection with Natchez and the

south. Receipts, bills of lading, shipping manifests, and court cases document the

furniture distributed and used in Natchez by elites and non-elites, grounding the object

evidence in a larger historical context. Finally, letters between several Natchez planters

and their New York and Philadelphia agents demonstrate the varied influences that

acted upon planter families purchasing furniture for their grand Natchez mansions. The

story of furniture patronage and consumption in Natchez is complicated, but working

back and forth between objects and documents identifies patterns of cultural exchange

in antebellum America.

The other mansions not examined are Richmond and Green Leaves.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. FURNITURE MAKING AND RETAILING IN ANTEBELLUM NATCHEZ

A precarious land route known as the Natchez Trace physically connected

Natchez with Nashville, Tennessee during the eighteenth-century, but it was only after

the introduction of steamboat traffic along the lower Mississippi River in the 1811, that

Natchez truly became linked to the cultural, economic, and social centers of America

on the east coast. Before the steamboat, slow, inefficient keelboats and barges, often

accompanied by high freight charges, could transport goods up the Mississippi River

from New Orleans. Clumsy, often crudely constructed rafts and flatboats, each used

for only one journey, brought materials down the Mississippi River. The transport of

manufactured domestic goods, such as furniture, blossomed after 18IS. The lower

south as a whole increasingly shifted the majority of its labor force to cotton

production, while most extant industry became limited to refining agricultural products

rather than to producing material goods for domestic consumption. Thus, steamboat

packet lines transported manufactured goods into Natchez as cotton was shipped from

the docks at the Natchez landing. These packet lines had better freight rates and

schedules than flat boats, keelboats, and tramp steamboats that often traveled on

irregular dates and routes.11

11 James, 193; Louis C.Hunter, Steamboats on the Western Rivers An Economic and Technological History ( Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1949) 53-54, 59-60;

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. While antebellum planters could theoretically import furniture into Natchez by

the 1810s and 1820s, local furniture makers from this early period are also

documented. Many of these makers undoubtedly established their trades to meet the

ever-increasing consumer demands of the Natchez planters, and, to a lesser degree, to

accommodate the needs of non-elites and middling class farmers in the surrounding

counties and parishes. For example, by 1818, John D. Cochran and Benjamin Grimes

were advertising that they could make Windsor chairs at their shop. Despite their

presence in Natchez, and regardless of their skill, local makers always had to compete

with imported furniture in the antebellum period. 12

Economic survival as well as necessity may have influenced several Natchez

furniture makers in the first quarter of the nineteenth century to pursue a variety of

woodworking trades. For example, Levi Weeks, architect of Auburn, one of the

earliest antebellum mansions in Natchez, wrote to an Epaphras Hoyt in September of

1812 that he also operated a cabinet and chair business:

My employment is the superintendence of a large brick and Presbyterian Church as architect. Those buildings together with a cabinet and chair shop that I carry on soley [sic] without even a foreman that can be depended on you will readily believe occupy most of my time.

George Rogers Taylor,The Transportation Revolution 1815-1860 vol. 4, The Economic History of the United States (White Plains, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1951) 56, 57, 69-70, 105, 107, 112; Peter Kolchin, American Slavery 1619-1877 (New York: Hill and Wang, 1993) 16.

12 The Mississippi State Gazette , May 9, 1818 (1 am grateful to the HNF for providing this reference).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. A similar though much later record of carpenters working as furniture makers is a

receipt from carpenter Thomas Rose, who made a bed frame for nabob planter Haller

Nutt in February of 1852. Considering the large number of antebellum mansions

constructed in and around Natchez up to the 1850s, it is reasonable to assume that until

the Civil War, skilled, local woodworkers, including carpenters, produced custom

ordered furniture or operated a furniture making business on the side, similar to Weeks

and possibly Rose. ^

By the 1820s, the furniture makers in Natchez appeared to combine the efforts

of several different woodworkers, including turners and carvers. Cabinetmaker

Richard Cecil, who advertised in 1828 that he carried on the various -- though

unexplained ~ branches of his business at a site opposite the Masonic Hall in Natchez,

claimed to have “on hand a quantity of good seasoned cherry and mahogany lumber,

which will enable him to furnish all kinds of FURNITURE, of the best and most

I3 Receipt for Haller Nutt from Thomas Rose, February 2, 1852, Records of Ante bellum Southern Plantationsfrom the Revolution through the Civil, SeriesWar F, Part 1, Haller Nutt Papers, 1846-1860; William L Whitwell, The Heritage ofLongwood. (Jackson, MS: University Press of Mississippi, 1975) 23, 43; Mildred Blewett McGehee, “Levi Weeks, Early Nineteenth-Century Architect” (master’s thesis, University of Delaware, 1976) 42-43; Natchez National Historical Park, 33; For a parallel discussion of how rural cabinetmakers in New England during the late- eighteenth and early-nineteenth centuries worked as both carpenters and wood workers, see Philip Zea, “Rural Craftsmen and Design,” in New England Furniture: The Colonial Era, eds. Brock Jobe and Myma Kaye (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1984) 47-72.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. durable materials ” While Cecil may have been skilled at actual furniture assembly, he

still required the services of turner Jesse Trahem, who filed a debt action against Cecil

for $114.12 1/2, probably in 1829, as recorded in an undated Adams County chancery

clerk petition. The probate record lists a description and cost for the services Trahem

performed for Cecil, the majority of which were turning bureau columns, table legs, bed

posts, bureau feet, short feet, crib posts, banisters, bookcase legs, fancy posts, stand

pillars, and high mast bedsteads. Similarly, in 1824, wood carver John McCanaco sued

probable cabinetmaker David Collins for services worth $239.00, included the carving

of four bed posts, twenty columns, and twenty-four lion’s paws. Obviously furniture

makers like Cecil and Collins needed to rely on the skill of other woodworkers to

complete custom orders, let alone to maintain a variety of stocked furniture. ^

An example from the 1830s of Natchez furniture makers relying on each other

for specialized skills, provides more evidence as to how makers shared services. From

June through August of 1837, Ausbum Brown and William H. Johnson, under the

name of Brown & Johnson, made one armoire plinth, one lounge, one trundle bedstead,

14 The Ariel, February 2, 1828 [The same advertisement also appears in The Ariel on the following dates in 1828: February 16; March 15, 22, 29; April 5, 12, 19, 25 or 26,; May 3, 10, 24; July 26; August 2, 9, 16, 23, 30; September 6 (a similar advertisement by Richard Cecil appears in The Ariel, October 19, 1827; I am grateful to HNF for supplying this last reference)]; Office of the Chancery Clerk, Adams County Probate, Box 41, HNF [I am grateful to Mi mi Miller (HNF) for bringing this case to my attention]; Circuit Court Case, John McCanaco vs. David Collins, Cabinetmakers Research File, HNF.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and twelve bedsteads for David Perry of Natchez. Brown & Johnson also credited

Perry's account with turning two sets of posts, and supplying the firm with one pair of

castors, three dozen glass knobs, three dozen sideboard locks, four dozen plain locks,

six dozen table hinges, and six brass bolts. The Brown & Johnson receipt for services

suggests that Perry was connected with the furniture business in Natchez, at the very

least serving as a hardware supplier. However, from November of 1836 through July

of 1837, William Wilkins supplied Perry with $349.25 worth of lumber and turned

posts, legs, feet, and pillars for tables, bedsteads, cribs, desks, and probably a number

of other furniture forms. Perry might have then sold some of these same turned posts

to Brown & Johnson. As Perry was receiving large amounts of lumber and pre-made

furniture parts, Wilkins’ invoice documents that Perry had a practice of assembling

furniture and was probably trained as a furniture maker. ^

Perry’s estate inventory confirms that he specialized in a furniture selling

business by the number and variety of furniture forms recorded:

2 Secretarys [sic] & Book Cases $110 each 220 1 do do $100 100 1 Dressing Bureau $55 55 1 Mahogany Armour [sic] $75 75 2 do Sideboards $90 each 180

Invoice from Brown & Johnson to David F. Perry, October 21, 1837, and Invoice from William W. Wilkins to David F. Perry, December 23, 1837, both Probate Box 20, David F. Perry, Folder 1 of 2, Adams County Courthouse, Natchez, Mississippi (hereafter Adams County Courthouse will be cited as ACCH).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 Secretary & Small Bookcase 75 75 1 pair of Dining Tables 30 30 3 Dining Tables $14 each 42 3 Walnut Tables 12 “ 36 1 do Cherry $14 14 5 Breakfast Tables 8 40 4 Cherry Work stands 7 28 1 Mahogany 8 8 5 Cherry Candle stands 6 30 1 do Wash stand 6 6 1 Candle stand 4 4 3 Cypress Tables 5 15 1 do do 5 5 1 Fine Bookcase 25 25 1 Crib Bedstead 18 18 1 hat stand 7 7 42 Sugar tree Bedsteads 12 each 504 3 Popplars [sic] do 11 “ 33 5 Picture Frames 1 “ 5 1 Keg Nails 8 8 1 Rifle Gun 25 25 1 Pistol $15 15 1 Bowie knife 10 10 9 Boxes Percussion Caps $.25 2.25 37 vol [volumes] Books $.37 1/2 13.87 1/2 42 doz 1 1/4 in Glass kobs [knobs] it 42 1 lot Case knobs & Stems it 6 3/4 gross of square head Bed screws it 6 tt 1 lot of flat head do do 6 4 Bed keys $50 each 2 51 twelve keyed locks $.12 1/2 “ 6.37 1/2 52 three $.6 1/4 3.25 54 flush betts [butts or butt hinges] $.12 1/2 “ 6.75 1 lot of table hinges Brass handles & c. 10 2 doz [dozen] Mahogany knobs $.121/2 “ 3 3 gross screws $1 pr gross 3 10 fine brass locks «( u 10 30 small Cupboard locks $.25 each 7.50 2 set Table Castors $1 pr set 2 3 papers of brass Tacks ($.) 50 3 Saws 6 planes 3 cages [gages] 2 nils [rules] 1 Measuring line 15 Chisels

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 Brase [brace] & 44 bits 7 gemlits [sic] 1 small square 1 oil stone 22.25 1 Trunk with 15 pieces Clothing 10 Sundries ($•) 75

1176.50

The presence of furniture making tools in Perry’s inventory, such as saws, planes, rules,

braces, and chisels, and the fact that Wilkins supplied Perry with a substantial amount

of turned parts over a nine month period, supports the assumption that Perry was

making rather than retailing the majority of furniture listed in his inventory. If Perry

was trained in assembling furniture, he probably did not turn wood, did not own a

lathe, and needed to rely on the services of other woodworkers, such as Wilkins. The

work patterns are similar to Richard Cecil’s connection with turner Jesse Trahem and

David Collins’ relationship with John McCanaco in the late 1820s. The fact that

furniture makers were still relying on turners into the 1820s and 1830s, could also

suggest that the woodworking trades were becoming more specialized in Natchez,

possibly in response to a rise in the carpentry trade. As planters continued to

immigrate and become more successful throughout the antebellum period, the built

environment of Natchez expanded, further increasing the demand for elaborately carved

and decorated mansions. Turners and carvers, many of whom probably classified

themselves as carpenters, were in high demand in Natchez, evidenced by the fact that

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. carpenters claimed the majority of reported manufactures in Natchez in the 1850

Mississippi Census of Manufactures.^

Instead of relying on fellow woodworkers to increase production capacities,

other furniture makers in antebellum Natchez, such as Robert H. Stewart, turned to

augmenting their supply with furniture that could be easily imported through the

lucrative Mississippi River trade. Stewart, undoubtedly the most prolific furniture

retailer in antebellum Natchez, is documented to have started his career in 1818, when

he advertised in the Mississippi State Gazette as a cabinetmaker in partnership with

Catesby B. Minnis. By 1820, Stewart was advertising that he had begun his own

business on North First Street in Natchez. Stewart died in 1866, and while no marked

objects from his long furniture-making career have been discovered, several examples

suggest that Stewart and other Natchez furniture makers might have been importing

lumber, furniture parts, or entire objects in the 1810s and 1820s. On January 23, 1819,

an advertisement in the Mississippi State Gazette documented a shipment to Natchez of

“Elegant Sideboards, brass rails, & c.,” “Elliptic bureaus, curved pillars, etc.,” “A few

dozen Fancy Chairs, highly finished,” and “Ladies’ Work Tables, very elegant and of a

new construction,” among other objects. This furniture, which was probably fashioned

in the early neo-classical style according to the description, is suggested to have come

16 Inventory of David F. Perry, Probate Box 20, David F. Perry, Folder 2 of 2, and Inventory and Appraisement Book 5, David F. Perry, both ACCH; United States Census of Manufactures for the Year 1850, Mississippi, Adams County, Natchez.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. from Philadelphia. Furthermore, in 1820, a Pittsburgh cabinetmaker filed a petition

against the estate of a Natchez cabinetmaker for reneging on a payment for shipped

bedposts. While many furniture makers may have been attracted to Natchez by the

same prospects for attaining wealth from cotton as the nabobs, few had the capital

required to become planters. Early on, furniture makers probably recognized the

profitably in retailing furniture early, as they could become successful middlemen

between northern manufactured goods and the consumer needs of planters. ^

If Robert H. Stewart was not purchasing Philadelphia furniture or Pittsburgh

bed posts for later retail, newspaper advertisements prove that this was a common

practice by 1828 among auction houses in Natchez. These auction houses distributed

furniture to planters as well as Natchezians of a lesser social and economic status. By

1828, the Natchez Auction and Commission Ware-house was established, where

auctioneer G. Powell advertised on March 22 that a forthcoming auction would include

17 The Mississippi State Gazette, January 10, 1818, February 19, 1820, and January 23, 1819 (I am grateful to the HNF for supplying these references); Natchez National Historical Park, 33; For a more informative, though probably not entirely accurate summary of the exportation of furniture from Pittsburgh to Natchez and other points along the Mississippi River, see Dorothy W. Behrens, “When Pittsburgh Was Superior to New York in Furniture Style,” American Collector (March, 1945) 8-10; Michael Wayne, The Reshaping o f Plantation Society The Natchez District, 1860-1880 (Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University, 1983) 11; For a parallel discussion of how artisans were attracted to the pursuit of cotton planting, see Michelle K. Gillespie, “Planters in the Making: Artisanal Opportunity in Georgia, 1790-1830,” in American Artisans Crafting Social Identity, 1750-1850, eds. Robert Asher, Paul A. Gilje, and Howard B. Rock (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1995) 33-47.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. “a great variety of Furniture.” While it is not certain whether all, some, or none of the

furniture auctioned at the Powell sale was imported, the auction business of John

Henderson & Sons advertised a sale the same month at the vendue office, probably the

Natchez Auction and Commission Ware-house, including undoubtedly imported

furniture: “a variety of elegant household furniture - among which are: Mahogany,

Dining, Center and Tea tables; chairs; bedsteads; sofas.” On November 8, 1828,

Henderson & Sons advertised for an auction entirely composed of “a large quantity of

HOUSEHOLD FURNITURE, among which are Tables, Chairs, Settees, Washstands,

Bedsteads, Mattrasses [sic], Feather Beds, Sheets, Table Linen, Crockeryware,

Looking Glasses.” It seems unlikely that Henderson & Sons were amassing huge

quantities of second-hand furniture to be periodically resold at local auctions.

Furthermore, while newspapers are not the most accurate source of information on the

number and variety of furniture makers working in Natchez at any given time,

advertisements from the late 1820s do not suggest that there was a strong enough

furniture making trade established in Natchez to have generated surplus quantities of

furniture to be sold at public auction. Rather, Henderson & Sons and similar auction

houses probably purchased furniture from non-local merchants and shippers who

bought northern and eastern manufactured furniture at public auctions in large urban

areas, and then shipped as venture cargo the objects from port to port in the south until

their merchandise was sold. This assumption is further supported by the fact that

Henderson & Sons were selling furniture with a quantity of mattresses and feather

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. beds, items that were probably imported as they were mass produced in the northeast

but their organized production has not been documented in antebellum Natchez. * 8

Advertisements from other auction houses in the 1830s not only state that the

furniture sold was imported, but frequently indicate where the furniture was made, thus

also providing the names of cities that possibly supplied Henderson & Sons. On March

27, 1838, Jacob Soria and Company advertised that they had “New Furniture at

auction... a general assortment of splendid northern made furniture, just received by

recent arrivals.” In 1833, A. D. S. Dillingham & Company advertised for sale an

elegant assortment of “SOFAS, SIDEBOARDS, BUREAUS, SECRETARIES, BOOK

CASES, CHAIRS, BEDSTEADS, Card, Breakfast, Dining, and Centre TABLES,”

that just arrived from Cincinnati. On October 29, 1838, the auction house business of

Jacob Soria & Company advertised: “Just received on consignment, 1 splendid

mahogany Armoire; 1 mahogany dressing Bureau; 2 do [mahogany] sofas; and 1 pair

do [mahogany] Pier Tables with marble slabs, of the latest fashions from New York.

18 The Ariel, March 22 and 29,1828 and November 8, 1828; For more information on the auction system in America during the first half of the nineteenth century, see Ray Bert Westerfield, “Early History of American Auctions - A Chapter in Commercial History,” in Transactions o f the Connecticut Academy o f Arts and Sciences, vol. 23 (May, 1920) 159-210; Mattresses were apparently imported in great numbers to Natchez, as the auction house of Jacob Soria & Company advertised on eleven separate occasions in 1833 that they had for sale single and double hair mattresses made in Philadelphia (Natchez Courier and Adams, Jefferson and Franklin Advertiser, May 3, 1833; The same advertisement also appears in the Natchez Courier and Adams, Jefferson and Franklin Advertiser on the following dates in 1833: May 17, 31; June 7, 21, 28; July 5, 26; August 2, 9, 16).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Perhaps northern furniture was considered superior to objects produced elsewhere in

the country, at least to the clientele Dillingham and Soria were hoping to attract. The

indirect mention of New York and Cincinnati as style centers could have also been

replaced by the names of Philadelphia and Boston, as these cities sent furniture as

custom orders and venture cargo to auction houses and individuals in southern ports

like Charleston, Mobile, New Orleans, Savannah, and points in Arkansas, with the

same patterns of patronage as was adopted in Natchez. While the assortment and

quantity of furniture advertised by Dillingham suggests that he may have received

furniture made by a number of makers in Cincinnati, the small number of objects

received by Soria implies that he was the consignee of objects from one particular

maker, an antebellum distribution method practiced by urban makers in the northeast,

often when custom orders with patrons could not be procured. This latter method of

selling furniture probably required more time and effort on the part of auction houses to

cultivate northeastern furniture makers, but by acting as furniture agents, these Natchez

auction houses probably made a commission on the final sale of consigned furniture. 19

19 Mississippi Free Trader, March 27, 1838 and October 29, 1838; Natchez Courier and Adams, Jefferson and Franklin Advertiser, January 11, 1833 (I am grateful to HNF for originally supplying this last reference); The arrival of Cincinnati furniture to Natchez in 1833 is also historic because in 1832, Cincinnati suffered a flood and subsequent cholera epidemic that devastated the furniture business, especially the chair industry, and resulted in an absence of advertisements in both local and non-local newspapers [Jane Sikes, The Furniture Makers o f Cincinnati 1790 to 1849 (Cincinnati: Jane E. Sikes, 1976) 42,45]; Gail Caskey Winkler, “Influence of Godey’s

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. By 1838, Jacob Soria & Company and F. H. Dolbeare & Company were the

two large Main Street auction houses in Natchez that appear to have controlled the

trade in both new and used goods, including furniture. Jacob Soria was the owner of a

general merchandise business and auction store from at least 1835-1840, and F. H.

Dolbeare is documented to have conducted the same two types of businesses in

1838.20 Dolbeare regularly advertised a “general assortment of merchandize [sic],”

including “Dry Goods, Furniture, and Clothing,” at 10:30 a m. sales in front of their

auction rooms.21 Jacob Soria and Company advertised that they held auction sales of

anything from groceries to Negroes to furniture in front of their store at 10:00 a.m.

d a i l y . 2 2 Obviously neither auction house dealt with one supplier, nor did they seem to

specialize in any particular type of produce or manufactured domestic goods.

Advertisements from Dolbeare and Soria suggest that the forms and styles of

furniture that they sold varied as much as the types of goods they stocked. On July 2,

‘Lady’s Book’ on the American Woman and Her Home: Contributions to a National Culture (1830-1877) (Ph.D.dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1988) 196.

20 Edwin Adams Davis and William Ransom Hogan, eds, William Johnson's Natchez The Ante-Bellum Diary o f a Free Negro (Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University, 1979) 66, 216.

21 Mississippi Free Trader, July 30 and August 13, 1838.

22 Mississippi Free Trader, January 1, 1838 (The same advertisement also appear in the Mississippi Free Trader on the following dates in 1838: January 8, 15; February 5, 12).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1838, F. H. Dolbeare and Company advertised that they had “Just received 1 dozen

elegant Mahogany Chairs, Grecian; 3 splendid plush Rocking Chairs; 1 marble top

Centre Table; 1 beautiful French bureau; 1 Sofa Bedstead.” Likewise, Soria advertised

in April of 1838, “splendid Furniture” sold, including “bureaus, with looking glasses... 1

pair rose wood Card Tables... 2 centre mahogany Tables, inlaid with satin wood ..4

Mahogany Rocking Chairs.” While these newspaper advertisements only represent one

source of information on the consumption habits of Natchezians, for the purposes of

this study, they begin to suggest that imported French as well as Grecian style furniture,

in some cases subtly decorated by figurative inlay and expensive rosewood, was

favored in the late 1830s by those wealthy planters who could afford it.23

Various levels of Natchez society purchased from Soria and Dolbeare, as

evidenced by the now famous diary of a free African-American barber, William

Johnson, who recorded buying twelve Mahogany chairs from Soria on October 15,

1835, and one sofa on June 12, 1838. While Johnson recorded buying “old” or second

hand furniture from auctions, it can not be assumed that this practice was only limited

to the middling and lesser classes in Natchez. Soria and Dolbeare seemed to have

functioned as temporary repositories for Natchezians to sell their collections in

auctions, which could include goods from several estates as well as domestic or foreign

23 Mississippi Free Trader, July 2, 1838 (The same advertisement also appears in the Mississippi Free Trader on the following date in 1838. August 27; Mississippi Free Trader, April 9, 1838).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. imported furniture. Thus, nabobs might have bought previously-owned furniture at

auction sales. Certainly this case occurred in 1856, when Andrew L. Wilson, who

became owner of Rosalie after the death of Peter Little, bought a clock, arm chair,

wash stand, and bedstead at Little’s estate sale.

Soria and Dolbeare probably did not care whether wealthy planters bought

second-hand or new furniture from them, but they were interested in attracting nabob

buyers who could afford to purchase expensive pieces of furniture. On March 19,

1838, Soria advertised that they will offer “second hand furniture,” including “a

Mahogany bookcase, “suitable for a professional gentleman.” In two different

advertisements in 1838 of “SPLENDID FURNITURE,” consisting of “every quality

and description,” Dolbeare took a different approach than Soria, listing a vast amount

of furniture for sale that was predominantly in the Grecian style, assuring the auction

house would have plenty of examples to attract wealthy planters in need or want of a

particular form, pattern, or set.

6 SPLENDID Secretary’s, various pattern 10 do sideboards do do^4 12 centre tables, marble tops 8 prs [pairs] card tables, square pillars 8 do do do round do 8 pier tables, with glasses, marble tops 8 work do harp pillars 6 pairs card tables, urn pillars 8 4 feet Grecian dining tables, two pillars

24 For this and similar advertisements transcribed, “do” or “ditto” refers to the word placed directly above the abbreviation.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 6 wash tables, um pillars 20 superior side boards, with and without marble tops; 2 splendid blue plush sofas 2 do red do 4 superior hair sofas 8 splendid ottomans 4 superior calendar wash stands 20 very superior curled hair mattrasses [sic] 2 bureaus with glasses, a superior article 10 narrow high post bedsteads 4 3 1-2 feet scroll, Grecian tables 20 superior feather beds; 20 cribs, with and without teasters [sic]; 20 toilet tables, 20 wash stands 15 splendid couches 4 pair of elegant pier tables, Egyptian marble tops; 4 wash stands for marble tops 10 superior bureaus, various patterns 100 doz. [dozen] fancy and imitation chairs 6 do cane and rush bottom rocking chairs

Furthermore, the different furniture forms listed in Dolbeare’s advertisement

documents consumer demand for such modish furniture in Natchez, as well as

Dolbeare’s awareness and thorough understanding of the Natchez market for furniture

in the late 1830s. 2^

One aspect of the consumer demand for furniture in Natchez, at least among

wealthy planters, was a desire for imported European goods. Soria and Dolbeare were

able to tap into this market by providing sales of European furniture. For example, on

25 Davis and Hogan, eds., 66, 216, 232, 729; Inventory of the estate sale of Peter Little, Probate Box 164, Peter Little, Folder 3 of 3, ACCH; Mississippi Free Trader, March 19, 1838, November 5 and 11, 1838.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. April 9, 1838, Soria stated that many of the various bookcases, secretaries, card tables

and center tables included in one of their advertisements “were made in Europe, and of

the latest fashion.” The reference to European goods in an advertisement undoubtedly

attracted a large audience of buyers, thus Dolbeare’s mention of“l beautiful French

Bureau,”26 which, appearing in an 1838 advertisement, was probably not indicative of

an object in the French Antique or rococo revival style of the 1850s, but rather the

French Restoration style of the 1830s. French objects were greatly favored by

Natchezians, possibly because a number of wealthy families traced their lineage back to

the eighteenth century when, at one time period, Natchez and the entire lower

Mississippi River valley were under French control. This French mania affected more

than just furniture, as paperhanger, upholsterer, and mattress m anufacturer^ Benjamin

Le Cand, was advertising in July or August of 1838 that he had an assortment of wall

paper and “French gray damask” for sale. Furthermore, in January of 1838, William

Johnson mentioned purchasing clothing from “the Frenchmans Store,” recording that “

A Frenchman opened a Lot of Goods direct from France.” While it is possible that

Soria, Dolbeare, and other Natchez merchants had connections in Europe and served as

26 Mississippi Free Trader, July 2, 1838(The same advertisement also appears in the Mississippi Free Trader on the following date in 1838: August 27).

22 As will be indicated in the last section of this study, the term manufacturer was probably used freely to identify both makers and retailers of products in the nineteenth- century. Le Cand’s identification as a mattress manufacturer did not necessarily mean that he made the mattresses that he sold in Natchez.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. dealers in foreign goods, more likely Natchezians were functioning as retailers of

furniture and other products imported through several American ports before passing

through New Orleans and up to Natchez. On September 10 and 24, 1838, F. H.

Dolbeare & Company advertised a “FRENCH SECRETARY — 1 splendid mahogany

Secretary, a beautiful piece of furniture in perfect order, just received from the

importers in New O r l e a n s . ”28

Auction houses were not the only venue where nabobs and other Natchezians

could import domestic and foreign furniture. For instance, Ro N. Wood advertised on

January 1, 1838, that he “Received a very superior and choice selection of Pier, Mantle,

and Dressing Glasses, which are offered for sale on reasonable terms.”29 Likewise, N.

L. Williams, who sold school books, paints, and medicines, among other goods, also

advertised in January of 1838 that he sold “Gentleman’s desks, of all sizes, and a few

ladies’ writing desks.” 3® While the amount of stock and display space owned by

Williams and Wood is unknown, it is unlikely that they could financially afford to

28 Mississippi Free Trader, April 9, 1838, July 30, 1838, August 6, 1838, September 10 and 24, 1838; Herbert Weaver, Mississippi Farmers 1850-1860 (Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University, 1945) 30; Davis and Hogan, eds., 216 and 217, Johnson diary dates of January 9 and 15, 1838.

29 Mississippi Free Trader, January 1, 1838 (The same advertisement also appears in the Mississippi Free Trader on the following dates in 1838: January 8, 15, 22, 29).

30 Mississippi Free Trader, January 1 and 29, 1838 (The same advertisement also appears in the Mississippi Free Trader on the following dates in 1838: January 8, 22).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. purchase large quantities of imported furniture, possibly reflected in Williams’

statement of only selling a few ladies’ writing desks. Other merchants apparently had

plenty of space available for imported furniture, such as James Wemple, who advertised

in 1843, “Mahogany Sinks," “Marble Top Wash Stands," and “Rosewood Bedsteads”

as well as nine other forms for sale at his variety store. 31 Unlike many auction houses,

fancy goods dealers like Wemple, Williams, and Wood probably established business

relationships with specific manufacturers or buyers in the north and east who shipped

items to Natchez on an irregular basis.

During the 1840s, individual furniture makers adopted similar strategies of

selling imported, domestically manufactured furniture to compete with the auction

houses. For example, Natchez furniture maker and retailer Archibald Glaskins

advertised on January S, 1848, that he just recently received an assortment of walnut

bedsteads in “the latest p a t t e r n s . ”3 2 Glaskins advertised on July 12, 1848, that he “Just

received from the manufactory an assortment of Dressing and Common Bureaus of

excellent workmanship and which will be sold low. This work is w arranted.”33

31 Mississippi Free Trader, November 15, 1843.

32 Mississippi Free Trader, January 5, 1848 (The same advertisement also appears in the Mississippi Free Trader on the following dates in 1848: January 12, 19, 26; February 2, 9, 16, 23; March I, 8, 15, 22, 29; April 12, 19; May 3, 10, 17, 24, 31; June 7, 14, 21, 28; July 5).

33 Mississippi Free Trader, July 12, 1848 (The same advertisement also appears in the Mississippi Free Trader on the following dates in 1848: July 19).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Glaskins’ most revealing advertisement includes the statement “I will sell as low as can

be procured in New Orleans or Cincinnati with freight.”34 The comparison that

Glaskins makes between his prices and those actually charged in Cincinnati and New

Orleans suggests that he was retailing furniture made in or procured from these cities.

Glaskins’ retailing activities are confirmed in a circuit court case heard in Adams

County in November of 1849, where Henry Weiderecht & Company of Cincinnati filed

a debt execution against Glaskins for $269.50 on shipped furniture. The listed furniture

varied from rocking chairs and dressing bureaus, to counting house desks and wash

stands, to cribs and canopies. The fact that Glaskins was ordering furniture from

Cincinnati is no surprise, as by 1826, Cincinnati was already actively cultivating

western and southern markets, especially those along the Mississippi River.

Furthermore, after the publication of the Cincinnati Cabinet-Maker's Book o f Prices,

which included the same diagrams of furniture that appeared in the Philadelphia (1828)

price book, favored furniture forms and styles of the east could be faithfully reproduced

in Cincinnati, supporting its rise as “the largest furniture manufacturing center in

America” by 1846.35

34 Mississippi Free Trader, January 5, 1848 (The same advertisement also appears in the Mississippi Free Trader on the following dates in 1848: January 12, 19, 26; February 2, 9, 16, 23; March 1, 8, 15, 22, 29; April 12, 19; May 3, 10, 17, 24, 31; June 7, 14, 21, 28; July 5; a similar advertisement appears in the Mississippi Free Trader, December 6 and 13, 1848).

35 Adams County, Mississippi, Circuit Court Case File, HNF, Old Drawer 332, Old Box 6, New Box 4-27, 1850-59 [ am grateful to Mary Warren (Mimi) Miller for

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. A Sheriffs sale further documents Glaskins’ business connections with

Cincinnati furniture makers, but indicates that he was receiving furniture parts from

New York suppliers. The sale, held in Natchez on November 2, 1849, included “A

large quantity of new & fashionable Furniture,” that was sold to pay off Glaskins’ debts

to Jacob Vanderpool, Clawson & Mudge, and Henry Weiderecht & Co. The list of

items offered for sale had a total value of $2000.00:

64 Assorted Bedsteads 12 “ Bureaus 3 Wash Stands 4 Writing Tables 26 Assorted Tables 264 “ Chairs 94 “ Rockers 27 “ Cane Seat do 1 Lot of Hair Cloth 1 “ of Curled Hair 1 “ of sand paper 1 1/2 Brls [Barrels] of Glue 1 Can of Varnish & Can 2 Ward Robes 1 pr [pair] Work Tables 1 Candle Stand 8 Cherry Cribs 2 Clothes Frames 5 Bed Cornices

bringing this case to my attention];E. Drake and E. D. Mansfield, Cincinnati in 1826 (Cincinnati: Morgan, Lodge, and Fisher, 1827) 59, 64; Donna, Streifthau, “Cincinnati Cabinet- and Chairmakers, 1819-1830,” Antiques (June, 1971) 897; Supporting Sikes’ statement about the status of Cincinnati furniture making in 1846 is the fact that steam power machinery was first introduced extensively to the Cincinnati furniture business in 1845, creating a production efficiency that increasingly propelled the trade forward [Sikes, 44-47, as partially quoted from Robert Mitchell, Cincinnati Gazette, 1892; Charles Cist, Sketches and Statistics o f Cincinnati in 1851 (Cincinnati: William H. Moore, 1851)200],

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 Box Mahog [Mahogany] Veneers 1 Lot of Hardware 1 “ Wooden Knobs & Caps 1 “ of Wall & other papers 1 Turning Lathe 1 Grind Stone 1 Lot of Nails

Clawson & Mudge was a bedstead manufacturing firm, described in 1851 as “probably

the most extensive factory of the kind in the Unites States and if so the most extensive

in the world.” Most likely the sixty-four or sixty-five bedsteads in the sale were

manufactured by Clawson & Mudge and either shipped separately or with another

order from Weiderecht, who, by 1854, was listed in R. G. Dun & Company’s credit

reports to “Have extensive [ill.] manufacture mostly for Southern Market.”

Weiderecht probably supplied Glaskins with the other forms of furniture in the sheriffs

sale, some of which (rockers, cribs, and washstands) most likely were the same objects

listed in the previously mentioned court case filed between Weiderecht and Glaskins.36

Jacob Vanderpool is actually Jacob Vanderpool, Jr., listed in New York City

directories as “mahogany” for 1849, suggesting that Vanderpool was a mahogany

dealer who also supplied the varnish, sand paper, hair, and glue listed in the sheriffs

36 Adams County, Mississippi, Circuit Court Case File, HNF, Old Drawer 329, Old Box 5, New Box 1, 47[I am grateful to Mary Warren (Mimi) Miller for bringing this case to my attention]; as quoted in Sikes, 83, from Cist, Sketches and Statistics o f Cincinnati, 1851, 202; Ohio vol. 78, p. 438, Wiederecht & Jones, June 20, 1854, R. G. Dun & Company Collection, Historical Collections Department, Baker Library, Harvard University Graduate School of Business Administration (hereafter R. G. Dun Collection will be referred to as Dun Collection, HUGSBA).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. sale. However, included in the circuit court case file that contains the sheriffs sale is

the following receipt of purchases Glaskins made from Vanderpool

Reams Sand Paper 60 Setts [sic] Wash Stands. Work Table & Table Legs 24 Maple Stand Pillars 100 Stump Feet 500 Mhogy [Mahogany] Rosettes 500 Walnut Do 24 Setts [sic] 15/8 Castors 24 “ (ill.) 4 Do (Castors) 36 “ (ill.) 5 Do (Castors) 54 lbs Curled Hair 1 Bble [Barrel] 25 132 lbs Glue 8 Gross Mhgy [Mahogany] Knobs 1 “ Walnut Do

The amount of rosettes, feet, knobs, table legs, and other furniture parts ordered from

Vanderpool suggests that the he and Glaskins had already established a successful

partnership previous to the 1849 sheriffs sale. Otherwise, both Vanderpool and

Glaskins would have been risking their businesses with transactions of such large

orders. Regardless of the relationship between Vanderpool and Glaskins, the evidence

in the court case proves that in as late as 1848, and possibly later, one if not several

Natchez cabinetmakers were importing furniture parts from New York. Glaskins’

importation activities do not suggest that he did not have the skill to carve parts, but

rather that it was more efficient for him to order pre-made parts that were being mass-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. produced in the northeast, and more productive to augment furniture that he made with

imported furniture shipped along the Mississippi River.-*?

Glaskins was not alone among furniture makers in Natchez who advertised the

importation of northern and eastern manufactured furniture. For example, on October

11, 1851, the firm of Robert H. Stewart and Samuel Burns, as Stewart & Bums,

advertised that they continually received new items from New York. 3 8 However,

Glaskins’ and Stewart & Bums’ advertisements were also accompanied by those from

Philadelphia manufacturers. These northern makers undoubtedly used the

advertisements to attract wealthy planters, which might be passing through their cities

on annual summer trips to the north visiting family and friends and escaping the

unbearable heat in Mississippi. The Natchez nabobs were well-connected to

Philadelphia, as John Quitman, later governor of Mississippi, and Stephen Duncan, who

in 1860 was possibly the richest man in the south, either came from or had family

connections in the Philadelphia area. Likewise, planters William Newton Mercer,

William J. Minor, and John Carmichael Jenkins were educated in Philadelphia, as

-*? Doggett’s New York City Directory, Illustrated with Maps o f New York and Brooklyn. 1848-1849 (New York: John Doggett, Jr. & Co., 1849) 415;Doggett’s New York City Directory, for 1849-1850 (New York: John Doggett, Jr. & Co., 1850) 428; Adams County, Mississippi, Circuit Court Case File, HNF, Old Drawer 329, Old Box 5, New Box 1, 47.

38 Mississippi Free Trader, October 11, 1851 (I am grateful to HNF for supplying this reference).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Quitman’s, Minor’s, and John McMurran’s sons all attended Princeton University in

New Jersey. On May 5, 1853, Thomas J. Natt & Co. were probably appealing to these

wealthy Natchezians, who already acquainted with Natt’s business, when the company

placed an advertisement for their Philadelphia “Looking Glass Warehouse” in the

Mississippi Free Trader. One Philadelphia firm that undoubtedly tried to take

advantage of the planters’ patronage was W & J Allen, considered “Among the many

great first-class Furniture manufactories, for which Philadelphia is justly famous,” and

among “the most advanced and most successful furniture makers in 1850.” In the

Mississippi Free Trader on June 7, 1853, 39 Allen informed their customers as well as

friends, undoubtedly Natchez nabobs, that they moved locations but still offered

“SPLENDID FURNITURE of every description ”40

39 Mississippi Free Trader, June 7, 1853 (The same advertisement also appear in the Mississippi Free Trader on the following dates in 1853: June 14, 18, 28; July 5, 12, 19, 26).

40 John A. Quitman Papers (1799-1858), Letters of 1843-1858, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Natchez National Historical Park, 52; Rothstein, “The Natchez Nabobs: Kinship and Friendship in an Economic Elite,” 98, 100; Scarborough, “Lords or Capitalists” The Natchez Nabobs in Comparative Perspective,” 243-245, 256-257; Mississippi Free Trader, May 3, 1853; Talbott, (Elizabeth) Page, “The Philadelphia Furniture Industry 1850 to 1880” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1980) 162, 166, as partially quoted from Isaac L Vansant, The Royal Road to Wealth: An Illustrated History o f the Successful Business Houses o f Philadelphia (Philadelphia: S. Long, 1869); Apparently by 1860, the Allen business was so large that it was housed in two buildings, one of which was located on Chestnut Street in Philadelphia and contained three floors of display rooms [David Hanks, Rodris Roth, and Page Talbott, Innovative Furniture in America From 1800 to the Present (New York: Horizon, 1981) 140],

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. As Stephen Harrison states in his master’s thesis on the New Orleans furniture trade, “In an age when newspapers were the fastest and most effective forms of communication to the customer, advertising and image were crucial to success, if not survival.” As advertisements exhibit, the wealthy planters or nabobs of Natchez were made well-aware of their ability to obtain imported furniture whether through

successful auction houses, fancy goods merchants, or furniture makers that also retailed objects. The influence of auction houses on nabob furniture purchases is significant throughout the entire antebellum period, for as late as 1853, auctioneer E. Lewis was

advertising the sale of second-hand furniture. The same year, Lewis probably sold Julia Nutt, wife of planter Haller Nutt, probably a used bedstead and washstand for only $9.25. As most of these auctioneers were actually commission merchants, their role in

the distribution of furniture seemed to change with the growth of the cotton economy in Natchez, from selling venture cargo of furniture to serving as buying or shipping agents for individual planters. Nonetheless, planters took advantage of individually placing orders and purchasing furniture when convenience afforded them the opportunity, as will be demonstrated in the remaining sections of this thesis. The best documented method among wealthy planters for procuring European and northern

manufactured furniture was through individual orders that they made with makers,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. many of which were organized and administered through the nabobs’ agents in New York and Philadelphia.^

Stephen G. Harrison, “Furniture Trade in New Orleans, 1840-1880: The Largest Assortment Constantly on Hand” (master’s thesis, University of Delaware, 1997) 64; Mississippi Free Trader, November 1, 1853; Receipt from E. Lewis to Mrs. Nutt, August 16, 1853, Records o fAnte-bellum Southern Plantations from the Revolution through the Civil War, Series F, Part 1, Haller Nutt Papers, 1846-1860.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ORDERING THROUGH AGENTS

Regardless of the geographic isolation of Natchez from northern and eastern

fashion centers, the planter nabobs were never disconnected from the latest furniture

styles being adopted in those cities. As stated earlier, many of the successful planters in

antebellum Natchez immigrated to Mississippi. The seventh census of the United

States, taken in 1850, documented that of the 4,680 residents counted, 695 people or

fifteen percent were bom in New England (113), the Mid-Atlantic (316), or the Old

Northwest (266). Considering the heads of agricultural families in Adams County in

1850, the majority of which assuredly included nabobs and other successful planters,

sixteen percent or thirty-two of 195 planters were bom outside the south or upper

south, in Delaware (3), Maryland (12), Pennsylvania (8), New York (5), and the New

England states (4). In a survey done in 1992, Thomas Scarborough identified a total of

forty-seven male nabobs that lived in antebellum Natchez. Sixty-five percent or thirty-

one of these planters were bom outside of Mississippi, and eight of these were bom in

the northeast, many of whom undoubtedly brought to Natchez their personal

connections in the north and east.42

42 Statistics calculated and printed in Weaver, 28, 30; Scarborough, “Lords or Capitalists? The Natchez Nabobs in Comparative Perspective,” 242, 254;

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. As the planters were drawn to Natchez’s cotton based economy, and, to a

lesser degree, sugar, these two commodities became the principle source of planter

wealth during the antebellum period. Some nabobs, such as Alvarez Fisk, Stephen

Duncan, William Newton Mercer, and William J. Minor, further diversified by investing

in mercantile, banking, and industrial opportunities. Others, such as Frederick Stanton

and Levin Marshall, accumulated wealth in Natchez first through serving as a merchant

and banker respectively, and then establishing cotton empires. Regardless of the

process used to become successful planters, many nabobs were involved in the

agricultural, commercial, and banking sectors. As neither cotton or sugar were

primarily cultivated for a local market, the commodities had to be exported, resulting in

the planters’ contact with domestic and foreign markets, especially centers of

international economy. 43

Prior to the financial panic of 1837, planters financed their agricultural

production through local banks which they controlled, and they marketed their cotton

through European buyers, principally from Liverpool, England, who often visited

Natchez and arranged to ship cotton abroad directly from the Natchez landing.

Wealthy planters weathered the depression following the 1837 crash by offering each

Unfortunately, the exact names of the forty-seven planters identified as nabobs by Scarborough are not listed.

43 Callon, et al., 93; Rothstein, “The Natchez Nabobs: Kinship and Friendship in an Economic Elite,” 97-98, 100-102; Scarborough, “Lords or Capitalists? The Natchez Nabobs in Comparative Perspective,” 263.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. other loans; such loans were secured by ties of friendship and intermarriage. Nabobs

also served as agents for European firms, reporting on and collecting from other

planters. However, to administer the growing domestic market of cotton and sugar,

planters needed to rely on factors or agents in coastal cities. New York had already

forced itself into the cotton trade between the south and Europe, making a profit on

high shipping tolls charged. The regular coastal packet lines already established by

New Yorkers proved advantageous for domestically distributing the surplus cotton and

sugar of the nabobs. Some of the strong contacts between planters and these agents in

northern and eastern cities like New York became highly personalized. Thus, through

their agents, nabobs gained better access to more capital to obtain goods, including

furniture, as these factors accepted the responsibility of handling the planters' crop

sales and distribution.44

44 Rothstein, “The Natchez Nabobs: Kinship and Friendship in an Economic Elite,” 102-105; Albion, Robert Greenhaigh. The Rise of New York Port (1815-1860) (Boston: Northeastern University, 1967) 95; For more information on the inter connections between planters and their social, political, religious, and economic worlds, see Morton Rothstein, “The Natchez Nabobs: Kinship and Friendship in an Economic Elite,” in Toward a New View o fAmerica: Essays in Honor o f Arthur C. Cole, in Hans L. Trefouuse (New York: Burt Franklin and Co., 1977) 97-112; Morton Rothstein, “Sugar and Secession: A New York Firm in Ante-Bellum Louisiana,” Explorations in Entrepreneurial History (Winter, 5 1968) 115-131; William K Scarborough, “Lords or Capitalists? The Natchez Nabobs in Comparative Perspective” The Journal o f Mississippi History (August, 1992) 239-267; and Michael Wayne, The Reshaping o f Plantation Society The Natchez District, 1860-1880, part I, “Before the War,” chapter 1, “The Gentry and the Antebellum Plantation,” (Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana Stae University, 1983) 5-28; For a thorough discussion of the cotton factorage system as it

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The best documented planter-agent relationships were between several

antebellum Natchez families and the Leverich brothers of New York. Charles and

Henry Leverich supplied planters with furniture from the early 1830s through the late

1850s. Most of the secondary services that the Leveriches performed for the planters

involved renewing subscription orders to New York newspapers, purchasing books

from local traders, or shipping imported products like champagne. Less frequently, the

Leveriches ordered special items such as a guitar or pistols from particular dealers in

both New York and Philadelphia, or verified the status of carriage or china and

glassware orders, that were individually placed by planters while in the north. As

cotton and sugar factors, the Leveriches became pseudo-bankers for many nabobs,

offering them cash advances and paying their bills for domestic and imported products.

Placing orders for European products, whether alcohol and dry goods or furniture and

manufactured objects, was also cheaper for planters through the Leveriches of New

York rather than through agents in New Orleans. New York was known for its

cheaper freight rate on imports from Europe, as well as its ability to pay additional

domestic freight charges on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts while still remaining

competitive with New Orleans merchants.

affected Natchez and New Orleans, see Robert E. Roeder, “Merchants of Ante-Bellum New Orleans,” Explorations in Entrepreneurial History 10 (April, 1958) 113-122.

45 William Newton Mercer to Charles P. Leverich, April 11, 1838, Box 1, Folder 3, 1838; William Newton Mercer to Charles P. Leverich, June 9, 1842, Box 1, Folder 7, January -June, 1842; William Newton Mercer to Charles P. Leverich, Box 3, Folder 36,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Correspondence indicates that the Leveriches functioned to some degree as

furniture agents to Stephen Duncan, William Newton Mercer, William J. Minor, and

Francis Surget, although they also had contact with William Conner, Henry Conner,

Samuel M. Davis, Levin R. Marshall, and William St. John Elliott, all of whom were

some of the wealthiest and most successful planters in antebellum Natchez. Essentially,

the Leveriches could have been acting as middlemen in furniture purchases for any

antebellum Natchez planter, but their contact with Duncan and Minor are significant

because they were all related.46 Furthermore, Duncan actually served as an agent for

either the Leveriches or other planters, as frequently his correspondence to Charles

Leverich includes information on the cotton production of other nabobs. Possibly

Duncan served a similar role to the Leveriches with cotton as he did with sugar

production, as he is documented to have provided the Leveriches with orders and

June-July, 1848; William J. Minor to Charles P. Leverich, Box 3, Folder 36, June-July, 1848; Francis Surget to Charles P. Leverich, Box 3, Folder 38, October-November, 1848; Francis Surget to Charles P. Leverich, December 24, 1848, Box 3, Folder 39, December 1848; Francis Surget to Charles P. Leverich, June 10, 1850, Box 4, Folder 57; Samuel M. Davis to Charles P. Leverich, June 16, 1857, Box 4, Folder 67, all from Charles P. Leverich Papers, 1833-1854, Mississippi Department of Archives and History (hereafter the Charles P. Leverich, 1833-1854 will be cited as Leverich Papers and the Mississippi Department of Archives and History will be cited as MDAH); Harry A. Mitchell, “The Development of New Orleans as a Wholesale Trading Center,” The Louisiana Historical Quarterly 27 (October, 1944) 955.

46 Both Charles and Henry Leverich married the daughters of planter Dr. James Gustine, or the nieces of Duncan and thus the sisters-in-law of William J. Minor (Rothstein, “The Natchez Nabobs: Kinship and Friendship in an Economic Elite,” 99, 106).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. consignments from some of the largest sugar plantations in the Bayou Teche region of

Louisiana. In return, the Leveriches promptly catered to Duncan’s material needs as

well as to those of his nabob friends, by filling, verifying, and shipping furniture orders

in New York. 47

Beginning with correspondence dated September 27, 1839, Duncan sent a

series of letters to Charles Leverich asking him to procure a bed according to Duncan’s

rigid specifications:

If you could purchase & ship to me a patent-self, [ill.] [ill ] bedstead of Mahogany—with posts—about 4 feet in width you will oblige me. They are Made, I think in your city—I can [ill ] the [ill.]—but not of Mahogany. They have a sacking [ill.] nailed to the side pieces-which is lightened by [ill.] the side piece by a pin. Do not put yourself to any trouble to [ill.] this.

In two other letters, dated September 30 and October 4, 1839, Duncan specified two

different changes in the width and height measurements he desired for the bed. The

final product probably cost $97.63, which is the price of a bedstead and mattress that

Duncan paid cash for on October 11, 1839, as recorded in a ledger used by the

Leverich firm. In the September 30, 1839 letter, Duncan also wrote Leverich, “You

47 Leverich Papers, MDAH; Rothstein, 105-107.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. send not ship any more ottomans [ill ] [ill.]. The pair Recent has been (?) shipped will

suffice.”48

Duncan wrote all three letters from Philadelphia, where he was undoubtedly

visiting his mother, yet instead of searching for a skilled craftsman in Philadelphia to

make his bed and ship the finished product, Duncan spent the time to meticulously

describe the order to Leverich so that he might procure the most appropriate maker in

New York. Possibly Duncan did not value the appearance of the late-neoclassical and

Grecian style beds then being produced in Philadelphia. More likely, familial ties and

business connections with the Leveriches affected the bed order. As Charles Leverich

was already sending Duncan ottomans and probably other furniture in early orders,

obviously a furniture distribution pattern had already been established for shipment of

the bed.

Interestingly, while Duncan appears to be very specific about what he wanted

his bed to look like, he apparently gave Leverich liberty to chose a pair of suitable

ottomans for him. Perhaps Leverich chose ottomans similar to a pair made in 1839 by

the New York upholstery firm of Meeks & Stewart and original to Arlington, the

antebellum home of Charlotte Catherine Surget Bingaman from 1823 to 1841, and her

son-in-law, Samuel S. Boyd (S.S. Boyd), from 1841 until 1867 (Figures 1 and 2). The

48 Stephen Duncan to Charles P. Leverich, September 27 and 30, 1839, October 4, 1839, Leverich Papers, MDAH, 1839, Box 1, Folder 4; Ledger 1827-1841, 3a, p. 180, Leverich Family Papers, New York Historical Society.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ottomans could have been purchased by Bingaman in 1839 or shortly thereafter,

depending on whether the furniture was personally ordered by Bingaman from Meeks

& Stewart or through an agent, or if the ottomans were purchased from an auction

house or furniture retailer in Natchez that had a surplus of furniture for sale stored in

ware rooms. The same situation applies to Boyd, who might have brought the

ottomans to Arlington from another house when he acquired the mansion in 1841, if

Arlington was not already serving as his primary residence. While it is unknown how

the ottomans were acquired by Bingaman or Boyd, one could speculate that one of the

two individuals purchased them because he or she knew that in 1839, Meeks & Stewart

had received an award from the American Institute of the City of New York for the

ottomans that they made. Possibly the Duncan ottomans were also made and marked

by Meeks & Stewart, as Leverich did conduct business with several New York

cabinetmakers and furniture dealers, including J.& J. W. Meeks. 49

49 Mary W. (Mimi) Miller, notes on the history of Arlington, Arlington Site File, HNF [I am grateful to Mary Warren (Mimi) Miller for supplying me with information on the ownership of Arlington]; Probate Box 217, Samuel S. Boyd, ACCH; According to the most recently published article on the different Meeks businesses, Meeks & Stewart was an upholstery firm that is only listed in the New York City directories for the year 1839. The pristine labels that are nailed to the underside of each ottoman at Arlington indicate that Washington Meeks and Robert Stewart did general upholstery work and could manufacture a variety of seating furniture from their ware-rooms at 459 Broadway in New York. Washington Meeks is listed as an upholsterer in New York City directories until 1843, while Stewart is not listed with Meeks after 1839. There is no documented connection between Robert Stewart from the firm of Meeks & Stewart and Robert H. Stewart, Natchez retailer and cabinetmaker [John Pearce, Lorraine W. Pearce, and Robert C. Smith, “The Meeks Family of Cabinetmakers,” Antiques (April, 1964) 419]; John Pearce and Lorraine W. Pearce, “More on the Meeks

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Some of the most significant correspondence discovered between the Leverich

brothers and a Natchez planter are a series of letters written by Francis Surget from

1848-1850, documenting orders placed with J. & J. W. Meeks. These letters are also

the most important pieces of written evidence used in this study that document the

consumption and distribution patterns of furniture to antebellum Natchez. On

November 14, 1848, Surget wrote to Charles Leverich:

I can’t hear any thing of a box of (or rather boxes) furniture which Meeks of Vesey was to have shipped before I left to Bogart & Foley. Will you do me the favor to enquire [sic] of them if they have done so and sent a bill of lading to B & F in N. Orleans, they [Bogart & Foley] had not received any by the last I heard from them [Bogart & Foley].

“Meeks of Vesey” refers to the firm of J. & J. W. Meeks that existed at 14 Vesey St. in

New York from 1836-1855. Unfortunately subsequent correspondence between

Surget and Charles Leverich does not indicate exactly what form and style of furniture

was ordered from Meeks, but the November letter suggests that Surget placed the

order in New York, probably when he stopped there to deal personally with northern

cabinetmakers,” Antiques (July 1966) 69; The Leveriches also did business with John Constantine, a New York upholsterer and possible furniture maker, and H. S. Thorp, New York furniture maker or dealer (Receipt for Henry S. Leverich from John Constantine, February 16, 1837 and Receipt for Leverich from H. S. Thorp, no date, both in Leverich Family Papers, New York Historical Society). Unfortunately neither Constantine or Thorp are represented in Natchez with marked furniture or written documentation. For an unspecified period of time, John Constantine was in partnership with his brother, Thomas Constantine, in the firm of Constantine & Comapny, which may have also been supplying the Leveriches with furniture [Thomas Constantine File, Decorative Arts Photographic Collection (DAPC), Winterthur Museum, Winterthur, Delaware].

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. stocks and investments. The suggestion that Surget placed the order himself is further

indicated by the fact that he informed Leverich the furniture was to be shipped to

Bogart & Foley, commission merchants in New Orleans that had apparently established

a business relationship with Surget. 50

Surget and undoubtedly other planters also dealt with a variety of agents in

New Orleans to help fill their furniture orders. Letters dated November 14 and

December 24, 1848, indicate that Surget asked Leverich to have other goods sent to

Bogart & Foley as well as to Samuel Toby, a ship broker and commission merchant in

New Orleans. In another example from January 24, 1850, Surget inquired of Leverich

about a “setter” (dog) that he ordered, stating “...and if you could send him [dog] out

by Capt Schenck of the Ohio [ship] I would be glad to get him [dog]. And I have no

doubt that Schenck if he [Schenck] knows that he [dog] is for me will take good care

of him [dog] & deliver him [dog] to Wash Jackson.” Washington, Jackson & Company

Francis Surget to Charles P. Leverich, November 14, 1848, Leverich Papers, MDAH, Box 3, Folder 38, October-November, 1848; Edith Gaines, Collector's Notes, “A Pair of Meeks Chests,” Antiques (December, 1959) 565; Pearce, et al, “The Meeks Family of Cabinetmakers,” 418; Correspondence between Natchez planters and the Leverich brothers suggest that most nabobs vacationed in the north during the months of July, August, and September, typically returning to Natchez in September and October (Leverich Papers, MDAH). Ella Blackburn, a visitor to Natchez from Frankfurt, Kentucky, recorded that most planters return to Natchez from the north in September or October (Letter from Ella Blackburn to her mother, October 1, 1846, Blackburn Family Papers, 1840-1896, Filson Club Historical Society, Louisville, Kentucky); Albion, 118; Michel & Company, New Orleans Annual and Commercial Register for 1846 (New Orleans: E. A. Michel & Co., 1846) 101.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. were yet another New Orleans brokerage that, similar to the Leveriches, handled many

nabob accounts (Figure 3). 5 1 While Captain Schenck might not have ever delivered

furniture to Surget, he certainly is documented in the distribution of furniture to

Rosalie, the antebellum home of Peter Little, from 1823 to 18S6, and for Andrew

Wilson, from 1856 until 1871.52 \ highly carved rococo revival style bed original to

Rosalie is inscribed in lead on the inside back of the front cornice rail, “H or W C

Schnenck.” The bed was probably shipped to New Orleans from a style center on the

east coast, such as New York, or could have been imported from France (Figure 3) 53

Evidence that nabobs had business connections with New Orleans shippers and

merchants does not necessarily mean that the Leverich brothers in New York did not

work through other agents in New Orleans and Natchez to fulfill furniture orders for

planters. For example, an armoire original to Arlington suggests that Charlotte

51 Francis Surget to Charles P. Leverich, November 14, 1848, Box 3, Folder 38, October-November, 1848 and Francis Surget to Charles P. Leverich, January 24, 1850, Box 4, Folder 52, January, 1850, both Leverich Papers, MDAH; Cohen's New Orleans and Lafayette Directory for 1849 (New Orleans: D. Davies & Son, 1849) 174.

Scarborough, “Cotton, Planters, and Plantations in the Natchez District,” 15.

52 Adams County Landmarks Inventory, Natchez Metropolitan Planning Commission, Rosalie, Broadway & Orleans Shrine of the Daughters of the American Revolution, collection of HNF, Rosalie Site File; Sarah Webster Harrison and Lucianne Wood, Rosalie A Mansion of Natchez (Natchez, MS: Myrtle Bank, 1978) 15, 28, 30.

53 It is especially difficult to determine the origin of rococo revival furniture without basing this attribution on a group of similar examples that are already documented.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Bingaman or S. S. Boyd received furniture from the Leveriches of both New York and

New Orleans (Figure 4). Several initials for names that are presently indecipherable are

written in ink on the back of the armoire, accompanied by the words “Care,”

“Leverich,” “N.O.” (New Orleans), and “Natchez.” The “Leverich” in New Orleans

probably signifies the firm of James and William Leverich, the two older brothers of

Charles and Henry, who were operating a similar brokerage business that primarily

catered to the back country surrounding New Orleans, including Natchez. Stylistically

the armoire dates between approximately 1830 and 18S0, and was probably made in

New York, shipped to the Leveriches in New Orleans by their brothers, and then

transported up the Mississippi River to Natchez and finally to Arlington.54

A small tag nailed to the back of the armoire is inscribed in lead, “Louisa

Wilkins/Rumble & Wensle.” Louisa Wilkins was probably a relative of Catherine C.

Wilkins, the wife of S. S. Boyd. Rumble & Wensle were cotton factors, wholesale

grocers, and commission merchants in Natchez that could have handled distribution of

plantation supplies as well as furniture to the planter.. The role of Rumble & Wensle in

the transport of the Arlington armoire is presently undetermined, as the firm was not

listed as established until 186S nor incorporated until 1890, long after the armoire

would have arrived at Arlington. However, the role of merchants like Rumble &

54 Rothstein, “The Natchez Nabobs: Kinship and Friendship in an Economic Elite,” 105.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Wensle in furniture distribution was not uncommon. By the 1850s, John Lidell and

William C. Chamberlin, under the name of Chamberlin & Smith, are documented as

Natchez commission merchants for the nabobs. Frederick Stanton and the firm of

Stanton, Buckner & Newman served in a similar capacity, as they shipped a bedstead

that was purchased by John T. McMurran of Melrose probably in the late 1840s or

1850s, inscribed in ink, “JTMcMurren [sic] / Care Stanton & Buckner / Natchez

(Figure 5)”55

While it is unknown whether Francis Surget received and was satisfied with the

furniture he ordered from Meeks in 1848, Surget was utterly displeased with a later

furniture order placed with Meeks. In a letter to Charles Leverich on January 9, 1850,

Surget wrote, “I have received every thing now from New York except the furniture --

Irene S. Gillis and Norman E. Gillis, Geneological Abstract o f Biographical Section to Biographical and Historical Memoirs o f Mississippi (Baton Rouge, LA: Irene S. and Norman E. Gillis, 1962) 58, 664; The Momento Old and New Natchez 1700-1897 (Natchez, MS: Major Steve Power, 1897) 105 as reprinted by Myrtle Bank Publishers (Natchez, MS, 1984); Boyd’s wife was Catherine C. Wilkins, suggesting that one of her relatives named Louisa eventually became owner of the armoire; W. H. Rainey, ed. A. Mygatt & Co. 's New Orleans Business Directory (New Orleans: A. Mygatt & Co., 1858) 262, 263; Receipt for the estate of William Adams from Chamberlin & Smith, June 21, 1858, Probate Box 166, William Adams; Receipt for the estate of Edward Turner from Chamberlin & Smith, December 24, 1860, Probate Box 184, Edward Turner, both ACCH; Another documented example of Stanton & Buckner importing furniture, probably for McMurran, was recorded in February of 1851 by Robert H. Stewart, who provided “hand at Stanton and Buckners office unboxing chairs.” [Vol. 39, entry for John T. McMurran, February 1, 1851, Robert H. Stewart Account Books 1834-1904, Louisiana and Lower Mississippi Valley Collection, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana (hereafter Louisiana and Lower Mississippi Valley Collection will be cited as LLMVC)].

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I understand that the carriage had arrived on yesterday so I suppose as the furniture

was shipped on the same vessel that I shall get it by tomarrows [sic] packet.” Surget’s

statement suggests that the furniture was to be shipped from New York to New

Orleans before the contents were transferred to a packet steamship that ran to Natchez.

Furthermore, Surget’s expectation of the furniture arriving the next day indicates that

material goods as well as plantation supplies were arriving from New Orleans daily, at

least during certain months of the year. 56

On January 24 and March 17, 18S0, Surget elaborated further on the Meeks

furniture order:

Will you please inform Meeks that I have sent back to him the etagere as it is entirely too small. 1 ordered him to make me one with three apartments & on the one sent back has just two, the drawers were to be much larger & three of them & one lined with baze. So you see the whole thing was ordered to be made much longer and deeper. There is no use of ordering one by letter, for if he could not make one from a verbal order, he certainly cannot make one from a letter & besides the wood of which it was made was not handsome.

When we come on next summer, I will order one early so that I may see it before we leave (?) for home, in the mean time let him return you the $ 130 it cost. I will find out the freight of it out which he must also pay. I can’t understand what the fellow could have meant by sending me an article so entirely different from what I ordered. As soon as I find out what vessel his things have been shipped on I will write him.

56 Francis Surget to Charles P. Leverich, Leverich Papers, MDAH, Box 4, Folder 52, January 1850; Numerous advertisements in antebellum Natchez newspapers indicate that steamships, such as the “Natchez,” arrived in Natchez daily with freight (for example, see Mississippi Free Trader, October 13, 1838).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Do the best you can with that rascal Meeks. He neglected to take the order as it was given and 1 have no doubt sent me an etagere that he had already made, and not worth what he charged for it. Suppose the furniture had come out to me damaged would he have paid for the damage done. Do the best that you can with him; it is the last that 1 or anyone that I can influence shall have to do with him: he has not made anything of consequence by his acts, as I intended to have got him to have made new furniture for one, if not both of my parlors next summer.

Not only does Surget’s letter directly state that he placed the order with Meeks, but it

also suggests that Surget ordered the furniture late in the previous summer before he

left New York, which denied him the chance to inspect the finished product before it

was shipped. Surget emphasized how he would eliminate the chances of this situation

occurring again by ordering an etagere in the north early the next summer when passing

through New York. The Surget letters confirm that the Leveriches followed-up on

orders for furniture that the planters rather than the Leveriches arranged. Apparently

the Leveriches took these favors seriously and the planters expected them to fulfill this

responsibility, as on May 29, 1850, Surget wrote Charles Leverich, “I am sorry that I

have given you so much trouble with that scamp Meeks.” 57

The Surget letters also confirm that the Leveriches administered the planters’

finances for furniture, often charging bills to the planters accounts. The Leveriches

undoubtedly gave cash advances to the cabinetmakers who made the bedstead and

57 Francis Surget to Charles P. Leverich, January 24, 1850 Box 4, Folder 52, January, 1850; Francis Surget to Charles P. Leverich, March 17, 1850, Box 4, Folder 54, March, 1850; and Francis Surget to Charles P. Leverich, May 29, 1850, Box 4, Folder 56, May, 1850, all Leverich Papers, MDAH.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. probably those that made the ottomans, before they received payment from Stephen

Duncan. Similarly, they were instructed by Surget to accept the $130.00 + owed him

from Meeks. In a later example of September 27, 18S8, Stephen Duncan purchased

two cottage bedsteads from William H. Lee & Company for his Washington Square

town house in New York, but the Leveriches were apparently responsible for

overseeing the delivery of the furniture, and possibly handling the final payment to Lee.58

It is clear from most Surget’s letters that the nabob planters were

knowledgeable of the type of furniture that they wanted and assertive in their orders.

Sometimes the planters gave the Leveriches responsibility for selecting furniture, as on

March 12, 1848, when William J. Minor wrote Charles Leverich to purchase “some

useful article of furniture...to be selected by the Madame Leverich & yrslf [yourself]”

Other times the nabobs did the ordering themselves. Surget may originally have been

An example of a planter account kept by the Leveriches is recorded in a letter dated March 12, 1848, where William J. Minor asked Charles Leverich, “You will please charge the cost to me,” signifying that Minor already had an account for purchases made on his behalf with the Leveriches [William J. Minor to Charles P. Leverich, March 12, 1848, Leverich Papers, MDAH, Box 2, Folder 56, March, 1848 (I am grateful to Jodi Pollack for providing me with this reference)]; The fact that the Leveriches made cash advances on behalf of the planters is further documented in a letter from Surget to Charles Leverich in June of 1850 “Garrison of Phila. will draw on you for a small amount which please pay” (Francis Surget, Jr. to Charles P. Leverich, June 10, 1850, Leverich Papers, MDAH, Box 4, Folder 57, June, 1850); Receipt for Stephen Duncan from William H. Lee & Co., September 27, 1838, Leverich Family Papers, New York Historical Society.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. persuaded to buy from Meeks because his peers placed orders with the firm. John T.

McMurran, John Quitman, and either Catherine Bingaman or S. S. Boyd all patronized

Meeks businesses either directly or indirectly in the 1830s and possibly the 1840s and

1850s (Figures 6-11). The marked Meeks objects that they owned still remain in

Natchez. Quitman was living in his suburban villa called Monmouth and McMurran

was probably residing in his townhouse called Holly Hedges, when they respectively

purchased a rocking chair and center table, both of which bear the label for Joseph W

Meeks & Sons that was apparently used between 1829 and 1835. While the boldly

curved rocking chair has no prototype published as trade literature by Meeks & Sons,

the center table is identical to the one pictured in the now famous Joseph Meek & Sons

broadside, identified as number 27 (Figure 12). McMurran might have procured a copy

of the broadside before traveling through New York one summer, and personally

ordered the center from Meeks, choosing to purchase an expensive Egyptian marble

top that cost $100.00, instead of $80.00 for a plain white marble top. Alternatively,

Bingaman, Boyd, McMurran, or Quitman could have purchased the center table,

rocking chair, two identical divans, and three attributed ottomans at the New Orleans

branch of the Meeks businesses, which operated at least from 1820 until 1838. Perhaps

Surget admired the ottomans and window seats at Arlington, which are decorated with

rosewood veneer, accented with subtle strips of satinw^pod inlay over smooth

undulating surfaces. As Natchez had not yet been invaded by the highly carved and

decorative rococo revival style that was adopted in local parlor suites during the late

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1850s and early 1860s, Surget was probably leaning toward the decision in 1850 to

decorate his parlors the next summer with Grecian style furniture, possibly using the

Arlington parlor suite as models for the order he had considered placing with Meeks.59

As Surget, Duncan, McMurran and other planters demonstrate, the nabobs

refused to accept second-rate or custom furniture that did not meet their specifications.

Nor would the planters be duped by large-scale furniture manufacturers who tried to

take advantage of the planters’ isolation from northeast style centers. The planters

were aware of the latest fashions, and, although it might be inconvenient, they were

prepared to return unsatisfactory products. Undoubtedly, even the most successful

antebellum furniture manufacturers, such as Meeks, realized that the Natchez nabobs

were culturally and economically powerful, and that their influence was worth courting.

A variety of factors helped to keep planters informed of the latest styles that

they ordered. One of the most important was probably their annual trips away from

Natchez to escape the summer heat. In 1860, Frederick Law Olmsted included in his A

59 For more information on how southern planters were inclined to make trips to New York and the north to make purchases in person, see “Wants of the South,” DeBow's Review (August 1860) 215-223; William J. Minor to Charles P. Leverich, March 12, 1848, Leverich Papers, MDAH, Box 2, Folder 56, March, 1848 (I am grateful to Jodi Pollack for providing me with this reference); Miller, et al, The Great Houses o f Natchez , 53, 77; Pearce, et al, “The Meeks Family of Cabinetmakers,” 416, 419; Wendy A. Cooper, Classical Taste in America 1800-1840 (New York: Abbeville, 1993) 217; Eileen Dubrow and Richard Dubrow, American Furniture o f the 19th Century 1840-1880 (Exton, PA: Schiffer, 1983) 44-45; Harrison, “Furniture Trade in New Orleans, 1840-1880,” 27, 34.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Journey in the Back Country a conversation he had with a traveler about where the

nabob planters spent their summers: “...they go North, to New York, and Newport, and

Saratoga and Cape May, and Seneca Lake - somewhere that they can display

themselves worse than they do here [Natchez].” Correspondence between Charles

Leverich and several nabobs document that traveling to water resorts like Saratoga

Springs and Newport was a common practice among this elite group by 1843, but the

nabobs’ situation was also unusual as the majority of both Louisiana and Mississippi

planters probably summered at closer southern resorts, such as White’s Creek Springs

in Nashville, White Sulpher Springs in St. Louis, and Fauquier White Sulpher Springs

in Virginia. Often, the planters traveled in small, elite groups, probably dictated by

family associations. As the Leveriches were kin to several planters, they frequently

arranged for necessary lodging and other expenses before the arrival of the Natchez

nabobs on the northeast trips in late-June or early July. The Leveriches also joined the

planters, taking short vacations away from their business in New York.60

Frequently, several month summer vacations were combined with family and

business trips to Baltimore, Boston, Philadelphia, Washington, D. C , and especially

60 Frederick Law Olmsted, A Journey in the Back Country (1860) 26, reprinted by New York, Burt Franklin, 1970; Mississippi Free Trader, May 28, July 9, and July 30, 1838, July 5, 1843; Rothstein, “Sugar and Secession,” 130; William J. Minor to Charles P. Leverich, May 23, 1843, Box 1, Folder 10, March-May, 1843; and William J. Minor to Charles P. Leverich, June 29, 1843, Box 1, Folder 11, June-August, 1843; and (ill.) Metcalfe to Charles P. Leverich, August 25,1845, Box 2, Folder 21, July-December, 1845, all Leverich Papers, MDAH.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. New York. Advertisements in Natchez newspapers for establishments such as the City

Hotel and Howard’s Hotel in New York, promised to provide suitable housing for the

planters when they visited the city. Correspondence indicates that several planter

families also made the Grand Tour through Europe purchasing sculpture and paintings,

and possibly furniture. Planters could have also visited sites such as the famous Crystal

Palace Exhibition of London in 1851, where mainly European furniture manufacturers

displayed their products, now preserved as advertisements in The Art Journal

Illustrated Catalogue: The Industry o f all Nations. However, a similar Crystal Palace

fair was held in New York in 1853, where both American and European makers

exhibited, and the furniture by certain manufacturers was printed in several exhibition

catalogs and contemporary publications, such as The World o f Science, Art and

Industry. If planters were not able to personally attend the Crystal Palace Exhibition in

New York, they could have seen literature documenting the show and advertising

stylish furniture establishments from the east coast. Furthermore, as a number of the

advertised furniture makers and dealers in New York and Philadelphia were actively

importing furniture from France and probably other European countries by the 1850s,

planters could have easily obtained fashionable European furniture when visiting these

style centers on the east coast. 61

61 Stephen Duncan to Charles P. Leverich, September 27, 1839, Box 1, Folder 4, 1839; William J. Minor to Charles P. Leverich, August 3, 1843, Box 1, Folder 11, June-August, 1843; Stephen Duncan to Charles P. Leverich, June 17, 1848, Box 3, Folder 36, June-July, 1848; and Stephen Duncan to Charles P. Leverich, July 11, 1848,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. As evidenced by the correspondence of Francis Surget, planters obviously took

advantage of their time in the north to purchase furniture, but the practice has only

been documented in New York.62 Andrew Wilson of Rosalie and his wife were

visiting their daughter at boarding school in New York in the late 1850s or early 1860s,

when they apparently purchased the two identical rococo revival parlor suites, two

center tables, and etagere made by the famous New York City cabinetmaker, John

Henry Belter, and sold at the show room of merchant Alexander T. Stewart (Figures

13-17). A Mr. and Mrs. Gustine, probably parents to the wives of both Charles and

Henry Leverich, also purchased several significant pieces of furniture in New York in

the late 1840s, 1850s, and early 1860s. Possibly inspired by a large library bookcase, a

highly carved center table, sofas, chairs, and library tables all exhibited by Julius

Dessoir at the New York Crystal Palace Exhibition in 1851, Mr. Gustine decided in

February of 1852 to patronize the New York furniture dealer for two tete-a-tetes, two

Box 3, Folder 36, June-July, 1848, all Leverich Papers, MDAH; John Quitman to Henry Quitman, September 6, 1856, John A. Quitman Papers (1799-1858), Historical Society of Pennsylvania; Mississippi Free Trader, January 22, 1838; July 26, 1848; The American Heritage History o f American Antiques from the Revolution to the Civil War (American Heritage; 1968) 237, 240, 404; Natchez National Historical Park, 52; William Newton Mercer to Charles P. Leverich, April 11, 1838, Leverich Papers, MDAH, Box 1, Folder 3, 1838; For a detailed recent study of the New York Crystal Palace Exhibition, see Thomas Gordon Jayne, “The New York Crystal Palace: An International Exhibition of Goods and Ideas,” (master’s thesis, University of Delaware, 1990).

62 This is not to say that planters did not purchase material goods other than furniture in northern cities, as is documented in correspondence, receipts, and journals from the antebellum period.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. stuffed back chairs, and one table. Gustine probably also bought a bedstead in May of

1860 from Samuel Waterbury, who owned a cabinet and upholstery warehouse in New

York. In both cases, it appears as though the bills were sent back to New York from

Natchez, for the Leveriches to make payment on the products. 63

63 Natchez National Historical Park , 52; For studies of John Henry Belter, see Ed Polk Douglass, “Rococo Revival: John Henry Belter,” in Nineteenth Century Furniture Innovation, Revival, and Reform, ed. Art & Antiques (New York: Art & Antiques, 1982) 26-35, Marvin D. Schwartz, “The Rococo Revival Style and the Work of John Henry Belter,” in The Furniture o f John Henry Belter and the Rococo Revival, ed. Marvin D. Scwartz, Edward J. Stanek, and Douglas K. True (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1981); From 1846-1862, A. T. Stewart operated his marble emporium, so called because of the marble facade that garnished the exterior of the building. Stewart earned a favorable reputation for selling a large variety of retail and wholesale goods on several floors, similar to a modem department store. When the store first opened in 1846, the entire lower level was used for retail goods while a north room was used for linen and furnishings, either spaces of which could have displayed furniture, such as the parlor suite made by Belter [Jay E. Cantor, “A Monument of Trade A. T. Stewart and the Rise of the Millionaire’s Mansion in New York,” in Winterthur Portfolio 10 (Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia, 1975); Harry E. Resseguie, “A T Stewart’s Marble Palace — The Cradle of the Department Store,” New York Historical Society Quarterly ( April, 1964) 131-132; Mary Ann Smith, “John Snook and the Design for A. T. Stewart’s Store,” New York Historical Society Quarterly (January, 1974) 25]; While the Rosalie parlor suite is not documented by a receipt, a similar Belter suite was purchased through Stewart by James Brown Clay in 1854, for his home, Ashland, in Lexington, Kentucky. The original parlor suite once at Ashland is documented by an invoice and possibly also in the travel notebook of James Clay, both of which are located in the Archival Division of the Library of Congress [Robert S. Spiotta, “Remembering Father: Merchants, Materials, and a New Ashland,” in “Midwestern Decorative Arts’ (Abstracts of papers presented at the Taft Museum, Cincinnati, on 26 April 1991) in Newsletter o f the Decorative Arts Society, Inc 1 (Winter, 1992) 3]; The extent to which Stewart acted as a commission merchant or upholsterer for Belter is presently undocumented; Charles Rush Goodrich and Benjamin Silliman, Jr, The World o f Science, Art, ami Industry (New York, 1854) 173, 175; Official Catalogue o f the New-York Exhibition o f the Industry o f All Nations 1853 (New York: George P. Putnam, 1853); William C. Richards, A Day in the New York Crystal Palace and How to Make the Most o fIt (New York: G. P. Putnam, 1853)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Mrs. Gustine asked the Leveriches to purchase certain forms and styles of

furniture on her behalf, similar to the requests of Stephen Duncan. In one invoice billed

to Leverich, dated January 20, 1836, Leverich charged Mrs. Gustine’s account for 3

rocking chairs and possibly a box of other furniture purchased from F.S. Morison,

“Wholesale and Retail Dealer in Fancy and Windsor Chairs.” Another example from

January 19, 1837, is a receipt from the successful New York furniture firm of Deming

and Bulkley, who charged Leverich for one dressing bureau, which Leverich also

identified as made for Mrs. Gustine.64

Both nabob woman and men were instrumental in the interior decoration of

their mansions. On October 27, 1847, Mrs. Gustine bought a second-hand bedstead

from William Simpson, and on January 29, 1848, she bought a mahogany sideboard

from William B. Shipman, both of whom were identified as cabinetmakers in New York

City directories. Likewise, in November of both 1854 and 1856, Mrs. Gustine

43; Wilson's Business Directory o fNew-York (NewCity York: John F. Trow, 1853) 157; Receipt for Mr. Gustine from Julius Dessoir, February 23, 1852, and Receipt for M (Mr. or Mrs.?) Gustine from Samuel Waterbury, May 17, 1860, both in Leverich Family Papers, New York Historical Society.

64 Receipt for Charles Leverich from Deming and Bulkley & Co., 1837 and Receipt for Mr. Leverich from F. S. Morison, January 20, 1836, both in Leverich Family Papers, New York Historical Society; For more information on the firm of Deming and Bulkley, especially their affiliation with furniture consumption in Charleston, South Carolina, see Robert A. Leath and Maurie D. Mclnnis, “Beautiful Specimens, Elegant Patterns: New York Furniture for the Charleston Market, 1810-1840,” in American Furniture 1996, ed. Luke Beckerdite (Hanover, NH: The Chipstone Foundation, 1996).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. purchased one “Fine Oak Side Board,” two oak lounges, twelve oak chairs, and one

table grained in oak, in addition to four imitation rosewood cane seat chairs, all from

the cabinet and upholstery warerooms of E. W. Hutchings in New York. The dates of

Mrs. Gustine’s receipts indicate that she was not summering with other Natchezians in

the north but was probably visiting her New York daughters when she made the

furniture purchases. The amount of room-specific furniture made of or to look like

oak, listed in the Hutchings receipt, suggests that this type of wood, possibly designed

in the new Renaissance Revival style of furniture, was becoming popular among

Natchez planters by the mid 1850s. In addition to documenting shifting styles, the

Gustine receipts are significant evidence of women’s roles in choosing house

furnishings in antebellum Natchez, whether these decisions were made with the consent

of their husbands or other men. 65

The furniture purchases made by Mrs. Gustine represent a shift that was taking

place during the second quarter of the nineteenth century, as women were persuaded

65 Dogett, John, Jr. Dogett ’s New-York Business Directory, for 1846 & 1847 (New York: H. Ludwig, 1847) 48; Wilson's Business Directory o f New York (NewCity York: H. Wilson, 1848) 105; Receipt for Mrs. Gustine from William Simpson, October 27, 1847; Receipt for Mrs. Gustine from William B. Shipman, January 29, 1848; Receipt for Mrs. Gustine from E. W. Hutchings, November 10, 1854; and Receipt for Mrs. Gustine from E. W. Hutchings, November 18, 1856, all from Leverich Family Papers, New York Historical Society; For more information on southern gender conventions and the woman’s role within the plantation household see Elizabeth Fox- Genovese, Within the Plantation Household Black and White Women o f the Old South (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina, 1988).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. by magazines like Godey's Lady’s Book to take a more active role in decorating their

homes. For nabob wives, the act of making furnishing decisions was probably not a

novel concept when Louis Godey began his Philadelphia based magazine in the 1830s,

yet Godey's Lady's Book was the first publication in America to emphasize publicly the

woman’s role in domestic development. Furthermore, between January of 1849 and

July of 1854, thirty-three issues of Godey’s Lady’s Book offered a section called

“Cottage Furniture,” which was a series of line engravings of suggested house furniture

that had been previously published in 1833 in John Claudius Loudon’s Enclyclopedia

o f Cottage, Farm, and Villa Architecture and Furniture. Loudon’s publication was the

first pattern book directed towards the unskilled patron rather than tradesman, resulting

in its appeal to a wide audience, especially a rising middle class of consumers.

Nonetheless, guides like Loudon’s Encyclopedia o f Cottage, Farm, and Villa

Architecture and Furniture or Andrew Jackson Downing’s The Architecture of

Country Houses, which also copied many of Loudon’s images, have not been

documented in the libraries of Natchez planters. But planters were already familiar

with the advice on furniture style and placement advocated by Loudon and Downing,

and reinforced through continued business connections with style setters like the Meeks

or Belter 66

66 Winkler, 32, 196, 202, 210.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. By the late 1840s, Godey's Lady's Book was probably popular with the

majority of nabob wives, as suggested by newspaper advertisements in 1833, 1848, and

1858 that mention receiving shipments of the magazine. Local booksellers and

stationers F. Keenan & Son announced in A. Mygatt & Co. 's New Orleans Business

Directory of 1858, which included a business directory for Natchez, that “All the new

and popular publications will be forwarded to us as soon as issued. Harper’s, Godey’s,

Graham’s, Frank Leslie’s and other monthlies, will be received early every month; back

numbers procured if desired.” Undoubtedly the Mygatt directory was compiled for

natives and travelers alike, and most likely for those wealthy enough to need and afford

the services of a clothing dealer, confectioner, hair dresser, fancy good seller, or a

watch and jewelry merchant in Natchez, all of which were included in the guide. Thus,

Keenan’s mention of Godey’s Lady’s Book was probably directed towards an elite

audience. Godey’s Lady's Book appealed to at least a few nabob families, as Judge

Samuel S. Boyd of Arlington had several 1860 issues of the periodical in his antebellum

library, while Judge Edward Turner owned at least seven issues from the 1840s and

50s, many of which probably contained images of the cottage furniture that Godey’s

Lady's Book supported.67

67 Natchez Courier and Adams, Jefferson and Franklin Advertiser, June 12, 1833 and November 29, 1833; Mississippi Free Trader, April 12, 1848; Mississippi Free Trader Weekly, April 19, 1858; A. Mygatt & Co. ’sNew Orleans Business Directory, 269; Judge Edward Turner inscribed his name into nine extant issues and possibly volumes of Godey’s Lady's Book, including 1847; April, 1849; May, 1949; 1851; 1854; 1855;

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In 1851, under the same title of “Cottage Furniture,” Godey began to illustrate

designs that Loudon had recommended for villas rather than middle class cottages.

These designs were for furniture decorated in the highly ornate rococo revival and

Elizabethan revival styles, and, in some cases, Grecian and Gothic revival furniture.

The “cottage furniture” title was probably irrelevant to planters like Boyd and Turner.

For the Natchez nabobs, the images provided a constellation of ideas rather than

dictated appropriate style. Along with a number of contemporary forms of popular

literature, Godey’s Lady's Book could have inspired Boyd to purchase a reclining chair

almost identical to one that appears in an 1852 supplement of “cottage furniture”

(Figures 18-19)68

Certainly Godey had affiliations with furniture makers in the style centers on the

east coast, as he often advertised their names in Godey's Lady’s Book. For example, in

1849, Godey began to illustrate the businesses of select manufacturers in Philadelphia.

The first furniture maker was George Henkels. Readers learned that Henkels imported

furniture from London and Paris but could also manufacture any pattern desired. In the

February, 1850 issue of Godey's Lady's Book, the furniture in Henkels’ warerooms

February, 1858; 1869 (List of Periodicals in the collection of the Melrose site, Natchez National Park Service, Natchez, Mississippi).

68 Godey’s Lady’s Book (1852): 200; The Arlington reclining chair may have been made in Boston by William Hancock, based on its similarity to a marked example [see 19th-Century America Furniture and Other Decorative Arts (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1970) No. 66].

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. was described according to the particular rooms of the house in which certain forms,

styles, and wood types should be used. The article was arranged identical to Henkels’

Catalogue o f Furniture (1850-57), which also included prices accompanying each

object described. Godey’s reasoning for giving a detailed account of Henkels’

warerooms was for those who wished to send in orders, or a buying service started in

1852, where Godey’s Lady's Book subscribers could “procure articles of the latest

fashions, even before they appear in Philadelphia.” However, the practice of Natchez

readers purchasing furniture from Henkels through Godey has not been documented,

probably because for the nabobs, and possibly the majority of Godey’s readers,

descriptive literature did not replace a desire for personal contact between consumers

and producers. Natchez nabobs did patronize Henkels, but their patronage depended

upon personal contact with both the maker and Philadelphia agents. Consumers

apparently preferred to examine the furniture they were b u y i n g . 69

On February 24,1859, Dr. Haller Nutt, Louisiana planter, wrote Samuel Sloan,

a prominent Philadelphia architect, that he wished to build a summer house in Natchez.

The house would ultimately be called Longwood and based on the design for “An

69 Unfortunately, no publication dates appear on Henkels’ Catalogue o f Furniture, and the 1850-57 date reflects the period of time that Henkels was located at 173 Chestnut Street, which is his address on the catalogue [Kenneth Ames, “George Henkels, Nineteenth-Century Philadelphia Cabinetmaker” Antiques (October, 1973) 642]; See George J. Henkels, Catalogue o f Furniture (1850-57); Godey's Lady's Book 43 (December 1851): 375; Winkler, 214, 218-220.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Oriental Villa” pictured in Sloan’s The Model Architect of 1852. The design was

reprinted in the January 1861 issue of Godey's Lady’s Book, with the caption, “The

style being well adapted to that of a Southern climate, for which it is intended, being

now in progress of erection at Natchez, Mississippi.” Either through Nutt’s own

volition or an arrangement he made, Sloan was in contact with Philadelphia furniture

manufacturer, dealer, and upholsterer Gottlieb Volmer. Sloan wrote a letter to Nutt on

May 10, 1861 stating that “Mr. Volmer I think will go next week to the Cols. [?] to

arrange the furniture,” and in August of that same year, Volmer wrote Nutt thanking

him for his hospitality in Natchez. Perhaps Nutt had a prior relationship with Volmer,

possibly established through Nutt’s trips to Philadelphia to visit his daughters at

boarding school between 1858-1860. Regardless of the exact scenario, Nutt decided to

use Volmer as a Philadelphia agent during the construction of Longwood. Both

Volmer and Sloan ordered most of the furniture and some decorative woodwork for

Longwood. Volmer apparently made the first arrangements with George Henkels that

were confirmed through a Mr. Smith, who worked for Sloan in both Philadelphia and

Natchez. On July 25, 1861, only a few months after the Civil War had officially begun,

Henkels wrote the following to Nutt:

Mr. Smith delivered your message to me and I send this reply by Him. I have progressed with the doors as far as I could and await your orders to finish them. It has been so very dull in business that I also took the responsibility of forwarding the foremost articles of Furniture which you will require. As soon as your house is ready and the communication is opened I can forward the doors as everything is prepared to finish on receipt of you command.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Unfortunately “the foremost articles of Furniture” that Henkels supposedly sent Nutt

never reached Longwood, undoubtedly because of the Union blockade of the south.

In his July letter of 1861, Henkels also sent Nutt an invoice of the exact forms

and styles of furniture that he would make for twelve rooms in Longwood,

accompanied by a price for each article. However, if the furniture was ever made it

never was sent. In a letter of October 1, 1863, Sloan wrote Nutt that “Mr. Henkel[s]

sends his respects and hopes yet that he may have the pleasure of furnishing the new

house.” Less than a year later, in June 1864, Haller Nutt died. Longwood, only

partially built and still unfurnished other than with temporary objects, would remain

that way. Nonetheless, the surviving invoice for the furniture provides a wonderful

opportunity to view how nabob mansions in Natchez were probably furnished in the

latest time period discussed in this study. 71

In his Catalogue of Furniture of 1850-57, Henkels states that:

70 “Villa in the Oriental Style,” Godey's Lady's Book (January, 1861): 87-88; Ina May Ogletree McAdams, The Building o f Longwood (Austin, TX: Ina May Ogletree McAdams, 1972) 3, 8-10, 65-66, 75-80; Jessie Poesch, The Art o f the Old South Painting Sculpture, Architecture, & the Products o f Craftsman 1560-1860 (New York: Harrison, 1989) 258; Whitwell, 12-13; William H.Boyd, Boyd's Philadelphia City and Business Directory, to Which is Added a Co-Parmership Directory, 1860-61 (Philadelphia: William H. Boyd, 1861) 175; S. E. Cohen, Cohen’s Philadelphia City Directory, City Guide, and Business Register, for 1860 (Philadelphia: John L. Hamelin, 1860) 1023; For more information on the business of Volmer, including his connection with clients in the south, see Talbott, “The Philadelphia Furniture Industry 1850 to 1880,” 179-182.

71 The invoice of furniture sent from Henkels to Nutt is reprinted in the Appendix.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Amongst the many advantages of purchases, is the facility for furnishing a house, either in elegant or plain style, completely, from one establishment; by which means all the articles in each room correspond in style and quality, and the IMMENSE STOCK always on hand being so various in design, enables purchasers to pleas their taste in a selection without delay necessarily caused in ordering Furniture.

Apparently Henkels’ vision appealed to Nutt, and for reasons of convenience as well as

Henkels’ reputation as having “the most extensive Furniture Stores in the Union,” Nutt

probably decided to work with him rather than to place his orders with different

cabinetmakers in Philadelphia or other east coast cities. However, as correspondence

has not been discovered that suggests Nutt asked Volmer and Sloan to specifically

patronize Henkels’ establishment, perhaps Nutt never chose to deal with Henkels, and

instead left all furniture arrangements to his Philadelphia agents. One can only assume

from the correspondence that as Nutt and Sloan modified the plan for the architectural

shell of Longwood to meet the owner’s needs, they probably compromised on the

furniture contents for the mansion. 72

72 Henkels, Catalogue o f Furniture, unnumbered; David Bigelow, History o f Prominent Mercantile and Manufacturing Firms in the United States, vol. 6 (Boston, 1857) 18; Interestingly, in September of 1860, less than a year before Henkels wrote Nutt with an invoice for the Longwood furniture, R. G. Dun credit reports list Henkels as not in good favor in Philadelphia, preceded by entries from 1857-59 that describe him as having bad credit. The September 1860 report also indicates that most of Henkels’ furniture was purchased by individuals in New York, suggesting that in the 1860s he might have catered to distant orders, including Natchez. (Pennsylvania vol. 136, p. 518, 615, George J. Henkels, September 27, 1860, Dun Collection, HUGSBA); Poesch, 258.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Regardless of who ordered the Longwood furniture, Nutt had probably already

been exposed to Henkels’ work through descriptions in Godey's Lady’s Book,

Henkels’ furniture display at the 1853 New York Crystal Palace Exhibition, or

Henkels’ Catalogue o f Furniture. While Henkels’ catalogue can not be documented in

Natchez, his influence on the design of Longwood in overwhelming. The parlor,

reception room, and Mr. Nutt’s chamber were to be furnished entirely with rosewood

furniture, while mainly walnut furniture was to be used in the nursery and three bed

chambers. Unfortunately, it is impossible to know whether the rosewood furniture was

really what it purported to be, as Henkels had discovered a process of extracting oil

from common walnut before it was varnished, leaving an appearance similar to

rosewood. If Henkels used the “rosewood” term for only the color and not the type of

wood used, the estimated cost for the Longwood furniture would have been cheaper,

undoubtedly appealing to Nutt, whose total price for the furniture was already

$12,336.00.73

Henkels included in Nutt’s estimate a variety of furniture forms, from sofas and

center tables to bedsteads and bookcases to reception chairs and pedestals. New

period forms were also mentioned, including shell armchairs, step chairs, Turkish

73 Ames (all references refer to Antiques article unless otherwise noted) 650; See Goodrich, et al, 166-167 for an image and description of an arm chair exhibited by Henkels at the New York Crystal Palace Exhibition of 1853; Bigelow, 18; McAdams, 80.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. chairs, and confidantes. The furniture in Longwood was to be avant-garde, represented

in certain rooms like the library, which was to be entirely furnished in “the antique

style,” which Samuel Sloan described as the style “called Renaissance in France. ”74

Engravings of furniture sold by Henkels in the rococo, Elizabethan, and

Renaissance revival styles of the late 1850s and early 1860s were published in Sloan's

Homestead Architecture (Figures 20-21). While this guide also includes specific

images of Longwood, probably the furniture for the house was already ordered from

Henkels by this time, suggesting that the Henkels objects illustrated in Sloan’s

Homestead Architecture did not serve as an influence for Nutt if he was making

furniture selections. However, the images still provide visual evidence as to the type of

furniture that Henkels claimed he sold. Thus the table and antique lounge included in

the invoice for Nutt’s library probably resembled similar “antique style” forms that are

pictured in figure 20. Furthermore, the two bookcases in “antique style” reserved for

the library could have resembled the huge, elaborately carved bookcases represented as

examples of library furniture in figure 21. Unfortunately one can not say that the Sloan

designs were characteristic of Henkels’ work, as he, like his competitors, was

constantly importing French furniture for both sale and design inspiration. Based on

the designs that he printed in a later catalogue, Household Economy (1867), Henkels

74 Ames, 645. Samuel Sloan, Sloan’s Homestead Architecture (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1861) 346.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. also had access to images in contemporary French publications, such as Desire

Guilmard’sZe Garde-meuble.75

While other Natchez planters probably did not have ready access to the

Henkels’ designs illustrated in the 1861 edition of Sloan's Homestead Architecture,

their patronage of Henkels, or at least another Philadelphia furniture maker that

practiced or retailed in the same vein, is represented by two bookcases original to

Stanton Hall and Lansdowne (Figures 22-23). Henkels basically claimed that all of his

designs were patterns exclusive to his business, allowing one to speculate that certain

carved elements, such as gargoyle visages and sculpted caryatids on the bookcases,

could be considered characteristic of Henkels’ work. The questions that remain are

truly whether the bookcases were bought from Henkels, another furniture maker in

Philadelphia, or imported. More important to this study, were the bookcases

purchased through an auction house, agent, or, perhaps, through a Natchez furniture

retailer. The career and business records of Robert H. Stewart provide evidence that

Natchez furniture retailers not only had a thorough understanding of consumption

patterns in Natchez, but that they played a significant role in the distribution of

furniture for the n a b o b s . 76

75 Ames, 644; Sloan, 57; For the most thorough discussion of the French influence on Henkels’ furniture designs, see Kenneth L. Ames, “Designed in France Notes on the Transmission of French Style to America,” in Winterthur Portfolio 12(1977): 103-114.

76 An identical bookcase to the one at Lansdowne exists in the collection of descendants of George Marshall, antebellum owner of Lansdowne; George Henkels,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 1. Ottoman, labeled by Meeks& Stewart, New York City, 1839. Arlington. Photo taken by the author, courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 2. Label of Meeks & Stewart, New York City, 1839. Arlington. Photo taken by the author, courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 3. Bed, inscribed in lead on interior of front cornice rail, “H or WC Schnenck,” c. 1850-1860. Rosalie. Photo courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 4. Annoire, inscribed in ink on back, “Care,” “Leverich,” N.O.”(New Orleans), and “Natchez,” probably New York City, c. 1840. Arlington. Photo taken by the author, courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 5. Bed, inscribed in ink on bottom rail, “JTMcMurren [sic] / Care Stanton & Buckner / Natchez,” c. 1835-1850. Melrose. Photo taken by the author, courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 6. Table, retains remnants of label of Joseph Meeks& Sons, New York City, c. 1829-1835. Melrose. Photo taken by the author, courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 7. Rocking Chair, labeled by Joseph Meeks & Sons, New York City, c. 1829-1835. Private Collection. Photo taken by the author, courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 8. Label of Joseph Meeks & Sons, New York City, c. 1829-1835. Private Collection. Photo taken by the author, courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 9. Divan (one of a pair), labeled with the stencil of &J J.W. Meeks, New York City, c. 1836-1846. Arlington. Photo taken by the author, courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 10. Ottoman (one of three), attributed to J & J.W. Meeks, New York City, c. 1836-1846. Arlington. Photo taken by the author, courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 11. Stenciled label of J & J.W. Meeks, New York City, c. 1836-1846. Arlington. Photo taken by the author, courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. MSL ■

aBBsmses@BSEiBs@B

.... WW111 ,

» rd

»î^^>qia>aiaiallalrit^lgWlaidta<^talaEnaaiau^laaLnîniîJiab:iaiWa |

Figure 12. Broadside of Joseph Meeks & Sons, New York City, 1833. Photo courtesy of The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Gift of Mrs. R. W. Hyde, 1943. (43.15.8).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 13. Sofa (one of a pair, part of a suite), attributed to John Henry Belter, New York City, c. 1857*1859. Rosalie. Photo taken by the author, courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 14. Arm Chair (one of four, part of a suite), attributed to John Henry Belter, New York City, c. 1857-1859. Rosalie. Photo taken by the author, courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 15. Side Chair (one of twelve, part of a suite), attributed to John Henry Belter, New York City, c. 1857-1859. Rosalie. Photo taken by the author, courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 16. Table (one of a pair, part of a suite), attributed to John Henry Belter, New York City, c. 1857-1859. Rosalie. Photo taken by the author, courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 17. Etagere, attributed to John Henry Belter, New York City, c. 1850- 1860. Rosalie. Photo taken by the author, courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 18. Reclining Arm Chair, probably Boston, c. 1830. Arlington. Photo taken by the author, courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 19. Design for Reclining Chair, c. 1830. Printed in Godey’s Lady’s Book (1852): 200. Photo courtesy of Winterthur Library. Winterthur, Delaware.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 20. Design for Henkels’ Antique Furniture, Philadelphia, 1861. Printed in Samuel Sloan,Sloan’s Homestead Architecture (Philadelphia: J. P. Lippincott, 1861) 347. Photo courtesy of Winterthur Library. Winterthur, Delaware.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 21. Design for Henkels’ Library Furniture, Philadelphia, 1861. Printed in Samuel Sloan,Sloan’s Homestead Architecture (Philadelphia: J.P. Lippincott, 1861) 344. Photo courtesy of Winterthur Library. Winterthur, Delaware.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 22. Bookcase, probably Philadelphia, c. 1860. Stanton Hall. Photo taken by the author, courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 23. Bookcase, probably Philadelphia, c. 1860. Lansdowne. Photo by the author, courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. THE FURNITURE BUSINESSES OF ROBERT H. STEWART

Receipts in the probate records of antebellum Natchezians confirm that the

wealthiest planters had contact with local furniture makers, but the majority of these

relationships seem to have existed because nabobs needed furniture handymen rather

than furniture makers. Ausbum Brown, supplied fellow furniture maker David Perry,

but also catered to a higher class of Natchez patrons, including planter Joseph B.

Lyons. On April 23, 1840, Mr. or Mrs. Lyons paid Ausbum Brown $48.25 “to

furniture and repairing.” Presently it is unclear whether Brown actually constructed the

furniture he sold to patrons like Lyons or was purchasing objects from non-local

cabinetmakers that he would later sell, but his connection with wealthy Natchez

planters was not unique. Frederick Bego, a Natchez upholsterer who apparently

dabbled in making and repairing seating furniture, was advertising his services as an

upholsterer as early as 1853. Before he apparently closed his business in late 1857 or

early 1858, he repaired two mahogany chairs and made or upholstered four footstools

for Francis Surget, Jr., son of the prominent planter. Perhaps because of their strong

business connections with the eastern agents, or their direct orders to eastern

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. manufacturers, the nabobs apparently did not rely on local makers and retailers to

obtain most of their furniture. 77

As a whole, the receipts of local furniture makers and upholsterers like Ausbum

Brown or Frederick Bego are rare among the probate papers and family records of the

nabobs in Natchez. Robert H. Stewart is the principle exception to this generalization,

as he provided maintenance services and a significant amount of furniture to nabobs

like S. S. Boyd, George Malin Davis, Peter Little, George Koontz, John T. McMurran,

George M. Marshall, Levin R. Marshall, Frederick Stanton, and Andrew L. Wilson, the

antebellum owners of the principle seven collections of furniture referred to in this

study. Stewart has the best documented career of any furniture maker or retailer

working in Natchez during the antebellum period. Not only is he represented in

newspaper advertisements from at least 1818 through 1863 and in wealthy planter or

nabob receipts from 1830 through 1858, but at least fourteen of his account books

survive, thoroughly detailing his antebellum activities in furniture distribution.

77 When he died in 1837, the personal property estate of Joseph B. Lyons was inventoried to be worth $45,725.42. Lyons’ wealth can be compared to the personal property estate of Elijah Bell, owner of the Mansion House, one of the most famous and best regarded hotels in Natchez (James, 189-190). At his death, Bell was inventoried to be worth $62,014.00 (Inventory and Appraisement Book 5, Joseph B. Lyons, and Probate Box 127, Elijah Bell, Folder 1 of 5, both ACCH); Receipt for Mr. or Mrs. Lyons from Ausbum Brown, April 23, 1840 in Probate Box 129, Folders 3 and 7 of 7, ACCH; Mississippi Free Trader, December 20, 1853; Mississippi vol. 2, p. 44, Dun Collection; Receipt from Frederick Bego to Francis Surget, Jr., December 31, 1857, Surget Family Papers (1795-1867), MDAH.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Considering the dozens of Natchezians who patronized Stewart, and the absence of this

type of documentation for other local furniture makers, retailers, or upholsterers,

Stewart obviously controlled most of the furniture business among local woodworkers

in antebellum Natchez. Furthermore, there is evidence that Stewart might have actually

trained some Natchez furniture makers, such as Paul Botsai, David R. Gunning, and

Henry Keim, many of whom he probably supplied with local materials for their

businesses.78

Stewart performed services for nabob families in 1830. Receipts listed in the

probate records of Catherine Minor, owner of now burned Concord, indicate that in

January of 1830, R & M Stewart charged Minor $11.75 for mending and varnishing a

bookcase and washstand, and installing glazing. The Minor receipts suggest what is

confirmed in the receipts of other nabob from the 1840s, 1850s, and early 1860s, that

Stewart devoted a large portion of his business to furniture repair and maintenance,

probably similar to other Natchez furniture makers. However, entries in the Natchez

Lumber Company Day Book also record that Robert Stewart and the firm of Stewart

& Bums made purchases of wood in the early 1840s, suggesting that Stewart also

made furniture, and documenting one of his wood supply s o u r c e s . 79

78 Mississippi vol., 2, p. 88, Paul Botsai, July 9, 1860, and p. 15, Gunning & Keim, January 21, 1851, both Dun Collection, HUGSBA; Vol. 34, Robert H. Stewart Account Books, LLMVC.

79 Callon, et al. 99-100; James, 145; Receipt for Catherine Minor from R & M Stewart, January 11, 1830, William J. Minor Family Papers (1779-1898), LLMVC; The

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. From January through June of 1837, Stewart performed a variety of services for

Elijah Bell at the Mansion House, from simple tasks like putting new screws in a

bedstead and putting rockers on a chair, to charging Bell for making a lunch table.

Stewart’s reference to “making lunch table” for Elijah Bell is unique, because it is one

of two references found in probate receipts that document Stewart made furniture.

However, one example can not prove or disprove that the furniture making capacities

of Stewart’s business were limited to utilitarian objects, like lunch tables, which would

be used in less formal work spaces. For example, in January of 1853, Stewart is also

documented with making a new book case for planter John Carmichael Jenkins. The

“M” in R & M Stewart has not been identified; Between February 9 and July, 23, 1841, Robert H. Stewart is recorded making purchases of sheeting and joists from the Natchez Lumber Company, and Stewart & Burns made four purchases of sheeting [The Natchez Lumber Company Day Book (1841-1842) LLMVC]; Prominent mill owner Andrew Brown possibly administered The Natchez Lumber Company, based on the fact that he is the only mill owner in Natchez that is documented with a thriving lumber business during the antebellum period. For more information on the business activities of Andrew Brown, see John A. Eisterhold, “Lumber and Trade in the Lower Mississippi Valley and New Orleans, 1800-1860,” Louisiana History (Winter, 1972): 71-91 and John Hebron Moore, Andrew Brown and Cypress Lumbering in the Old Southwest (Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University, 1967); Other lumber suppliers are documented in antebellum Natchez through newspaper advertisements, although their contact with Natchez furniture makers has not been established. The list of lumber suppliers includes P. F. Merrick (Natchez Courier and Adams, Jefferson and Franklin Advertiser, March 8, 1833), Joseph Walker (Natchez Courier and Adams, Jefferson and Franklin Advertiser, August 2, 1833), Neibert & Gemmell (Natchez Courier and Adams, Jefferson and Franklin Advertiser, December 6, 1833), and Thomas Conner (Mississippi Free Trader, December 23, 1837).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. bookcase probably would have been used in a formal library or a more public space

used to entertain guests in Jenkins’ home, Elgin. 80

The lack of record that Stewart was actually making objects for the nabobs,

coupled with the existence of other receipts indicating he was assembling pre-made

objects, suggest that Stewart was importing furniture for sale. In August of 1849,

Stewart charged Levin R. Marshall of Richmond for “one fine Mahogany library table”

and “one Mahogany Desk for table,” while in February of 1850 he charged Marshall for

“hands at Ressidance [sic] putting up Billiard Table.” Likewise, from July of 1849

through November of 1850, Stewart charged George W. Koontz of Green Leaves for

assembling a wardrobe, bedsteads, and furniture, as well as unboxing an extension

table. Any objects as large as a wardrobe, bedstead, and billiard table would have

needed to be assembled in the exact place where they were to remain, regardless of

whether the objects were locally constructed or imported. However, Stewart’s firms

are not recorded to have made billiard tables, nor bedsteads for that matter. Perhaps

Marshall and Koontz bought the furniture through an eastern agent and actually hired

any of a number of journeymen from Stewart to unbox and assemble the objects.

While the nabobs’ ability to procure furniture is well-noted, it seems more likely with

Invoice for the estate of Elijah Bell from Robert H. Stewart, January 26, 1839, Probate Box 127, Elijah Bell, Folder 5 of 8, ACCH; Diary of John Carmichael Jenkins, January 3, 1853 (I am grateful to HNF for providing me with this reference); Miller, Mary Warren (Mimi), “Brief Narrative Look at Robert Stewart,”(unpublished paper in the collection of HNF).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. these examples that Stewart was retailing the wardrobe, bedsteads, extension table, and

billiard table, and then charging the planters on one bill just for the furniture, as he did

with Marshall for the mahogany library table and desk. On a separate bill, probably

used to compute journeymen and other employee wages, Stewart recorded the charges

for unboxing and assembling the furniture at both Green Leaves and Richmond.** 1

Unfortunately, the Koontz and Marshall furniture referred to by Stewart has not

been identified. Other purchases recorded by Stewart might be identified through

extant furniture in nabob mansions. For example, in April of 1862, Stewart charged

John T. McMurran for “2 Walnut Ward Robes” at $26.00 each. Perhaps the

wardrobes that Stewart referred to are the two walnut armoires that remain in Melrose

today and were probably originally owned by McMurran (Figures 24 and 25). The two

objects are identical in terms of form, veneering, and pierced pediment, which would

make sense if they were supposed to be bought on the same day for the same price.

Furthermore, both armoires are well finished and constructed with what appears to be

the same techniques, but these features can not necessarily prove or disprove that the

armoires were made by Stewart, especially since no documented armoires produced by

the Stewart businesses have been discovered. Rather, the armoires serve to open a

flood of information about Stewart’s retail connections, and the likelihood that the

Volume 39, entry for Levin R Marshall, August 15, 1849 and February 8, 1850, and entry for George W. Koontz, July 30,1849, May 20,1850, November 21, 1850, November 28, 1850, both Robert H. Stewart Account Books, LLMVC.

100

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. McMurran armoires were one of many objects purchased from a furniture maker who

was actually ordering the majority of furniture that he later sold to nabobs. 82

As early as 1851, and possibly earlier, Stewart was placing and receiving orders

from a variety of furniture makers and dealers in the north and east. Stewart’s

selection of furniture from cities in these areas remained fairly constant or increased

until at least 1860. As late as January of 1863, almost two years after the southern

blockade of goods had been enacted, Stewart still informed “his friends and the public”:

that he [Stewart] continues the manufacture and sale of Furniture of every kind and description. The public are requested to call and examine his recently received and choice stock of BEDSTEADS; BUREAUS; SOFAS; BOOK-CASES; SIDE-BOARDS; CHAIRS; ARMOIRS, ETC., ETC.

Obviously Stewart was determined to continue importing objects even during a time of

financial turmoil in Natchez. Many of Stewart’s earlier importation activities were

recorded in a cash book that he kept between 1851 and 1856. The book identifies

exchanges with merchants, agents, and furniture makers and dealers in Natchez, as well

as in Boston, Cincinnati, New Orleans, and New York. Unfortunately, Stewart only

82 Volume 39, entry for John T. McMurran, April 6, 1852, Robert H. Stewart Account Books, LLMVC; George Malin Davis bought Melrose in 1865, and his descendants continued to live in the suburban villa until the late-twentieth century. An inventory taken in 1865 by McMurran’s wife indicates that a significant amount of the furniture in Melrose was sold to Davis with the house. After Melrose was bought by Davis, furniture in the house was combined with other objects original to Choctow and Concord, other mansions in Natchez. Presently, other than three pieces of furniture that are marked with McMurran’s name, it can not be accurately determined what objects in Melrose were once owned by the McMurran family.

101

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. listed the names of individuals by month and day, and not for the services for which

they were charged. Stewart also did not record whether he was paying for one or

several bills. Nonetheless, the cash book serves as the earliest record of Stewart’s

furniture sources, and is the only evidence thus far discovered that outlines the

connections between a furniture retailer and other businesses in antebellum Natchez.83

Stewart collaborated with other merchants to ship his furniture orders, probably

because of the sheer number of Natchez commission merchants that were thriving in

Natchez off the cotton trade by the late 1850s. Stewart probably took advantage of the

situation, conducting business with dry goods merchants James Carradine, James

Dougherty, A. J. Postlethwaite, T. C. Reddy, and Meyer, Deutsch & Weis, the last of

which identified themselves as “importers.” The likelihood that Stewart used local

businessmen as agents for furniture is further supported by his connections with

plantation suppliers, such as Thomas G. Gaw, L. M. Patterson & Company, and

Livingston & Rountree, all of whom would have specialized in arranging goods to be

imported for Natchez planters. In one of at least two separate transactions with O P.

Cobb & Company between 1851 and 1856, Stewart wrote in parentheses, “Freight and

83 Natchez Daily Courier, January 1, 1863; Volume 11, Robert H. Stewart Account Books, LLMVC; The remainder of this section will only deal with orders placed in or received from Boston, Cincinnati, and New York. Stewart’s New Orleans orders and connections will be discussed in the next and last section of this study.

102

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Charges on Chairs,” proving that Stewart even used grocers and western produce

dealers to obtain imported furniture. 84

The 1851-1856 cash book also contains useful information on the furniture

makers and dealers that probably sent Stewart some of his earliest imported furniture

from Boston, Cincinnati, and New York. Most likely each name of a maker or dealer

recorded represents a different bill of lading, since the names are often accompanied by

the name of the ship leaving each port. The 1851-1856 cash book may not have been

the earliest or the only contemporary record of Stewart’s orders in the 1850s.

Furthermore, as the first page(s) of the ledger are missing, the records support a partial

analysis. Fortunately, the cash book is supplements by the only known records of

Stewart furniture orders, which date from 1859-1860 and include specific furniture

forms bought from particular furniture makers and dealers.85

As the majority of actual furniture orders from 1859-1860 are dated, they also

provide evidence as to when furniture arrived from various ports and how their arrival

functioned within the agricultural economy of Natchez. Most transactions occurred

between February and June, or at least 3-6 months before cotton picking season would

84 A. Mygatt & Co. 's New Orleans Business Directory, 262-265, 267, 269; Volume 11, Robert H. Stewart Account Books, LLMVC.

8^ The two ledgers that contain furniture orders are different in the sense that one ledger records furniture placed by Stewart with specific makers or dealers while the second ledger records furniture orders received.

103

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. begin in August. After August, the majority of Boston and New York ships would

arrive in New Orleans laden with ordered furniture and other domestic goods that

would be shipped up to Natchez. These ships would then return east with southern

cotton. The fall was also the best time of year for Cincinnati ships to deliver furniture

because it was when the planters had money from cotton sales. Stewart, would thus

need to increase his stock of furniture in preparation for this season.86 The majority of

furniture orders arrived from September through April, the bulk between November

and March, when the cotton shipments from New Orleans would culminate each

season. Stewart’s account books suggest that this system of ordering became

increasingly standardized in the 1830s, 1840s, and 1850s, as the community of Natchez

nabobs and other planters became more successful.8^

The following table records the number of transactions or furniture orders that

Stewart recorded in his 1851-1856 cash book and in the two ledgers that contain his

orders from 1859-1860:

86 The dates of arrival for most Cincinnati steamboats in Natchez, as recorded in Stewart’s order book, is confirmed by statistics printed in the Cincinnati annual statements of trade and commerce for 1869 and 1860 [Annual Statement o f the Trade and Commerce o f Cincinnati (Cincinnati: Gazette, 1859) 40 and Annual Statement of the Trade and Commerce o f Cincinnati (Cincinnati: Gazette, 1860) 45].

8^ Albion, 110; Volumes 11, 30, and 35, Robert H. Stewart Account Books, LLMVC.

104

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 1. The 1851-1859 Furniture Orders of Robert H. Stewart

1851* 1852 1853 1854 1855 18561859 1860 Total Boston 2 3 4 0 4 5 22 21 61 Cincinnati 7 13 12 6 14 15 26 17 110 New Orleans 1 1 0 3 9 3 26 21 64 New York 3 7 8 2 5 9 19 28 81 Total 13 24 24 11 32 32 93 87 316

* The year 1851 only includes May-December

The above table refers to the least number of furniture orders that Stewart received from May of 1851-1860. The totals exclude any undated orders from Boston, Cincinnati, New Orleans, and New York during this time period. The totals also exclude any furniture orders that Robert H. Stewart might have personally placed when in Boston, Cincinnati, New Orleans, or New York and then shipped to Natchez, rather than being sent by an eastern manufacturer or dealer.

The yearly fluctuations indicated in the table of furniture orders do not seem to be

explained by any national or regional economic situations that increased or decreased

consumers’ demand for furniture in the 1850s. After the financial crash in 1837 and

suffering cotton prices from 1839-1843, the Unites States economy boomed for the

next fourteen years. A quick recovery after the financial crisis of 1857 was proceeded

by the growth of cotton production in the south until it achieved its most productive

season ever in 1860. Success in cotton also suggests that material goods and luxury

items would have been more available to Natchez consumers, resulting in an ever-

increasing number of furniture orders placed and received from 1851-1860. Stewart’s

105

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. actual furniture orders from 18S1-1860 suggest the rising demand in Natchez for

furniture from certain northern and eastern cities. 88

BOSTON ORDERS:

Boston prospered as a furniture manufacturing and distributing center until the

middle of the nineteenth century, probably benefiting from the success of

Massachusetts textiles mills that relied on the Boston port. Chair making in particular

had become a major industry, undoubtedly providing a significant amount of the

product which made Boston rise in the value of its furniture and upholstery exports

from $1,300,000 to $5,800,000, in just the eighteen years between 1837 to 1855. By

the time that Stewart was patronizing Boston makers in 1860, the city ranked second in

the country behind New York for the highest total value of furniture production.

However, unlike New York or even Philadelphia, as Jan Seidler states in her article on

the nineteenth-century Boston furniture industry, “it was the production of cheap,

durable furniture for the average home on which Boston’s active 19th century furniture

industry was based.” From the 1830s until the Civil War, Boston increasingly

overshadowed New York in taking the majority of cotton bales sent from the south out

of New Orleans, most of which was used for textile mills in New England. As ships

laden with cotton were regularly leaving Natchez for New Orleans and then Boston, it

made sense for Stewart to establish connections with Boston manufacturers, who were

88 Taylor, 344-346, 350.

106

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. producing, for a broad middle-class market, furniture that could be sold easily and

quickly sent south on the frequent packet schedules. 89

The Heywood Chair Manufacturing Company is an example of a successful

Massachusetts manufacturer that primarily produced middle-class cottage furniture,

some of which was elaborately decorated with carving or painting that probably

increased the visual effect and appealed to Stewart’s nabob customers. At least ten of

Stewart’s eighteen Boston orders between 1851-1856 were with William Heywood,

Levi Heywood, or Heywood & Company, all of which by 1854 became known as the

Heywood Chair Manufacturing Company of Gardner, Massachusetts. Stewart placed

at least 8 more orders with the Heywood firm between 1859 and 1860, recorded in

surviving furniture orders. During Stewart’s patronage, the Heywood Chair

Manufacturing Co. apparently was doing the largest chair selling business in Boston,

and had contributed significantly in developing the production of chairs as an

exportable American economy.9®

89 Oscar P. Fitzgerald, Four Centuries o fAmerican Furniture (Radnor, PA: Wallace- Homestead, 1995) 245; Victor Clark, History o fManufactures in the United States vol 1, 1607-1860 (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1929) 473-474; Albion, 101; Jan M. Seidler, “A Tradition in Transition: The Boston Furniture Industry, 1840-1880,” Victorian Furniture Essays from a Victorian Society Autumn Symposium, ed., Kenneth L. Ames (Philadelphia: Victorian Society in America, 1983) 69, 71, 82.

90 Seidler, 79; For more information on the various Heywood chair business, see A Completed Century 1826-1926 The Story o f Heywood-Wakefield Company (Boston: Heywood-Wakefield Co., 1926) and Richard N. Greenwood, The Five Heywood Brothers (1826-1951) A Brief History o f the Heywood-Wakefield Company During

107

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Stewart ordered a variety of seating forms and styles, including childrens’ and

toy furniture, rush seat chairs, and those identified as “Cane Bk [back] Union Rock’g

[rocking],” “Child Bent Rock’g [rocking],” and “Spindle Grecian.” These latter three

examples were probably similar to three designs with the same names that appear in an

1878 Heywood trade catalog (Figures 26-28). Obviously Stewart was consulting

Heywood catalogs to buy furniture, as many of his 1859 and 1860 furniture orders

record descriptive names such as “Harrison Gilt (chair),” “Parkins Chair,” and “Mount

Vernon Din’g [dining] Oak (chair).” These contemporary names were dubbed by

Heywood for designs they produced, that were either popular or available for a limited

amount of time.

Apparently Heywood chairs became increasingly more popular in Natchez in

the 1850s. By at least 1859, Heywood was sending several orders of chairs to Stewart

from Boston as well as a retail store that the firm operated in New Orleans.

Undoubtedly the New Orleans store was established to enable Heywood to tap more

125 Years (New York: The Newcomen Society in North America, 1951). Volumes 11, 30, and 35, Robert H. Stewart Account Books, LLMVC.

91 Volumes 11, 30, and 35, Robert H. Stewart Account Books, LLMVC; Bigelow, 401-401; Hanks, et al., 131-132; Massachusetts vol. 73, p. 248, Heywood Chair Manufacturing Co., March 21, 1859, Dun Collection, HUGSBA; Heywood Brothers & Company (catalogue), 1878.

108

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. directly into the southern market. For loyal patrons like Stewart, the retail outlet

assured more efficient delivery of furniture for planters, perhaps short notice.92

Undoubtedly Heywood’s success is similar to that of another Massachusetts

manufacturer from Worcester named Edward Vaill, who spent a career from 1861-

1891 specializing in the production of patented folding chairs similar to the one original

to Arlington. Credited at the end of his career with operating “the largest folding chair

factory in the world,” Vaill exported his chairs throughout the country. While planters

were probably aware of Vaill’s success, he probably established connections with local

furniture retailers like Stewart. Perhaps Stewart sold S.S. Boyd his fashionable,

rosewood grained, Vaill marked camp chair that was multi-purpose, durable, and

inexpensive (Figures 29-30).93

92 Volumes 11, 30, and 35, Robert H. Stewart Account Books, LLMVC.

9^ Hanks, et al., 36; Massachusetts vol. 104, Edward W. Vaill, September 3, 1860, Dun Collection, HUGSBA; Unfortunately, while the Arlington chair is patented by Vaill, the label does not include a patent number or date, and the actual design of the chair has not been located in the annual patent reports from the 1860s. However, an identical design named “Scroll Arm Chair” is listed in Vaill’s price list of 1876, available in a rosewood finish with a Brussels Seat for $38.00 [E. W. Vaill, Circular and Price List, (Worcester, MA; 1876)]. The “Scroll Arm Chair is depicted as Number 26 in the Judges ’ Report, United States Centennial Commission, International Exhibition, 1876; For more information on folding chairs in the nineteenth century, see Rodris Roth, “Seating for Anyplace: The Folding Chair,” in Victorian Furniture Essays from a Victorian Society Autumn Symposium, ed., Kenneth L. Ames (Philadelphia: Victorian Society in America, 1983).

109

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The only other Boston name recorded in Stewart’s cash book between 1851

and 1856 is the firm of Edwin A. Smallwood, a manufacturer and dealer in furniture.

In 1857, Smallwood advertised having a parlor furniture manufactory in Newton

Comer and warerooms in Boston. Smallwood did not retail imported parlor, library,

and drawing-room furniture but actually produced what he sold in a variety of different

styles and designs. The firm was praised for constantly patenting new patterns for

parlor furniture, and offering a range of suite prices from $50.00 to $500.00. 94

As with the Heywood businesses, Stewart probably only dealt with

Smallwood’s retail store in Boston. Two of the three furniture orders that Stewart

placed with Smallwood between 1859 and 1860 are for parlor furniture, like tete-a-

tetes, sofas, and easy chairs, in a variety of different patterns. The forms that Stewart

ordered from Smallwood and his connection with a Boston maker and dealer make

sense considering that Smallwood advertised for a southern and western market in

publications like David Bigelow’s History of Prominent Mercantile and Manufacturing

Firms o f the United States of 1857:

EDWIN A. SMALLWOOD, Manufacturer and Dealer in Furniture, Would respectfully call the attention of Dealers to his large and superior stock of elegant SOFAS, TETE-A-TETES, DIVANS, ARM AND ROCKING CHAIRS, Of new and original designs, suitable for the Southern and Western Market...SUITS OF PARLOR FURNITURE, IN Mahogany, Black Walnut and Rosewood, in Plush, Damask, Brocatelle, etc., of the latest styles, and in any quantity, constantly on hand.

94 Bigelow, 172-173.; Seidler, 69.

110

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The same year, credit reporters in Boston claimed that Smallwood worked cheaply and

“Does not stand favorably with the trade; some doubt his alleged means; lacks system,

[and] sell without profit quite often.” Marked or otherwise documented examples of

Smallwood furniture in Natchez remain undiscovered, so the quality of furniture that

Stewart was purchasing from Smallwood is a mystery. However, obviously Stewart

saw potential sales in the design and forms of furniture that he retailed from

Smallwood, whether or not Stewart was later selling Smallwood’s furniture to planters

like Surget and Duncan; Stewart consistently conducted business with Smallwood in

the 1850s, represented in at least eleven transactions recorded from 1851 through

1859. Whatever Smallwood’s motives and strategy, Stewart bought it, for as simple a

reason as because Smallwood’s “Knockdown” furniture was expressly adapted for

exportation over a long distances, especially by sea;

He [Smallwood] would call the attention of shippers, particularly for long voyages, to his entire Sets of Parlor Furniture, of the richest description, which are so constructed as to be boxed in parts, and easily put together by the most inexperienced persons in a few moments, and thus saving more than two-thirds freight...enables the subscriber to produce a very superior article at a low price.”9^

95 Volumes 11, 30, and 35, Robert H. Stewart Account Books, LLMVC; Bigelow, 172-173; Massachusetts vol. 70, p. 673, E. A. & G. T. Smallwood, June 30, 1857, Dun Collection, HUGSBA; Bigelow defines Smallwood’s “Knockdown’ furniture in the following passage; “‘Knockdown’ Furniture, being so made as to be easily taken apart, for compact packing, thus economizing space, while avoiding liability to injury, and being much more easily handled than if put together in one piece. The joints are so strong, perfect in fit, and ingeniously concealed, as to make this style of furniture much

111

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. While Stewart recorded at least forty-three orders of furniture from Boston

between 1859 and 1860 (comparable to forty-three orders from Cincinnati and forty-

seven orders from New York during the same period), the Boston orders were only

transacted with five businessmen other than Heywood and Smallwood. Three of these

five makers or dealers, Beal & Hooper, Allen & Webber, and E. H. R. Ruggles,

represented only a total of four Boston orders, while the remaining two furniture

companies, Willard Everett & Company and Shearer & Paine, provided Stewart with

respectively eight and twelve orders from 1859 to 1860. It is unclear whether Stewart

was accepting one time venture cargo from Allen & Webber, Beal & Hopper, and

Ruggles, and could not sell the furniture he ordered from them, or if their business

relationships were not strong enough to survive the political tension mounting on the

eve of the Civil War. Another explanation for Stewart’s limited patronage of Boston

makers and dealers was because he might have been also serving as a retail agent for

only a few businesses, such as Willard Everett & Co. and Shearer & Paine.^

Given his orders with Heywood and Smallwood, one might assume that

Stewart was only patronizing Boston makers for seating furniture, but orders with

Shearer & Paine and Willard Everett & Co. indicate that Stewart was receiving a

to be desired by all who wish to escape one of the most series annoyances attendant upon the moving of choice Furniture.”

96 Volumes 30 and 35, Robert H. Stewart Account Books, LLMVC.

112

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. variety of other furniture forms from Boston makers. Furthermore, a sampling of the

Shearer & Paine and Willard Everett & Co. orders from 18S9 to 1860 do not indicate

that Stewart was receiving chairs or parlor furniture from them. This suggests,

perhaps, that Heywood or Smallwood introduced Stewart to these furniture companies

because it met their best interests, as Shearer & Paine and Willard Everett & Co. were

not in competition with the Heywood and Smallwood production line. Increased

connections in Boston ensured Stewart’s continued patronage of all these makers and

dealers.

The simplest reason for Stewart patronizing both Willard, Everett & Co. and

Shearer & Paine is because they both maintained active distribution of fUmiture to the

south. Shearer & Paine even operated a branch in New Orleans under Daniel L.

Shearer & Company, where Stewart paid for probably ten different orders between

1854 and 1856. Willard Everett & Co. furniture orders document that Stewart was

purchasing from the firm a variety of patterns of etageres, extension tables, and small

stands or racks, including teapoys. A representative order from Shearer & Paine

indicates that Stewart was buying completely different forms from them, including

bureaus and sideboards. Shearer & Paine was also constantly updating woodworking

machinery, sometimes hiring unskilled labor to perform routine operations or add to the

work force for larger orders. If Shearer & Paine’s business activities resulted in

97 Volumes 30 and 35, Robert H. Stewart Account Books, LLMVC.

113

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. variations in the quality of furniture produced, it certainly did not affect Stewart’s

continued patronage of the firm in the 1850s. Stewart knew what would sell to his

Natchez customers.9®

Stewart’s continued patronage of Boston makers is possibly a reflection of the

taste among Natchez consumers for the Boston styles of furniture in the mid-nineteenth

century. Typically Boston furniture of the 1850s has been characterized as restrained

in ornamentation and slightly conservative in the depiction of prevailing styles, at least

when compared to contemporary New York or Philadelphia furniture. Earlier Boston

examples from the 1830s and 1840s also exhibit a strong retention of classical

elements, such as the placement of boldly defined yet flat and often geometric carving

within a fairly architectonic form, which appears in an armoire original to Arlington that

was retailed by upholsterer Edward Hixon (Figures 31-32). Even though Hixon is

always listed in city directories as an upholsterer, R. G. Dun & Co. credit reports refer

to him as “a first rate cabinetmaker.” Regardless of whether Hixon made or retailed

the Arlington armoire, he had choices as to whether he would he would sell the object

from his display rooms or consign the armoire to one of a number of Boston auction

98 Massachusetts vol. 56, p. 511, Willard Everett & Co., March 11, 1858, New York vol. 191, p. 433, Leonard B. Shearer, September 8,1853, Massachusetts vol. 73, Willard Everett and Co., April 2, 1859, and New York vol. 191, p. 433, Shearer & Jones, October 24, 1859, all Dun Collection, HUGSBA; Volume 11, Robert H. Stewart Account Books, LLMVC; Seidler, 78; For more information on the Shearer & Paine businesses, see One Hundred Years at Paine’s 1835-1935 A History o f America's Oldest Furniture Store (Boston: Paine Furniture Co., 1935).

114

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. houses that held regular sales. Furthermore, as Hixon operated at least a portion of his

business on Washington Street, where the majority of Boston’s fashionable furniture

stores were located, Stewart could have easily purchased the armoire for Charlotte

Bingaman or S. S. Boyd of Arlington when buying other furniture for retail in Boston.

Neither Bingaman, Boyd, or any other antebellum nabob are known to have had agents

or business connections in Boston, which suggest that they would have relied on well-

connected retailers like Stewart to procure “Boston styles” furniture. If Stewart

actually purchased the Hixon armoire, he could also have done so at a furniture

auction, which is probably what occurred in October of 1859, when Stewart sent

himself an order of furniture from Boston, probably realizing that a variety of styles

from different makers would prove popular in Natchez. Unfortunately, in the absence

of even a handful of identified Boston furniture with Natchez provenance, and with

little documented information about the businesses of those Boston makers and dealers

that Stewart patronized, one can only speculate on the popularity of the Boston

interpretation of fashionable styles in antebellum Natchez. The same must be said of

the quality of furniture produced for the Natchez market.^

99 Seidler, 67, 71; Massachusetts, vol. 67, p. 15, Edward Hixon, May 23, 1848, Dun Collection, HUGSBA; Talbott, “The Furniture Industry in Boston,” (master’s thesis, University of Delaware, 1974) 2, 14, 128; Albion, 117.

115

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. NEW YORK ORDERS:

Compared to Boston, Stewart patronized a number of New York furniture

businesses during the 18S0s. Between 18S1 and 1856, Stewart dealt with 6 different

makers and dealers and probably received at least thirty-four different orders from New

York. In only the two years between 1859 and 1860, he significantly increased the

amount of furniture orders (47) that he received from New York and more than tripled

the number of firms (23) from which he received orders. The number of orders that

Stewart placed with New York furniture businesses between 1859 and 1860 are more

than those recorded in Boston (43) or Cincinnati (43). ^ 0

Stewart’s increased connections with New York during the 1850s is not

surprising, especially considering how integral the city was to the cotton economy of

Natchez. Many planters seemed to value this relationship, especially those that were

conducting business with successful, well-connected New York agents like the

Leveriches. New York was also significant to the consumer economy of Natchez

because a large number of European imports came to Natchez via the port of New

York. Ships were loaded in New York with plantation supplies as well as imported and

domestic products, like furniture, which was sent south as either venture cargo or

transacted orders. Part of the success of those New York furniture makers and dealers

who profited from trade and commerce with the south, depended upon balancing the

Volumes 11, 30, and 35, Robert H. Stewart Account Books, LLMVC.

116

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. quality of merchandise produced for export. Richard Stott has pointed out that “As

early as 1820 there was manufacture and export of inexpensive furniture as well as

expensive works for the elite market.” Undoubtedly, this elite market included the

nabobs of Natchez. 101

The furniture market in New York continued to grow in the 1830s and 40s as

more commission merchants took advantage of the opportunity to buy mass-produced

furniture at auctions. These merchants knew they could resell furniture to agents in the

south, as was probably the case with some if not most of the New York furniture

received by the Soria and Dolbeare auction houses in Natchez. The New York City

furniture industry exported five-sixths of its total production in 1833 alone, and a

stratified hierarchy of furniture firms existed according to the quality of furniture

decoration and construction. 1^2

Stewart’s cash book from 1851-1856 and actual orders from 1859-60, suggest

that Stewart increasingly patronized lesser known although not necessarily lesser

quality makers as the decade passed. Between 1851 and 1856, Stewart recorded

dealings with furniture makers George Ebbinghousen, John C. Hahn, Henry Weil, and

A. & H. S. Thorp as well as chair maker Tweed and Brother. In his memoirs written in

101 Albion, 117; Richard B. Stott, Worker in the Metropolis Class, Ethnicity, and Youth in Antebellum New York City (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, 1990) 55.

1°2 Stott, 56.

117

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1908, New York furniture maker Ernest Hagen referred to many of the New York

makers that Stewart patronized, including Weil, who Hagen considered “Amongst the

most prominent cabinet makers on the East side.” Hagen also credited Weil with

making “large mahogany wardrobes, dressing bureaus, and other large case work,” that

were sent down south, particularly to New Orleans. 103

Hagen’s memoirs discuss the general furniture situation in New York when

Stewart was placing his orders in the 1850s. Recorded were some of the differences

between large and small furniture houses in New York, much of which can be applied

to the makers and dealers that Stewart patronized. Hagen claimed that the smaller

shops specialized in one form that they supplied to retailers who sold to cheap furniture

stores. Perhaps Tweed and Brother can be considered one of these lesser scale

establishments, which mass produced only cane seat chairs that sold wholesale for

$2.14 each in 1860. Regardless of the quality of objects purchased, Stewart recorded

paying Tweed on at least four different occasions between 1852 and 1856, signifying

that there was a market, possibly among wealthy planters, for inexpensive chairs that

conformed to prevailing styles and fashions. 104

103 Volume 11, Robert H. Stewart Account Books, LLMVC; Stott, 56; Elizabeth A. Ingerman, “Personal Experiences of an Old New York Cabinetmaker,” Antiques (November, 1963) 577.

104 Volume 11, Robert H. Stewart Account Books, LLMVC; Stott, 57.

118

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In antebellum New York, “Fumituremaking was important, and,...it was

subdivided into ‘fancy,’ ‘general,’ and ‘slop’ work.” In the absence of marked

examples by any of the makers or dealers that Stewart received orders, it is difficult to

reconstruct where New York furniture shipped to Natchez fit in the above

classification. The most fashionable and often the most expensive furniture

manufacturers patronized by nabobs, such as Meeks and Belter, had shops on

Broadway or in the present lower west side of New York. From 1859-1860, Stewart

placed only a few orders each with less-well known makers from this area, including

Rudolph Bohm, Charles E. Cannon, Charles Reinshagen, Ludwig Lauer & Brother, and

William Gullifer, any of whom might have been producing fancy or more general work.

Many of these west side firms, such as Bruner & Moore, Frey & Scott, and Smith &

Schoenenberger, were also connected by business ties. George Frey was employed by

Bruner & Moore before his firm was sold in 1861 to George Smith, who had just sold

Smith & Schoenenberger to Henry Bruner. Essentially, Frey & Scott and Smith &

Schoenenberger were short-lived partnerships that probably grew out of the large

response for furniture in the south. Furthermore, both businesses probably always

functioned with the assistance of Bruner & Moore, the most famous name of the

group, which was referred to by Hagen as one of a few “pretty well known houses on

the West side who done a good business.” Bruner & Moore filled the gap between the

New York furniture orders of Stewart and the New York orders of nabobs. Francis

Surget, Jr. bought a mahogany bureau, center table, and wardrobe from Bruner &

119

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Moore for $160.14 in October of 1860, via agent Charles Leverich. Surget then wrote

Bruner & Moore a check on November 28, 1860, presumably for another order of

furniture worth $ 307.50. ^ 5

In comparison with the lower west side furniture makers and dealers, Stewart

also patronized an equally large number of businesses on the lower east side of New

York. George Ebbinghousen probably sent at least six orders to Stewart between 1852

and 1856, and was described by R. G. Dun credit reporters in 1859 as a practical

cabinetmaker who dealt particularly with the south. Hagen even credited

Ebbinghousen to have “done considerable business for a time. His work was rather

better than Weils.” Likewise, Hagen gave a favorable description of DegrafF& Taylor,

another firm that is documented to have done a lot of business with the south, and

mainly sold seating furniture to Stewart in September and October of 1860. Shearer &

Jones, manufacturers and wholesale dealers in chairs and cabinet furniture, were one of

three branches of the successful Boston based company of Shearer & Paine; they

probably originally connected Stewart with their New York branch and arranged for at

105 Stott, 130; New York vol. 191, p. 446, Smith & Schoenenberger, October 29, 1860, New York vol. 194, Frey & Scott, April 2, 1859 and August 21, 1861, New York vol. 190, p. 397, Bruner & Moore, June 6, 1858, all Dun Collection, HUGSBA; Ingerman, 580; Receipt for Francis Surget, Jr. from Bruner & Moore, October 19, 1860, Account of Francis Surget, Jr. with Charles P. Leverich, October 19, 1860, Canceled Check for Bruner & Moore from Francis Surget, Jr., November 28, 1860, all from Surget Family Papers, MDAH; Volume 35, Robert H. Stewart Account Books, LLMVC.

120

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. least four orders of furniture to be sent to Natchez in 18S9 and 1860. While

Ebbinghousen, Degraff & Taylor, and Shearer & Jones apparently produced well-

designed and fashionable furniture, their businesses were located in the present lower

east side section of New York, which had a reputation for producing “the bulk of the

cheaper furniture” in antebellum New York.106

Ebbinghousen and Degraff & Taylor were joined by furniture makers Frederick

Bang, George Rammelkamp, Jacob Zerfass, Charles and Julius Wesslau, and Sommer

& Co., and chair maker Tunis R. Cooper & Co., many of whom probably arrived with

the large German immigration to New York in the early 1850s, and operated small

shops in the Bowery area that supplied both cheap and first class furniture stores and

more distant retailers, such as Stewart. With the exception of Ebbinghousen and

Degraff & Taylor, only one or two orders were transacted with any of these makers.

Reasons for this situation could be as simple as the fact that many were precarious

businesses that had just started and probably could not supply the demands of the large

New York firms let alone compete with them. Undoubtedly many of these lower east

side businesses also suffered after the start of the Civil War, especially because, as

106 New York vol. 191, p. 430, George Ebbinghousen, October 29, 1859, and New York vol. 191, p. 445, Degraff & Taylor, May 8, 1861, both Dun Collection, HUGSBA; Ingerman, 577, 580;; Wilson, H. Trow's New York City Directory (New York: John F. Trow, 1860) 4; Wilson, H. Trow's New York City Directory (New York: John F. Trow, 1861) 22; Volumes 11 and 35, Robert H. Stewart Account Books, LLMVC.

121

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Hagen asserted, “These cabinet makers suplied [sic] the furniture stores with their

products...and a great deal went South.” 107

The small number of orders Stewart received from these lower east side

furniture makers coupled with the lack of documentation that exists on their businesses,

makes it difficult to determine whether these New York firms only sold one or a few

types of furniture forms, or if Stewart only purchased particular forms or styles from

them. Analysis based strictly on the few order(s) for each maker would lead one to

believe that Zerfass specialized in parlor furniture or that Stewart only patronized him

for this type of product. The same situation could be applied to C. & J. Wesslau with

armoires and bookcases, George Rammelkamp with looking glass frames, Frederick

Bang with etageres, and Sommer & Co. with mahogany tables. Stewart could have

personally selected the furniture he ordered on a buying trip to New York, two of

which he made in October of 1859 and September of 1860. However, if Stewart

placed the orders from Natchez, he probably did so because he had access to illustrated

catalogues of the makers’ designs.

Foster & Lee, furniture makers and dealers that had stock rooms on Broome

Street near Bowery, produced a trade catalog in 1858 that contained wood cuts of

107 Sean Wilentz, Chants Democratic New York City & The Rise o f the American Working Class, 1788-1850 (New York: Oxford University, 1984) 127; Ingerman, 577; Volumes 11 and 35, Robert H. Stewart Account Books, LLMVC.

108 Volumes 11 and 35, Robert H. Stewart Account Books, LLMVC.

122

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. furniture they produced accompanied by numbers that listed current prices in the firm’s

“Tradesmen’s Index.” Stewart only recorded one furniture order with Foster & Lee in

February of 1860, and the objects received were all spring beds, none of which were

advertised in the 1858 catalogue. Actually, the spring beds might not have even been

made by Foster & Lee. The firm advertised on February 19, 1857 in The Independent,

a New York City newspaper, that “We have also for sale the celebrated Tucker’s

Patent Spring-Bed universally acknowledged to be the very best bed ever yet

invented.” Apparently the Tucker bed was popular in Natchez, as Stewart bought

twenty-four examples of three different kinds for the low sum of $90.00. Either

Stewart knew that the beds would sell or he had customers place orders through him

for the well-known bed that Foster & Lee described as:

This unrivaled bed we recommend with perfect confidence, it having been fully tested, and found, in all respects, to excel any other spring bottom ever invented, as it has everything to recommend it, it being more portable, easier of adjustment to bedsteads, and can be kept perfectly free from bugs. A good bed is an article of too much importance of a person to be humbugged about, and among the numerous spring bottoms before the public, of more or less merit, great care is necessary, or a person will get a worthless article. Don’t fail to see TUCKER’S PATENT before purchasing.*09

1°9 See Foster & Lee, Furniture Dealers, No 198 Broome Street, New York City (catalogue) (New York: J. Huggins & Co., 1858) (I am grateful to the Metropolitan Museum of Art files on Foster & Lee for originally providing me with this reference); The Independent, February 19, 1857 (I am grateful to the Metropolitan Museum of Art files on Foster & Lee for providing me with this reference); The Independent, July 23, 1857 (I am grateful to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York files on Foster & Lee for providing me with this reference).

123

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. While Stewart or other Natchez retailers are not known to have owned a Foster

& Lee catalogue, the similarities between some of the engravings in the 1858 catalogue

and furniture original to Rosalie and Arlington is noteworthy (Figures 33-36). This

comparison does not necessarily prove that Foster & Lee made the etagere and sofa

pictured, but it does provide credence to the fact that these objects were made from

designs popular among New York furniture makers. The examples of a Natchez

armchair, etagere, and sofas provide evidence that as late as the 1850s and 60s, even

the wealthiest Natchez planters were consumers of inexpensive New York furniture,

probably much of which was produced and sold by lower east side/Bowery makers.

CINCINNATI ORDERS:

Despite the influence of Boston and New York makers and dealers during the

1850s, Cincinnati remained an equally significant and perhaps an even more important

source of imported furniture for the Stewart businesses. Between 1851 and 1856,

Stewart recorded in his cash book more payments for Cincinnati furniture annually than

to manufacturers in Boston, New York, and New Orleans, often more than the

combined orders from these cities. Between 1859 and 1860, at least twenty-four

percent of Stewart’s furniture orders continued to come from Cincinnati. By the early-

nineteenth century, Cincinnati and the west had established a trade relationship with the

south. Originally sugar and molasses from the south was shipped up the Mississippi

and Ohio Rivers, as produce and manufactured products from the west, the latter of

124

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. which were almost exclusively made in Cincinnati and Pittsburgh, were shipped down

to New Orleans for regional consumption and both foreign and domestic export. With

the introduction of canals and railroads in the 1840s that connected the east coast with

the west, the western produce market was diverted from the south, and thus fewer

agricultural exports were sent down river from Cincinnati. Furthermore, beginning in

1856, annual statements about the trade and commerce of Cincinnati placed

increasingly more emphasis on the strength of the city’s furniture market in the

expanding west rather than in the south. Part of the reasoning for Cincinnati’s

attention towards a western furniture market was the result of stiff competition from

northern manufacturers in the north and east, many of whom did not suffer from the

high tariffs and freight rates imposed on Cincinnati furniture makers by private

steamboat companies that controlled the Ohio and Mississippi River trades.

Nonetheless, as evidenced through Stewart’s cash book and orders, Natchez continued

to increase its demand in the 1850s for Cincinnati-made furniture. Stewart’s success

with Cincinnati furniture was based on the city’s large production capacity for tastefully

decorated objects, although varying in quality, and the ability to readily supply the

demands of consumers throughout the entire south. No planters, however, are known

to have individually made furniture purchases in Cincinnati, despite the numerous

advertisements in Natchez newspapers for hotels and other lodging suitable for planters

when visiting the city. Thus, if planters specifically wanted Cincinnati furniture,

including that which was produced by reputable firms like Mitchell & Rammelsberg,

125

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. they probably had to buy it through Stewart or another furniture retailer, as no nabobs

or other wealthy planters that patronized Stewart are known to have had agents in

Cincinnati sending them furniture. *

Throughout the 1850s, Stewart dealt with fifteen different Cincinnati firms,

many of which dissolved and re-formed in different partnerships between 1851-1859.

The firm of Mitchell & Rammelsberg is perhaps the most famous Cincinnati furniture

company that Stewart patronized, probably under a variety of different names from at

least 1851 through 1860. On five different occasions in 1851 and 1855, Stewart paid

Johnston & Co. and C. D. Johnston, both referring to chair manufacturer Charles D.

Johnston. Cincinnati census taker Charles Cist referred to Johnston in 1851 as having

“The largest building employed in the manufacture of chairs in this city, or anywhere

else” and that “All the important towns or cities in the south and west are extensively

his customers.” Apparently Johnston ran a business with only 160 men that could

handle orders for as many as 30,000 chairs, an impressive testament to the fact that the

1 Volumes 11, 30, and 35, Robert H. Stewart Account Books, LLMVC; Albert Fishlow, “Antebellum Regional Trade Reconsidered,” American Economic Review 54 (1964): 355; Louis Bernard Schmidt, “Internal Commerce and the Development of National Economy Before 1860,” The Journal o f Political Economy 47 (December 1939): 798; R. B. Way, “The Commerce of the Lower Mississippi in the Period 1830- 1860,” Proceedings o f the Mississippi Valley Historical Association^ (1920): 58; Taylor, 164; Charles R. Wilson, “Cincinnati A Southern Outpost in 1860-61?” Mississippi Valley Historical Review, 479-480; Annual Statement o f the Trade and Commerce o f Cincinnati (Cincinnati: Gazette, 1856) 22; Annual Statement of the Trade and Commerce o f Cincinnati (Cincinnati: Gazette, 1860) 25; Mississippi Free Trader, January 5, 1853.

126

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. production of the firm exceeded even well-known mass producers of furniture such as

Edward Hitchcock of Connecticut. From 1859 until 1862, Johnston, together with

cabinetmaker and furniture dealer Aaron Shaw, and John Lyford, were in partnership

under the name of Shaw, Johnston & Company, which sent four orders of canopy beds

and tables to Stewart as late as November of 1860. Even though three of these orders

almost exclusively contained bedsteads, there is no indication that Shaw, Johnston, or

Lyford specialized as bedstead makers. The Dun credit reports are more explicit,

stating on May 20, 1861, that Shaw, Johnston, & Co. was “Sued by Hy [Henry]Weil

for $236.” Obviously as furniture dealers, Shaw, Johnston & Co. were receiving

furniture produced by cabinetmaker Henry Weil of New York, who also had a trade

connection with Stewart, at least between 1852-1856. Whether Stewart knew of

Weil’s connection with Shaw, Johnston & Co. is unknown, but this relationship

suggests that Stewart may have directly and indirectly received furniture made by Weil

in the 1850s and early 1860s. 1 * *

111 Volumes 11, 30, and 35, Robert H. Stewart Account Books, LLMVC; Cist, Sketches and Statistics of Cincinnati in 1851, 207-208; J. L. Oliver, The Development and Structure o f the Furniture Industry (New YorkiPergamon, 1966) 56; Partnership Agreement between Charles D. Johnston, John Lyford, and Aaron Shaw, September 1859, Cincinnati Historical Society, Cincinnati, Ohio; Cincinnati credit reports vaguely indicate that the Shaw, Johnston, & Co. had money invested in St. Louis. This is possibly a reference to a branch of the company that might have sold to the lower Mississippi Delta, including Natchez, as Shaw, Johnston, & Co. are not recorded to have operated a branch in New Orleans that would have served the same purposes (Ohio vol. 80, p. 193, Shaw, Johnston & Co., March 11, 1861, Dun Collection,

127

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In between his affiliation with Johnston & Co. and Shaw, Johnston & Co.,

Charles D. Johnston was part of the firm of Johnston & Mitchell, which Stewart

patronized on two different occasions in 18S2. Perhaps this “Mitchell” was John

Mitchell, who was undoubtedly paid by Stewart for furniture in December of 1852.

While John Mitchell was only formally in business with his brother Robert Mitchell of

Mitchell & Rammelsberg (1847-1863) between 1844-1847 (long before John Mitchell

did business with Stewart) the two brothers were undoubtedly connected in some

capacity in their separate ventures. Perhaps it was the order(s) that Stewart placed

with John Mitchell in the 1840s that paved the way for business with Mitchell &

Rammelsberg from 1853 through 1859.1 12

Regarded in 1856 as the largest Cincinnati firm in their line of business, Mitchell

& Rammelsberg sent Stewart at least 16 different orders between 1851 and 1859,

including the largest assortment of goods of any other maker or dealer that Stewart

patronized. Furthermore, similar to other Cincinnati furniture businesses, Mitchell &

Rammelsberg extensively cultivated a southern furniture market. In 1851, Charles Cist

considered Mitchell & Rammelsberg to be different from the vast majority of other

HUGSBA); Ohio vol. 80, p. 193, Shaw, Johnston & Co., May 20, 1861, Dun Collection, HUGSBA; Sikes, 131, 214.

1 Volumes 11, 30, and 35, Robert H. Stewart Account Books, LLMVC; John Mitchell was affiliated with Mitchell & Rammelsberg before 1857, after which he operated a steam chair manufactory. This factory completely burnt in 1860, and in March of 1861, apparently John Mitchell still did not have any stock in furniture (Ohio vol. 80, p. 101, John Mitchell, Dun Collection, HUGSBA).

128

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. furniture firms in Cincinnati by the fact that the firm did not limit itself to the

production of only a few forms of furniture. Stewart bought desks, tables, bureaus,

washstands, small tables, sideboards, end stands, armoires, bedsteads, dressing bureaus,

cupboards, and bookcases, but no marked Mitchell & Rammelsberg object with a

Natchez provenance has presently been discovered. * ^

Another company that changed names over the 10 years that Stewart recorded

transactions in his account books was the firm of Clawson & Mudge, usually recorded

as E. Mudge or H.B. Mudge. Clawson & Mudge was sending bedsteads to Natchez by

the late 1840s, if not earlier, as documented in the 1848 court case between the firm

and local cabinetmaker and retailer Archibald Glaskins. The firm dissolved in 1853,

after which Enoch Mudge continued to serve the bedstead needs of Natchez until he

died in 1857. His wife Hepzibah B. or H. B. Mudge then continued to carry on the

business, sending the bulk of the Mudge orders in 1859 and 1860. From all of the

surviving furniture orders recorded by Stewart, H.B. Mudge sent at least 538 bedsteads

113 Volumes 11, 30, and 35, Robert H. Stewart Account Books, LLMVC; Cist, Sketches and Statistics o f Cincinnati in 1851, 203; For more information on Mitchell & Rammelsberg see Donald C. Peirce, “Mitchell and Rammelsberg; Cincinnati Furniture Makers 1847-1881” (master’s thesis, University of Delaware, 1980) and Donald C. Pierce, “Mitchell and Rammelsberg Cincinnati Furniture Manufacturers 1847-1881,” in Winterthur Portfolio 13(1979) 209-229; Bill of Lading for Stewart & Bums from Mitchell & Rammelsberg, August 25, 1857, Cottrell Collection, Rare Books and Special Collections, Department of Public Library of Cincinnati and Hamilton County, Binder K-L; Ohio vol., 78, p. 225, Mitchell & Rammelsberg, June 14, 1856, Dun Collection, HUGSBA; Sikes, 165-167.

129

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. in a variety of styles to Natchez between 18S9 and 1860, which is about double the

number of bedsteads that the steam manufactory purportedly made each day in 1859.

Charles Cist recorded that “H.B. Mudge...is the most extensive bedstead factory in the

west, and well worthy of being shown to a stranger, as means of impressing him with a

suitable sense of the industrial and mechanical energies of Cincinnati.” The sheer

number of Mudge bedsteads sent from 1859-60, combined with the Glaskins court case

that proves Mudge businesses were supplying Natchez as early as 1848, suggests that

Mudge was the principle supplier of bedsteads for planters in antebellum Natchez. **4

Stewart occasionally records purchasing bedsteads from Boston, New York,

and other Cincinnati makers, but the size of the orders do not begin to compare to the

volume sent by Mudge to Natchez. In 1860, bedstead manufacturer Charles Lee of

Manchester, Massachusetts, sent at least three furniture orders of 14 Number 00, 2, 3,

and 4 bedsteads to Stewart, who was undoubtedly ordering from a Lee catalogue. Lee

worked from about 1856 through the Civil War, and completely focused his

manufacturing business on the southern trade. Bedsteads marked with his familiar

“C.LEE” brand constantly surface today in Louisiana and Mississippi. At least four

114 Volumes 11, 30, and 35, Robert H. Stewart Account Books, LLMVC; A Review o f the Trade, Commerce and Manufacturers o f Cincinnati For the Commercial Year Ending August 31,1850 (Cincinnati; Chamber of Commerce, 1850) 9; Charles Cist, Sketches and Statistics of Cincinnati in 1859 (Cincinnati, 1859) 25, 291-2; Cincinnati: The Queen City Bicentennial Edition (Cincinnati; Cincinnati Historical Society, 1988) 42; Sikes, 173-4.

130

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Lee bedsteads have been discovered in Rosalie, Melrose, and Arlington with a

documented Natchez provenance, and undoubtedly more exist (Figures 37 and 38).

Nonetheless, probably a much larger collection of unmarked Mudge bedsteads survives

in Natchez today. The Mudge businesses, at least under the name of Clawson &

Mudge, also had the advantage of operating a retail store in New Orleans, which was

probably more efficient in accommodating the bedstead needs of Stewart and his

planters than orders arriving from Massachusetts. 1 * 5

Similar to the Mudge business, Cincinnati furniture dealer Henry Weiderecht,

under the name of Weiderecht & Company, also did business with Archibald Glaskins

as well as with Stewart, in a variety of partnerships. Weiderecht & Co. were listed as

furniture dealers in New Orleans at 51 Royal Street in 1846; it is possible that the order

of furniture that Weiderecht sent to Glaskins in 1848 really came from his retail store in

New Orleans rather than his factory in Cincinnati. One of Stewart’s 1860 furniture

orders to Weiderecht survives for at least fourteen armoires representing six different

115 Volume 30, Robert H. Stewart Account Books, LLMVC; Stephen G.Harrison, “The Nineteenth-Century Furniture Trade in New Orleans,” Antiques (May 1997) 755; For more information on Charles Lee, see Stephen G. Harrison, “C. LEE”; Maker of Bedsteads for the Southern Market,” Maine Antiques Digest (April 1994) 28-29a; Louisiana vol. 9, p. 70, H. Wiederecht & Co., January 30, 1847 and July 1848, Dun Collection, HUGSBA.

131

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. styles or patterns. Stewart probably selected them from an illustrated catalogue

distributed by the manufacturer. * ^

Cincinnati credit reporters indicated in 18S4 that the firm of Weiderecht &

Jones had “an extensive [ill ] manufacture mostly for Southern Market” and by 1859

had “an excellent whsale [wholesale] trade with New Orleans.” Probably this growing

trade with the south prompted Henry Weiderecht and Joshua Jones to open a branch of

their business in New Orleans, where at least by November of 1859 they were sending

armoires up to Stewart in Natchez. Jones apparently bought out Weiderecht’s share of

the business in July of 1860. By October he finished the year by sending at least three

orders of furniture to Stewart from New Orleans. * ^

Other Cincinnati based firms, many of whom were recognized for the size of

their businesses and their production capabilities, also sent furniture to Stewart from

both their home offices and branches in New Orleans. Edward B. Dobell is one of the

few Cincinnati furniture companies recognized in Sketches and Statistics o f Cincinnati

in 1851. Cist acknowledged Dobell for his chair and cabinet manufactory, which

probably supplied a retail business operated in New Orleans. In 1854, Dobell was

recorded as buying furniture from Mitchell & Rammelsberg that would then be sold

116 Michel & Co., New Orleans Annual and Commercial Register for 1846 (New Orleans: E. A. Michel & Co., 1846) 574.

117 Volume 35, Robert H. Stewart Account Books, LLMVC; Ohio vol. 78, p. 438, Weiderecht & Jones, June 20, 1854 and August 13, 1859, Dun Collection, HUGSBA.

132

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. from Dobell’s Cincinnati or New Orleans stores. Thus, more furniture made by

Mitchell & Rammelsberg might have been shipped to Stewart than what he knowingly

recorded in his cashbook and furniture order ledgers. In November of 1859, Dobell

sent Stewart five bureaus and two armoires from New Orleans, but in December of the

same year Dobell apparently sent another order of furniture from Cincinnati. Two

more orders were sent for tables, bedsteads, and cabinet furniture in December of 1859

and February of 1860, for which the furniture could have been coming from either the

Cincinnati factory or New Orleans retail store. * 18

Possibly because Jones and Dobell only had branches of their Cincinnati

businesses in New Orleans, similar to Morris L. Duncan, they are not listed in the New

Orleans city and business directories or the Dun credit reports for Louisiana, making it

difficult to even speculate on the size and scope of their retail stores. Duncan listed

himself as a furniture manufacturer to credit reporters, and apparently supplied many

Cincinnati dealers with furniture, as he was acknowledged by R. G. Dun as early as

18S4 with the praise that “dealers here (Cincinnati) mark him among their most

deservable customers.” Cist also claimed that Duncan’s “market is exclusively the

south and west, and their furniture disposed of at wholesale.” ! *9

118 Volumes 30 and 35, Robert H. Stewart Papers, LLMVC; Cist, Sketches and Statistics o f Cincinnati in 1851, 206; Ohio vol. 78, p. 206, E. B. Dobell, October 15, 1854, Dun Collection, HUGSBA.

119 Cist, Sketches and Statistics o f Cincinnati in 1851, 206.

133

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Duncan consistently sent furniture to Natchez from at least 1851-1859.

Between 1851-1856, Duncan shipped the second largest number of furniture orders

from a Cincinnati firm to Stewart. While Stewart did not record the types of furniture

received during this period of time, three bills of lading survive from 1854 and 1856,

documenting Duncan’s shipment of 2 round tables, 2 1/2 dozen washstands, 6 lounges,

and 13 packages of wardrobes to Robert H. Stewart & Company. In a later 1857 bill

of lading, Duncan sent Stewart & Bums an equally large amount of furniture, such as

bedsteads, bureaus, cupboards, and wardrobes, most of which was shipped in parts and

required assembly in Natchez. The forms that Duncan sent Stewart in the 1850s are

congruent with the specific forms the firm purportedly made in 1851. An order for

$917.00 that was sent to Stewart from New Orleans indicates that Duncan was making

or retailing chairs by 1859. Duncan was also supplying Stewart with construction

materials and furniture parts, as his 1857 bill of lading documents the shipment of a

barrel of glue and a box of veneers, proving that Stewart was obviously making

furniture locally while he continued to import objects during the 1850s. 120

120 Volume 11, 30, and 35, Robert H. Stewart Account Books, LLMVC; Bill of Lading for R. Stewart & Co. from M. L. Duncan & Bro., February 3, 1854; Bill of Lading for Robert Stewart & Co. from M. L. Duncan, November 25, 1856; Bill of Lading for Stewart & Bums, M. L. Duncan from M. L. Duncan, July 20, 1857, all in Cottrell Collection, Binders B, 1-J, and U-V-W-X-Y-Z; Cist, Sketches and Statistics of Cincinnati in 1851, 206.

134

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Several glaring questions remain when considering Stewart’s 1851-1856 cash

book records as well as the 1859-60 furniture orders, especially considering the

Cincinnati furniture manufacturer Daniel F. Meader. Stewart apparently paid Meader

on twenty-eight separate occasions from 1851-1856, probably representing forty-one

percent or by far the majority of furniture orders sent from Cincinnati to Natchez

during those years. Meader does not appear to have ever been trained as a

cabinetmaker, but was nonetheless agent for an enormous bureau manufacturing

complex that he began in 1847. This complex consisted of at least three several-story

buildings, one million feet of lumber stored in a connected lumber yard, and apparently

the most modem steam woodworking machinery in existence. Meader’s shop was

rigidly organized for productivity and efficiency, constructing bureaus, sideboards,

writing desks, wardrobes, bookcases, and other cabinet furniture, many forms of which

probably composed the orders sent to Stewart in the early 1850s. Meader continued a

successful steam manufactory business under Meader & Co. and Johnston, Meader &

Co. into the 1870s, but there is no evidence of the Meader businesses in Natchez

newspaper advertisements, furniture orders, receipts, or marked furniture. All that

survives are the substantial number of payments Stewart made to the firm between

1851-1856.121

121 Volume 11, Robert H. Stewart Account Books, LLMVC; Daniel F. Meader, Collection of Secondary Source References, Cincinnati Historical Society; Sikes, 160.

135

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. BALTIMORE ORDERS:

Another anomaly in the Stewart records is the presence of only one

documented furniture order placed in 1860 with a Baltimore furniture manufacturer and

dealer, Samuel S. (S.S.) Stevens and Sons. Listed in Baltimore directories from at least

1856 through 1860, Stevens operated both a steam furniture works on Low Street and

a furniture warehouse on Hanover Street by 1860. In 1853, Stevens contributed a

walnut parlor suite, tete-a-tete arm chairs, and four other chairs to the Seventh Annual

Exhibition of the Maryland Institute for the Promotion of the Mechanic Arts. The

report of the judges stated “That the Furniture from...Mr. S.S. Stevens, are highly

creditable to the skill and taste of the Baltimore mechanic.'’ Perhaps Stewart knew of

Stevens' reputation or somehow procured a copy of one of Stevens’ illustrated guides,

from which Stewart ordered an assortment of bedsteads, washstands, bureaus, and

armoires in 1860. R. G. Dun reports in 1860 also indicate that S.S. Stevens and Sons

were unsafe and that their credit was weak. The possible situation that resulted is that

Stevens sold furniture at cheap prices to obtain hard currency, which would have

appealed to retailers like Stewart, who was looking for stylistic variety to appease the

particular tastes of his nabob customers, but did not necessarily want to pay high

furniture or freight costs from the east coast. To put it another way, Stewart might

have bought low and sold high, getting a higher profit on his purchases.

While no Stevens furniture survives, several contemporary examples of

Baltimore-attributed furniture in Natchez could have been similar to objects sent by

136

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Stevens, such as a four-door armoire original to Arlington (Figure 39). Overall, the

lack of evidence for a strong business connection between Stewart or the nabobs and

Baltimore manufacturers is surprising, especially because many Baltimore firms in the

mid-nineteenth century produced furniture specifically for trade, a major part of which

was sent to the s o u t h .122

In the absence of documented furniture, the use of receipts, furniture

orders, and bills of lading is an effective way to outline furniture distribution patterns to

antebellum Natchez. One can also use this type of written evidence as a tool for

answering questions about the business connections of Natchez retailers, such as

Robert H. Stewart. The study of the patronage and consumption patterns of

antebellum Natchezians can be taken further through looking at furniture orders and

purchases from both New Orleans and Philadelphia. The furniture trade or industry in

these two cities is also useful for discussing the many pieces of marked furniture and

similarly designed objects with documented Natchez provenances.

122 Gregory R. Weidman, Furniture in Maryland 1740-1940 (Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1984) 26, 212, 319; The Book o f the Exhibition Seventh Annual Exhibition of the Maryland Institute for the Promotion o f the Mechanic Arts (Baltimore: Mills & Cox, 1854) 53, 138; Maryland vol. 9, p. 47, S. S. Stevens & Sons, June 1858 and June 1860, Dun Collection, HUGSBA.

137

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 24. Armoire, attributed to Robert H. Stewart, Natchez, 1862. Melrose. Photo taken by the author, courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

138

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 25. Armoire, attributed to Robert H. Stewart, Natchez, 1862. Melrose. Photo taken by author, courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

139

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Jjttrgn U nion Korkitiv. \ i:\rm i i. Nm.

Figure 26. Design for Large Union Rocking Chair, Heywood Chair Manufacturing Company, Gardner, Massachusetts, c. 1855-1880? Printed in Heywood Brothers & Company (catalogue), 1878. Photo courtesy of Winterthur Library. Winterthur, Delaware.

140

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Ciiild’ti Bchl Korkin:;. I ! CAKF SKIT iS D BATK. N .. ivs.

Figure 27. Design for Child Bent Rocking Chair, Heywood Chair Manufacturing Company, Gardner, Massachusetts, c. 1855-1880?. Printed in Heywood Brothers & Company (catalogue), 1878. Photo courtesy of Winterthur Library. Winterthur, Delaware.

141

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Swindle Grpt iftii.

n .>. w

Figure 28. Design for Spindle Grecian Chair, Heywood Chair Manufacturing Company, Gardner, Massachusetts, c. 1855-1880?. Printed in Heywood Brothers & Company (catalogue), 1878. Photo courtesy of Winterthur Library. Winterthur, Delaware.

142

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ^3wjSKsr--e; *v vv:

Figure 29. Camp Chair, labeled by E. W. Vaill, Worcester, Massachusetts, c. 1860. Arlington. Photo taken by the author, courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

143

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 30. Label of E. W. Vaill, Worcester, Massachusetts, c. 1860. Arlington. Photo taken by the author, courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

144

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 31. Armoire, labeled by Edward Hixon, Boston, c. 1840-1850. Arlington. Photo taken by the author, courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

145

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 32. Label of Edward Hixon, Boston, c. 1840-1850. Arlington. Photo taken by the author, courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

146

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 33. Design for Rococo Revival Sofa, Foster & Lee, New York City, c. 1855-1860. Printed inFoster & Lee Furniture Dealers No. 198 Broome St New York City (catalogue) (New York: J. Huggins & Co., 1858). Photo courtesy Winterthur Museum. Winterthur, Delaware.

147

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 34. Sofa, possibly New York City, c. 1855-1860. Rosalie. Photo taken by the author, courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

148

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 35. Design for Grecian Sofa, Foster & Lee, New York City, c. 1855-1860. Printed in Foster A Lee Furniture Dealers No. 198 Broome S t New York City (catalogue) (New York: J. Huggins & Co., 1858). Photo courtesy Winterthur Library. Winterthur, Delaware.

149

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 36. Sofa, possibly New York City, c. 1855-1860. Arlington. Photo taken by the author, courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

150

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 37. Bed, labeled with the stamp of Charles Lee, Manchester, Massachusetts, c. 1856-1860. Rosalie. Photo courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

151

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 38. Stamp of Charles Lee, Manchester, Massachusetts, c. 1856-1868. Melrose. Photo taken by the author, courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

152

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 39. Armoire, probably Baltimore, c. 1830-1840. Arlington. Photo taken by the author, courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

153

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TASTE AND CONSUMPTION AMONG PLANTER FAMILIES

“Upwards of $1,000,000 is received for furniture sold in the South each year.

The Southern States are a much better market than the Western for this article ”

Certainly Thomas Prentice Kettell was correct in his estimate when he made the above

statement in Southern Wealth and Northern Profits (1860). While Kettell was

primarily referring to furniture made in the northeast, in 1860, Cincinnati also sent

102,140 packages of furniture worth $2,962,060 to New Orleans and to ports south

along the Mississippi River. New Orleans was a destination for most furniture traveling

south from Cincinnati, and was a required stop for any east-coast Natchez bound

furniture. After the introduction of railroad and canal in the 1840s and 1850s, produce

exports from Cincinnati and points westward shifted markets from New Orleans to the

east coast. Nonetheless, cotton shipped to New England and Europe via New York

and Boston became a profitable business and more than compensated for the loss of

other exportable products. Throughout the antebellum period, New Orleans

increasingly became focused on the exportation of this cotton, which was dependent on

the economic currents dictated by European and other foreign markets. Essentially

New Orleans’ situation resulted in the lack of established industries in the city, and

154

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. heavy reliance on the industrial east for the importation of manufactured goods, like

furniture J 23

As early as 1840, the daily arrival of ships that almost always contained

household furnishings supported New Orleans’ classification as a center for the

furniture retail and wholesale trade. Skilled furniture makers still worked in antebellum

New Orleans. There were 118 cabinetmakers listed in city directories in 1843, and 137

workers recorded in 1854. However, many of these furniture makers found it

profitable to increase their supply of furniture and to meet high consumer demand by

taking advantage of retailing the manufactured furniture arriving on northern and

eastern ships. These furniture makers had to have connections with northern furniture

manufacturers or work through commission merchants, who received goods directly

from incoming ships and often specialized in a particular commodity, such as cotton,

sugar, or manufactured goods. Robert Roeder, in his seminal article on “Merchants in

123 Thomas Prentice Kettel, Southern Wealth and Northern Profits (New York: George W. & John A. Wood, 1860) 60 (I am grateful to Stephen G. Harrison for originally providing me with this reference); William Smith, Annual Statement of the Trade and Commerce o f Cincinnati (Cincinnati: Gazette Co., 1860) 42-44; Gary Bolding, “Change, Continuity and Commercial Identity of A Southern City: New Orleans, 1850-1950 Louisiana Studies 14 (Summer, 1975) 165, 166; Harry A. Mitchell, “The Development of New Orleans as a Wholesale Trading Center,’* The Louisiana Historical Quarterly 27 (October, 1944) 944, 957; Bolding demonstrates how the growth of the cotton business in the 1850s affected trade and commerce in New Orleans: “During the years from 1856 to 1860 the total commerce was valued at $473,290,000, the most important product, cotton, reaching a value of $109,389,288 for the single year, 1859-1860.”

155

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Ante-bellum New Orleans,” claims that the specialization of commission merchants in

dry goods, such as furniture, also occurred in New Orleans by 1840.124

Robert H. Stewart as well as many planters established direct business

relationships with New Orleans commission merchants. These merchants worked for

planters as their personal factors, or sold to them through general grocers, plantation

suppliers, and other commission merchants in Natchez. Stewart received at least one

order in 18S9 from John Robertson and at least three orders in 1859 and 1860 from

George W. Miller, both New Orleans commission merchants that were sending Stewart

feathers, fringe and other upholstery materials and possibly furniture. At least two of

Stewart’s orders in 1859 were from commission merchants Montgomery & Smith, who

also advertised in 1860 as auctioneers and dealers in new and second hand furniture.

Montgomery & Smith bought out Daniel L. Shearer’s supply of furniture in 1857, and

may have served as furniture retailers into the 1860s for the Boston based firm of

Shearer & Paine. Forty-eight percent of the total number of orders that Stewart

received from New Orleans between 1859 and 1860 came through one commission

124 Harrison, “Furniture Trade in New Orleans,” 27, 30; Harrison, Antiques, 749; Mitchell, 949, 952-953; For the most complete study of the New Orleans furniture trade in the nineteenth-century, see Stephen G. Harrison, “The Furniture Trade in New Orleans, 1840-1880: The Largest Assortment Constantly on Hand (master’s thesis, University of Delaware, 1997); Roeder, 115, 116; For detailed definitions of the similarities and differences between commission merchants, wholesalers, grocers, and factors, see Robert E. Roeder, “Merchants of Ante-Bellum New Orleans,” Explorations in Entrepreneurial History 10 (April, 1958): 113-122.

156

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. merchant, P H Brinton, who focused a good deal of his business on furniture

distribution to Natchez, New Orleans, and other towns in the lower Mississippi delta.

Brinton was principally a commission merchant who specialized in furniture, as

reflected in at least five records for “Brinton” bedsteads that Stewart received in 1859.

R. G. Dun credit reports state that Brinton had three warehouses probably stocked with

furniture that he sold wholesale. These reports also state that Brinton focused on

bedstead distribution, as he served until at least 1860 as an agent for the Mudges,

“Bedstead Manufactg [manufacturing] of Cincinnatti [sic].” 125

The transfer of imported furniture though commission merchants, factors,

grocers, and plantation suppliers resulted in higher price rates when the goods were

received by Natchez retailers and planters than if the furniture was actually purchased

in Boston, Philadelphia, or New York. Thus, many of the orders that Robert H.

125 Volumes 11 and 35, Robert H. Stewart Account Books, LLMVC; Louisiana, vol. 10, p. 312, Daniel L. Shearer, July 23, 1857; Louisiana vol. 11, P. H. Brinton & Co, October 31, 1857, December 31, 1859, January 18, 1860; Louisiana vol. 11, p. 379, Heath & Miller, January 24, 1855, March 17, 1855, September 17, 1859; Louisiana, vol. 11, p. 146, Montgomery & Smith, May 17, 1858; and Louisiana vol. 12, p. 2, John Robertson, October 3, 1859, all Dun Collection, HUGSBA; Credit reports and the New Orleans city directory refer to E. Heath and George Miller as house furnishing goods dealers from at least 1855-1859, during which time they were apparently dealing goods imported from two unspecified manufacturers in Boston and Philadelphia. By 1859, George Miller was individually reported by Dun as a commission merchant in upholstery goods; Hellier's New Orleans Business Directory, fo r 1860 and ‘61(New York: Hellier & Co., 1860) 212; Stewart also paid Montgomery for at least one order in 1851. R. G. Dun credit reports claim that in 1858, Montgomery & Smith were “Doing a fair bus [business] principally in second-hand furniture...Occasionally receive consignments from the East.”

157

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Stewart received from New Orleans, as well as a limited number from New York,

Boston, and possibly Cincinnati, suggest that he actually went to these cities to select

objects and individually place orders with furniture dealers. Many of the New Orleans

dealers that Stewart patronized, such as Daniel L. Shearer, were northern furniture

manufacturers who wanted to take advantage of the success of northern factors and

commission merchants by establishing branches of their furniture businesses in New

Orleans. It was these agents and retailers that the wealthiest Natchez planters

patronized, as represented in receipts and marked objects in their mansions. 126

By the 1850s, New Orleans commission merchants who specialized in furniture

distribution faced stiff competition from northern manufacturers who sold to planters

and other furniture retailers in the south. Most of the furniture retailers that

Natchezians patronized in the late 1840s and 1850s were from Boston and New York,

which is consistent with the origins of ships entering the port of New Orleans between

1840-1880. For instance, on December 19, 1849, Mrs. Jane Conner was charged

$68.00 for furniture that she purchased in New Orleans at the New York Furniture

Warehouse of H. Weil & Brother, who was also selling a great deal of furniture to

Stewart in the early 1850s. Conner arranged to have the bill paid and shipped to

Natchez by Washington, Jackson & Co., the same commission merchant documented

to have worked with Francis Surget, Jr. on New York furniture orders. Jane Conner

126 Harrison, Antiques, 749.

158

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. also patronized Daniel Kelham, a Manchester, Massachusetts furniture manufacturer

who operated a retail store in New Orleans from 1843-1874. In December of 1849,

Conner bought a mahogany secretary, two marble top bureaus, one center table, and

one bedstead at Kelham’s furniture retail store at 45 Bienville Street in New

Orleans. 127

Perhaps one of the largest orders that the Conner family transacted with a New

Orleans retail store was to furnish an entire house. They entrusted the work to Boston

merchants Calvin Chandler (C.C.) Sampson and Isaac Keen of 58 to 64 Bienville and

47 Royal Streets. In 1854, Sampson & Keen were regarded as the best firm in their

line of business, and this reputation was probably the main reason that Lemuel Conner

decided to place his large order with them in May of the same year. Sampson & Keen

sold Conner $885.00 worth of furniture, including one rosewood secretary and

bookcase for $115.00, which was at least $30.00 more than any single item cost in

Stewart’s 1859-1860 furniture orders. Considering the variety of Stewart’s clientele,

particularly in terms of wealth as well as taste, Stewart probably could not afford to

keep in stock an object as expensive as the Sampson & Keen secretary and bookcase.

127 Roeder, 116; Volume 11, Robert H. Stewart Account Books, LLMVC; Receipt for Mrs. Jane Conner from H. Weil & Brother, December 19, 1849 and Receipt for Mrs. Jane Conner from D. Kelham, December 12, 1849, Lemuel P. Conner Family Papers (1810-1953) LLMVC. Apparently, H. Weil & Brother were also known as H. Weil & Co.; Harrison, Antiques, 750, 755; Harrison, “Furniture Trade in New Orleans,” 27, 28.

159

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Furthermore, the secretary and bookcase would have been even more expensive for

Conner if purchased from Stewart, since Stewart would have needed to add profit and

transportation charges to the final cost. While Sampson & Keen were also retailing

furniture made in the north and east, and would have also added shipping and freight

costs to the prices of the furniture they sold, Conner’s final cost probably would have

been cheaper ordering directly from the firm rather than through a Natchez furniture

retailer .128

While some of the wealthiest families patronized Sampson & Keen, the firm’s

business with planters was not confined to bulk orders of expensive objects, like that

for Lemuel Conner. For example, in May of 1853, Haller Nutt spent $35.00 on a

mahogany armoire, which was purchased long before Nutt started building or

furnishing the octagonal Longwood. In 1857, a member of the Surget family spent

$23.25 on probably undecorated, simple cottage furniture, including a bedstead,

mattress, table, and chairs, all for a family plantation named “Palmetto.” Similar

furniture bought for the same prices was offered by Stewart. Perhaps nabobs

128 Hellier's New Orleans Business Directory, for 1860 and ‘61,23; The 1868 shop inventory for Sampson & Keen did not list any materials, tools, or other machinery that would have been necessary for furniture production, thus Conner’s order was probably filled by furniture that the firm retailed but did not make (I am grateful to Stephen G. Harrison for providing me with information of the Sampson & Keen shop inventory); Louisiana vol. 9, p. 49, Sampson & Keen, January 26, 1854, Dun Collection, HUGSBA; Receipt for Lemuel P. Conner, from Sampson & Keen, May 15, 1854, Lemuel P. Conner Family Papers, LLMVC.

160

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. patronized firms like Sampson & Keen because of the firm’s favorable reputation

among the wealthy society in Natchez or New Orleans. Obviously Sampson & Keen

retailed a large variety of stock in various price and quality ranges, and collectively with

other dealers, offered one of the most expansive supplies of furniture and household

furnishings available in America, all on one street dubbed “furniture row.” Regardless

of the quantity and quality of fancy goods that could be imported by Natchez furniture

retailers and variety stores, New Orleans’ reputation for the most expansive stock of

fashionable domestic and foreign furniture appealed to nabobs interested in one-stop

shopping.1^

Furniture makers and retailers like Kelham, Weil, Sampson & Keen, Cyrus Flint

and James Jones of C. Flint & Jones, and William McCracken, all established retail

shops in New Orleans between 1830 and 1845, most of which were located on Royal

Street, or “furniture row.” By the 1850s, the furniture trade in New Orleans was

controlled by these cabinetmakers as well as others from the northeast, France, and

Germany. While Stewart did not record any furniture purchases from Kelham or

*29 Joanne V. Hawks, “Julia Nutt of Longwood,” The Journal o f Mississippi History 57 (November, 1994) 295; Receipt for Haller Nutt from Sampson & Keen, May 2, 1853, Records o f Ante-Bellum Southern Plantationsfrom the Revolution through the Civil War , Haller Nutt Papers; It is unknown whether Nutt” s armoire was purchased for his summer home on the site of Longwood, or Winter Quarters, a plantation where the Nutt family spent half the year in the 1850s; Receipt from Sampson & Keen, May 26, 1857, Surget Family Papers, MDAH; Volume 30 and 35, Robert H. Stewart Account Books, LLMVC.

161

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Sampson & Keen, his 18S1-1856 cashbook documents that he bought furniture from C.

Flint & Jones and McCracken. Stewart realized that unlike furniture from Boston,

Cincinnati, and New York, furniture sold by dealers like McCracken and C. Flint &

Jones could easily be shipped up to Natchez anytime because of the consistent trade

between Natchez and New Orleans throughout every month of the year. As

McCracken and C. Flint & Jones furniture was favored by the nabobs, as represented in

their receipts, it was in Stewart’s best interests to cultivate this market by purchasing

furniture from these dealers and selling it as such to nabobs, who, for a matter of

convenience, sometimes shopped locally. 130

Kelham, McCracken, C. Flint & Jones, and Sampson & Keen primarily focused

on a middle class market. Just five months before Jane Conner spent $220.00 on

furniture that Kelham manufactured in Massachusetts, a credit report for Kelham in

July of 1849 stated that his business was considered “a third rate house.” Nonetheless,

Kelham and the other dealers were apparently successful. Individuals like William

McCracken were annually selling between $75, 000 and $100,000 worth of

merchandise in the mid 1850s, and regardless of his typical clientele, some of the

wealthiest planters in Natchez patronized McCracken. For example, in 1861, one of

the wealthy Surgets from Natchez, received a bill of $208.00 from William and James

130 Harrison, Antiques, 750,752; Harrison, “Furniture Trade in New Orleans” 26, 56; Volume 11, Robert H. Stewart Account Books, LLMVC.

162

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. McCracken for furniture and mattress accouterments that Surget bought on March

27th and April 5th, including a rosewood armoire for the large sum of $85.00. Several

extant marked objects also prove that both John T. McMurran or George Malin Davis,

as well as George Marshall, bought from McCracken or a Natchez retailer like Stewart

that sold the planters furniture marked by McCracken (Figures 40-42). 131

The McCracken bureau at Lansdowne can be considered representative of the

Natchez penchant for the Grecian style combined with subtle rococo revival elements,

even after the latter style had become popular throughout the country among bedroom

suites in the 1850s and 1860s. The bureau is decorated with walnut and walnut veneer

forming both flat and curved surfaces that are only conservatively embellished along the

apron and mirror with naturalistic, rocaille carving. Possibly once part of a matching

bedroom suite, the bureau is marked with a McCracken label on the back of one of the

top two drawers. The McCracken label states that the object was “manufactured” by

McCracken, which might not have been the case. In the mid to late-nineteenth century,

the name “manufacturer” was tossed around freely by cabinetmakers and furniture

131 Harrison, Antiques, 750; Louisiana, vol. 9, p. 178, Daniel Kelham & Co., July 31, 1849, and Louisiana, vol. 9, p. 199, William McCracken, February 4, 1854, both Dun Collection, HUGSBA; Harrison, “Furniture Trade in New Orleans” 28; Receipt for Mr. Surget from William & James McCracken, 1861, Surget Family Papers, MDAH; The contents of Melrose are a combination of decorative arts that belonged to John T. McMurran and George Malin Davis, both planters that owned the mansion. Presently it is impossible to accurately conclude which planter owned what furniture in the house, except for three pieces of furniture inscribed with the “McMurran” name.

163

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. dealers alike, some of whom might not have been even trained in making furniture. It

is difficult to access why McCracken would have been identifying himself as a

manufacturer, especially because he is not documented to have ever owned stock in a

manufactory nor owned the necessary woodworking machines to produce all of the

furniture that he sold. I32

Perhaps a McCracken labeled office desk, supposedly used by George Malin

Davis in his Natchez law office and now at Melrose, provides more evidence as to what

types of furniture McCracken made in his shop rather than bought from manufacturers.

McCracken’s 1872 inventory did include “thirteen cabinet work benches in work shop;

and four unfinished writing desks,” suggesting that his firm could have been producing

furniture like the Melrose office desk, which did not require much more than cutting,

turning, and assembling. However, the McCracken desk is nearly identical to a wood

cut that appears in the 1858 catalogue of the New York firm of Foster & Lee (Figure

43). As McCracken did receive six boxes of furniture from Boston dealers Willard

Everett & Co. in January of 1860, and customs manifests document that the firm

patronized other furniture manufactories in the east before the Civil War, the possibility

does exist that McCracken was retailing a desk that he bought from Foster & Lee or

another New York firm. Regardless of the skill involved in constructing and

132 Harrison, Antiques, 752-755 (I am grateful to Stephen G. Harrison for providing me with information on the shop inventory of William McCracken).

164

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. decorating the Melrose desk, or the Lansdowne bureau for that matter, it would have

been more profitable for McCracken to import these and other forms of furniture than

to make them. The same forms and designs were already being mass produced in the

north and east and shipped to other retailers in New Orleans during the annual cotton

picking seasons.133

C. Flint & Jones, similar to McCracken, also survived the Civil War, primarily

because both firms supplied occupied New Orleans with furniture after the city came

under Union control in April, 1862. Before the blockade, C. Flint & Jones was also

patronized by the Conners and Surgets and probably other nabob families. From

March through December of 1861, an E. Surget received two receipts of $469.75 for

rosewood tables, one piano stool, and chintz furniture covers for forty pieces of

furniture, among other house furnishings. In March and April of 1860, E. Surget

recorded paying another $438.00 for two other orders from C. Flint & Jones. Lemuel

P. Conner purchased one crib, two rocking chairs, and two mattresses for a total of

$109.00 in December of 1849. Whether it be influence among family and friends, or

133 Harrison, Antiques, 752, 755; Harrison, “Furniture Trade in New Orleans” 60; Manifest from Boston to New Orleans, January 2, 1860, Port of New Orleans, Inward Coastal Manifest, Records of the United States Bureau of Customs, Record Group 36, National Archives (hereafter cited as RG36-NA).

165

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the supportive efforts of the furniture firms, the nabobs generally patronized the same

New Orleans retailers throughout the 1840s, 1850s and early 1860s.134

C. Flint & Jones retailed furniture from Massachusetts manufacturers like

Willard Everett & Co. and Charles Lee, and undoubtedly other furniture makers in the

north and east. Unlike McCracken, however, there is not any indication that C. Flint &

Jones made any of the furniture that they sold. Dun credit reporters were accurate in

classifying the firm’s managers as shrewd businessmen, as James Jones’ brother, Joshua

Jones (Weiderecht & Jones) was shipping the firm a considerable amount of furniture

from Cincinnati and making from $8,000-510,000 annually on these orders by 1860. A

secretary once marked by C. Flint & Jones and original to Melrose, shares several of

the massive, architecturally inspired designs, such as Italianate arches stylized in the

doors, that appear on many examples of furniture made by Mitchell & Rammelsberg

and possibly other Cincinnati factories in the 1850s (Figure 44). ^ 5

134 Bolding, 166; Harrison, Antiques, 755; Harrison, “Furniture Trade in New Orleans” 28, 39; Dale A. Somers, “War and Play: The Civil War in New Orleans” Mississippi Quarterly 26 (Winter, 1972-73): 4; Receipt for E. Surget from C. Flint & Jones, December 31, 1860; Receipt for E. Surget from C. Flint & Jones, list of accounts from March-April, 1861, Cashed checks for C. Flint & Jones from E. Surget, March 29, 1860, April, 1860, January 8, 1861, and May 17, 1861, all Surget Family Papers, MDAH; Receipt for Lemuel P. Conner from C. Flint & Jones, December 12, 1849, Lemuel P. Conner Family Papers, LLMVC.

135 Manifest from Boston to New Orleans, January 2, 1860, Port of New Orleans, Inward Coastal Manifest, RG36-NA; Harrison, “Furniture Trade in New Orleans,” 58; Louisiana vol. 9, p. 49, Flint & Jones, April 1, 1853 and Ohio vol. 78, p. 439, Joshua Jones, September 18, 1860 and March 8,1861, both Dun Collection, HUGSBA.

166

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. A somewhat earlier example of C. Flint & Jones furniture at Melrose is a hall

stand stenciled on the bottom of the drip pan with the name of the firm (Figure 45).

The hall stand is decorated with Grecian scrolls and a neo-classical urn, and is fairly

similar in appearance to another hall stand at Arlington that might have also been

retailed by the same firm (Figure 46). The original locations of both the hall stands and

the desk and bookcase are unknown, yet the restrained classical design of the furniture,

which appeared to be popular among Natchez planters throughout the antebellum

period, meant that the objects would remain constantly stylish if relegated to a more

public area of their respective mansions.

In addition to William McCracken and C. Flint & Jones, two other dealers,

French native Prudent Mallard and German native Henry Siebrecht, were among the

leading furniture retailers in New Orleans. Mallard and Siebrecht were unique since

they were the only two furniture retailers before the Civil War that regularly imported

an expensive stock of European goods specifically geared for upper class patronage.

Credit reports from 1853 recorded that Mallard “imports gds [goods] from paris, a

magnificent stk [stock] of furniture [and] some articles from NY; and always in such

quantities that they are easily sold; he has a fine set of wealthy customers.” Siebrecht

received similar praise from R. G. Dun reporters in 1856: “He [Siebrecht] keeps a

splendid stk [stock] of Fancy furniture, manufactures a good deal to order, [and] does

generally a gd [good] bus [business]; is well off*(so expected) [and] a man of integrity.”

As both Mallard and Siebrecht also retailed draperies, wallpaper, floor coverings,

167

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. furniture covers, ceramics, glass, and silver, they provided their customers with the

convenience of one-stop purchasing for imported European household furnishings.

Robert H. Stewart did record at least one purchase from Siebrecht in 18S4, which

proves that in certain situations nabobs could obtain locally the same quality of goods

sold at Siebrecht’s store. Nonetheless, consumers still demanded personal contact with

producers, and wealthy planters were more than willing to deal directly with Siebrecht

and Mallard in New O r l e a n s . 136

In the 1850s and early 60s, several nabobs patronized Mallard for furniture and

house furnishings, including Haller Nutt of Longwood , John K. Routh of Routhland,

and the Surget clan. Mallard’s and Siebrecht’s stock was expensive. For example, in

June of 1861, E. Surget purchased a walnut library (probably case piece of furniture)

from Mallard for the cost of $200.00. In January of 1862, E. Surget bought from

Siebrecht one piano case and four tambours covered in yellow brocatelle, for a total of

$128.00. In January of 1861, Siebrecht charged Francis Surget, Jr. $675.62, mainly for

the cost of buying and assembling window, floor, and furniture textiles for Surget’s

136 Harrison, “Furniture Trade in New Orleans,” 28-29, 41, 44-45, 73-74; Harrison, Antiques, 751; Louisiana, vol. 9, p. 61, Henry N. Siebrecht, February 16, 1856; Louisiana, vol. 10, p. 326, Prudent Mallard, May 1852, March 10, 1853, and August 15, 1860; and Louisiana, vol. 12, p. 54, Henry N. Siebrecht, September 14, 1860, all Dun Collection, HUGSBA; Shop Inventory of Henry Siebrecht, 1854 and Shop Inventory of Prudent Mallard, 1855, both translated and reprinted in Harrison, “Furniture Trade in New Orleans,” 108-120.

168

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. mansion named Clifton. Some of the only furniture listed on the order were “2 Gilt

reception chairs” for $50.00.137

Siebrecht focused the majority of his business on upholstery and household

furnishings, as reflected in the large order of textiles by the Surget’s in the early 1860s.

These receipts also suggest the Siebrecht valued the nabobs’ consistent patronage, as

he was more than willing to send his men to Natchez to assemble appropriate

furnishings in the planters’ mansions, tasks that could have been accomplished by

Stewart’s businesses as well as other Natchez furniture makers. Other receipts indicate

that nabobs bought equal amounts of furniture and upholstery from Siebrecht. The

most expensive order between a Natchez planter and Siebrecht was in October of 1859,

when Frederick Stanton, who had just finished construction of his palatial townhouse

known as Stanton Hall, spent $8636.00 on furniture and upholstery. Siebrecht

completely furnished two bedrooms, and provided Stanton with two fine card tables

and either six or twelve mahogany arm chairs. An expensive mahogany glass door

armoire that Siebrecht sold Stanton for $130.00 might be the only surviving piece of

137 Miller et al. The Great Houses o f Natchez, 101; Prudent Mallard File, Historic Research Files, HNF; Receipt for E. Surget from Prudent Mallard, June 15, 1861; Receipt for E. Surget from Henry Siebrecht, January 1862, Receipt for Francis Surget, Jr., from Henry Siebrecht, January 15, 1861, all Surget Family Papers, MDAH.

169

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. furniture original to Stanton Hall that conforms to any description on the Siebrecht

order (Figure 47).138

Stanton, a patron of eclectic tastes, undoubtedly wanted his new residence,

which cost $83,262.23, to be a statement of his success as a cotton planter and

commission merchant. The original furniture in Stanton’s mansion is a quintessential

reflection of the most popular styles and the highest quality decoration in Natchez

during the 1850s (Figures 4-52). Extant examples of furniture with provenance in

antebellum Natchez seem to suggest that the Grecian style and other classical variations

on this taste remained popular throughout the various rooms of nabobs mansions from

the late 1820s through the early 1860s. However, the furniture in Stanton Hall also

serves as a testament to the constant mixing of styles, probably in every room, that

characterized the antebellum Natchez townhouses and suburban villas, as well as

almost any upper-class mansion in America by the mid-nineteenth century J 3^

The collection of fashionable furniture that Stanton amassed would have

impressed any nabob who visited Stanton Hall. Whether these visits influenced planters

138 Invoice for the estate of Frederick Stanton from Henry Siebrecht, October 17, 1859, Probate Box 173, Frederick Stanton, ACCH; Ronald Miller, “Stanton Hall Lecture,” for the Pilgrimage Garden Club Antiques Forum, November 6, 1991 (unpublished lecture, HNF) 7.

139 Dale Campbell Brown, Mary B. Eidt, Joan W. Gandy, and Carolyn V. Smith, Stanton Hall Natchez (Natchez, MS: Myrtle Bank, 1980) 11; Bruce Collins, White Society in the Antebellum South (New York: Longman, 1988) 166.

170

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. in their furniture purchases is subject to debate. For example, three armoires originally

owned by the Boyds of Arlington, the Wilsons of Rosalie, and the Davis’ probably of

Choctaw are noted for their similar design and decoration, as well as their use of

expensive mahogany and rosewood as the primary woods (Figures 53-55). All three

armoires are also inscribed in lead in the same style several times on the objects, and

the unidentified names and dates probably refer to when the object was completed or

when it was sent to Natchez. Undoubtedly the three armoires came from the same

shop and were part of the same shipment, or were sent within a short time of each

other. Since the inscribed names have not been identified among antebellum

Natchezians nor those American furniture firms known to have been patronized in the

mid-nineteenth century, the inscribed names probably do not refer to furniture firms as

consignors or Natchezians as consignees. Rather, they are probably the names of the

principal assemblers of each object, who marked the furniture as a record of their work

for payment and productivity purposes. Most likely the armoires were purchased

together by a Natchez furniture retailer, such as Stewart, who kept the objects in his

showroom before they were sold to the Natchez families. This explanation is more

plausible than a social interpretation in which the families were attempting to emulate

each other’s taste by ordering similar pieces.

A more convincing case of consumer decisions based on social ties possibly

occurred with John T. McMurran of Melrose and Anthony Quitman of Monmouth.

Both Quitman and McMurran were lawyers and partners who first met in Chillicothe,

171

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Ohio. Quitman, who arrived in Natchez in 1821, probably persuaded McMurran to

come to Mississippi later that year, where the two planters became cousins-in-law.

Besides their common familial and business relations, both owned nearly identical

bureaus with mirrors which remain in Melrose and Monmouth (Figures 56-57). Either

object could have been the purchase of McMurran or Quitman after admiring an

identical example in the house of the other planter. 140

While family correspondence has not provided more information on the above

armoires and bureaus, business correspondence has disclosed similar examples of

planter influence. For example, in November, 1848, Francis Surget wrote Charles

Leverich “P. S. Will you please inquire of Meeks when he will have the couch, ordered

for Miss Linton, finished.” Another receipt for Miss Linton from Henry Siebrecht, for

boxing and shipping nineteen boxes of furniture and house furnishings, is contained in

the Surget family papers. Miss Linton was actually Anna Maria Bingaman Linton,

Francis Surget’s mother-in-law, from whom Surget purchased his home, Clifton. As

the evidence suggests that Surget was placing furniture orders for Linton, he was

possibly indirectly dictating not only what quality and reputation of manufacturers and

140 Melrose Estate Natchez National Historical Park Historic Structures Report vol 1 (Boston: Ann Beha Associates, 1995) 15-16; The two Melrose and Monmouth bureaus seem to be fairly common in the nineteenth century, as an identical bureau to the one at Melrose is pictured in Elizabeth Stillinger, The Antiques Guide to Decorative Arts in America 1600-1875 (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1973) 351.

172

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. retailers she patronized, but also the style, design, and ornamentation of the

furniture.

In another example from November of 1843, Stephen Duncan wrote Charles

Leverich, “I wish you would procure for me & ship by the very first [ill.] 4 marble

mantels similar to those made for Miss. Linton with the exception only that the Jams

are only S 1/2 wide (Hers I think [ill.] 6 1/2 feet wide).” Stephen Duncan acted as an

agent in some capacity for Mary Linton, and his letter to Leverich suggests that the

mantels were sent to Linton through Duncan. As Duncan admired Linton’s mantels

enough to reference them to Leverich when ordering from his New York factor,

perhaps he did the same with an agent when he purchased a set of Philadelphia gothic

revival chairs original to his suburban villa called Auburn (Figures 58-59). Duncan

might have been influenced by the set of dining chairs that he saw at the home of fellow

nabob and neighbor, John T. McMurran, and decided to order an identical set (Figures

60-61). The possibility also exists that neither Duncan nor McMurran ordered the

dining chairs but that the chairs were sent from Philadelphia to Natchez via a

141 Francis Surget to Charles P. Leverich, November 14, 1848, Leverich Papers, MDAH, Box 3, Folder 38, October-November, 1848; Receipt for Miss Mary A. Linton from J & J.W. Meeks, Probate Box 107, John Linton, Folder 2 of 4, ACCH; Receipt for Miss Linton from Henry Siebrecht, no date, Surget Family Papers, MDAH; Callon, etal., 107.

173

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. commission merchant who acted as a furniture retailer, as occurred with several

Philadelphia furniture manufacturers in the 1830s. 142

Natchez merchants and nabobs bought furniture from Philadelphia makers

throughout the antebellum period, but the majority of this patronage seems to have

occurred in the 1830s. 143 Many planters, such as Stephen Duncan and John Quitman,

had family connections in Philadelphia that were renewed each year, but annual visits

did not seem to establish connections with Philadelphia furniture makers that were

renewed with consistent furniture orders in the 1840s and 1850s. Philadelphia was still

considered a style center during these two decades, and the city offered fashionable,

high quality furniture from distinguished furniture makers and dealers like Joseph

Barry, Michael Bouvier, and Klauder & Deginther. However, as Philadelphia was not

connected to the south in the cotton or foodstuffs trades, like Cincinnati, New York,

*42 Stephen Duncan to Charles P. Leverich, November, 1843, Leverich Papers, MDAH, Box 1, Folder 13, November 1-22; Receipt for Stephen Duncan and Mary A. Linton from Charles P. Leverich, Probate Box 107, J. Linton, Folder 2 of 4, ACCH.

f 43 for the most complete studies of the Philadelphia furniture trade during the first half of the nineteenth century, see Kathleen Matilda Catalano, “Cabinetmaking in Philadelphia, 1820-1840” [master’s thesis, University of Delaware, 1972 partially reprinted as Kathleen M. Catalano, “Cabinetmaking in Philadelphia 1820-1840 Transition from Craft to Industry,” in Winterthur Portfolio (1979):13 81-138 and Kathleen M. Catalano, “The Empire Style” Philadelphia,” in Nineteenth Century Furniture Innovation, Revival, and Reform, ed. Art & Antiques (New York: Billboard, 1982) 10-17] and Deborah Ducoff-Barone, “The Early Industrialization of the Philadelphia Furniture Trade, 1800-1840 (Ph.D.dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1985).

174

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and Boston, Natchezians are not documented to have had Philadelphia-based factors or

agents, such as the Leveriches of New York, who were able to supply planters with

manufactured goods, like furniture. Furthermore, despite a failed attempt by George

Henkels in 1849, no Philadelphia furniture manufacturers were able to establish

branches or retail stores in New Orleans to share in the consumer demand that kept

other Boston, Cincinnati, and New York-based makers in business. 144

Unlike the 1840s and 18S0s, Philadelphia furniture did arrive in Natchez

between 1820 and 1840. New Orleans ranked second behind Charleston with fourteen

percent of the total amount of furniture sent from Philadelphia between 1800-1840,

most of it sent after 1825. However, few Philadelphia ships laden with locally

manufactured furniture even left for New Orleans or points south along the Mississippi

River after 1840, because of the bank crisis of 1834 and the financial panic of 1837 that

created an unstable export economy in Philadelphia. During this same period,

Philadelphia makers probably also realized, partly though their own failed efforts to

develop a Philadelphia-fumiture market in the west, the heavy competition from

Cincinnati furniture manufacturers that were successfully cultivating southern retailers.

Furthermore, both furniture makers and the merchants who acted as furniture

distributors in Philadelphia realized during the progression of the nineteenth-century

144 bucoff-Barone (all references to dissertation unless otherwise noted), 213; Harrison, “Furniture Trade in New Orleans,” 32.

175

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. that foreign markets were more profitable because they accepted more imports in bulk

quantities than southern retailers, who were receiving furniture from various

manufactories in different cities. 145

During the first half of the nineteenth century, smaller southern ports along the

Mississippi River never constituted a significant market for Philadelphia furniture, and

thus received only occasional shipments. Customs manifests indicate that this condition

occurred in Natchez, and several manifests from the 1830s can be used to construct a

picture of the Philadelphia furniture export to Natchez. In the 1830s, furniture

manufacturer Crawford Riddle sent at least three orders of furniture that were either

produced by him or by members of the Society of Journeymen Cabinet Makers,

including possibly the Auburn and Melrose dining chairs. Riddle was the Society’s

agent and superintendent from 1837 through 1844, and received all the credit in

furniture made by it. With two orders that were sent on September 7, 1836, custom

manifests indicate that Riddle was listed as the shipper of six bundles of chairs to Day

& Beasley and probably sixteen packages of furniture to T. W. Wintu, both of Natchez.

145 Catalano (all references are to master’s thesis unless otherwise noted), 24, 132- 134; DucofF-Barone, 24, 188, 191, 195, 202, 204-205; Charleston constituted thirty- two percent and Savannah made up ten percent of the total number of orders sent south from Philadelphia between 1800-1840. As customs manifests confirm that most of the other forty-four percent of southern orders were to ports like Baltimore, Richmond, Norfolk, and Washington, D.C., obviously the bulk of Philadelphia’s furniture trade during the first half of the nineteenth century was focused on the Atlantic coast, especially during the first quarter of the century.

176

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The third order from August 18, 1836, indicates that Riddle sent Garvin & Manlove of

Natchez fifty boxes of furniture and one bundle of merchandise. Unfortunately the

occupation of Riddle’s consignees, Wintu, Day & Beasley, and Garvin & Manlove, are

unknown, but chances are they were Natchez commission merchants. This assumption

is supported by the fact that a good deal of Philadelphia furniture makers between 1820

and 1840 sold furniture wholesale to merchants—when custom orders could not be

procured—who later retailed the objects. Because of the risk involved on the part of

the Philadelphia manufacturers, who were not guaranteed that the furniture would sell,

let alone at a profitable price, the manufacturers needed to establish business

connections with southern merchants who knew their local markets. However, as there

is no indication that antebellum Natchez commission merchants found it profitable to

accept venture cargo from Philadelphia or any other northern or eastern city, the

consignees of the Riddle furniture were probably accepting orders for planter clients

that entrusted these same commission merchants with their cotton. 146

146 Ducoff-Barone, 204, 208; Philadelphia: Three Centuries o f American Art (Philadelphia: Philadelphia Museum of Art, 1976) 319-320; Manifests from Philadelphia to Natchez, August 18, 1836 and September 7, 1836, Port of Philadelphia, Outward Coastal Manifests, RG36-NA; Catalano, 136; While documentation does not exist for Natchez commission merchants accepting venture cargo of furniture from Philadelphia, several auction houses, such as Jacob Soria & Company and F. H. Dolbeare & Company, may have been doing so based on the quantities of furniture they advertised as receiving.

177

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Presently it is undetermined whether or not the clients of Day & Beasley,

Garvin & Manlove, and Wintu placed the orders with Riddle, or simply ordered

furniture from the commission merchants, and did not realize that the order was to be

filled by Riddle. Many Philadelphia commission merchants and furniture makers also

shipped goods that were the work of different makers or bought at auction. Sometimes

Natchez merchants also traveled to Philadelphia and did the same thing, such as the

unidentified T. W. Turpine, who consigned to himself twelve bundles of chairs to be

sent from Philadelphia to Natchez on August 5, 1836. This particular shipment

suggests that some of the furniture consigned to commission merchants was sold in

Natchez just as “Philadelphia” furniture, if it was identified at all. It is not clear why

Natchez furniture retailers, including Robert H. Stewart, who was in business in the

1830s, are not documented to have purchased furniture in Philadelphia, but did go to

suppliers in Boston and New York as late as the 1850s. *47

Undoubtedly some Natchez planters knew who made the furniture they were

receiving from commission merchants, even if the planters did not originally order it,

because of the expense charged for furniture produced by the most sought after

Philadelphia cabinetmakers in the 1830s. This was probably the case with the clients of

commission merchant Robert C. Evans, who received 35 boxes of furniture sent on

1^7 Manifests from Philadelphia to Natchez, August 5, 1836, Port of Philadelphia, Outward Coastal Manifests, RG36-NA; Ducoff-Barone, 206.

178

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. October 8, 1838, and 4 boxes of merchandise sent on November 6, 1838. Both are the

only two shipments of furniture discovered from the famous Philadelphia furniture

maker, Anthony Quervelle. The existence of Natchez furniture made by expensive,

high style Philadelphia furniture makers, such as Quervelle, is not surprising, especially

considering the planters’ wealth, origins, and fashion consciousness. However, no

receipts or any other form of written documentation has revealed that the planters

bought Philadelphia furniture from makers like Quervelle, nor has Quervelle marked

furniture appeared to document planter patronage. 148

Quervelle was part of a much larger group of approximately 100 furniture

manufacturers in antebellum Philadelphia that participated in the domestic and foreign

trade of furniture, such as John Hancock and Company. 149 The upholstery and

decorating firm of John Hancock & Co. (c. 1830-1840) was the largest firm of its type

in Philadelphia in the early 1830s, probably best known for its innovative and

expensive, spring-seated furniture. 150 The Philadelphia firm was actually a branch of a

148 A. Mygatt & Co. 's New Orleans Business Directory, 262; Manifest from Philadelphia to Natchez, October 8, 1838 and November 6, 1838, Port of Philadelphia, Outward Coastal Manifest, RG36-NA; Quervelle’s clients included Andrew Jackson, who purchased several pier tables from the cabinetmaker for the White House in 1827 (Philadelphia: Three Centuries o fAmerican Art, 276).

149 Catalano, 133; For the most complete study of John Hancock & Co., see David Conradsen, “The Stock-in-Trade of John Hancock and Company,” in American Furniture 1993, ed. Luke Beckerdite (Hanover, NH: The Chipstone Foundation, 1993) 38-54.

15° Conradsen, 39,42.

179

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. furniture making, upholstery, and decorating business in Boston. 1 5 * William Hancock

administered the Boston based operation, which was probably also sending seating

furniture to Natchez, based on the similarity between a marked William Hancock

reclining chair and a nearly identical unmarked object original to Arlington (Figure 18).

In 1835, more than half of the inventoried stock in John Hancock & Co. were

rocking chairs, which are the only examples of furniture produced by the firm that have

surfaced in Natchez. Two examples of these chairs, one of which is marked with John

Hancock’s label, were probably purchased for Arlington by Charlotte Bingaman before

1841 (Figures 62-64). John Hancock’s rosewood-grained rocking chairs, like the

marked example at Winterthur, exceeded all other types in the 1835 inventory of the

firm. Perhaps this latter type was also popular in Natchez, and could have arrived on

any of the four shipments from Hancock thus far discovered. The manifests document

that John Hancock & Co. sent chairs to N. L. W. Cleary, A. Cochran & Co., and

Ferriday & Co., all of which were probably commission merchants working at the time

in Natchez. Two of the manifests also identified a Mr. M. Dunlop and William Newton

Mercer as the actual purchasers or clients for A. Cochran & Co. and Ferriday & Co.

respectively. Hancock chairs were popular in Natchez. This popularity is supported by

the fact that dry goods and variety store dealer N. L. Williams, who advertised that he

sold both gentleman’s and ladies writing desks in 1838, was consigned six boxes and

1^1 19th-Century America Furniture and Other Decorative Arts, figure 66.

180

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. two bundles of chairs by John Hancock & Co. in July of 1836. Undoubtedly Williams

assembled the bundled chairs and displayed them in his retail store to catch the eye of

Natchezians. 152

John Hancock & Co. was not the only Philadelphia-based firm retailing objects

made by manufacturers outside of Philadelphia that were then shipped to Natchez.

Cook & Parkin were also major exporters of furniture before 1840. Marked objects and

in some cases written documentation has confirmed that Cook & Parkin sent furniture

to southern ports like Charleston and Savannah as well as Natchez. While Cook &

Parkin has not been discovered in any shipping manifests or other written

documentation in Natchez, a sofa signed “Made By/David Bodensick From

Baltimore/And Sold by Mr. Cook & Perkins [sic]/Philadelphia, PA” was bought by

William Newton Mercer for his plantation house called Laurel Hill outside of Natchez

(Figure 65). The Mercer table not only documents the patronage of Cook & Parkin by

a wealthy Natchez nabob who was educated in Philadelphia, but provides some

evidence about the business operations of a Philadelphia furniture firm that was

retailing objects actually made by a Baltimore furniture maker. 153

152 Conradsen, 39; Manifests from Philadelphia to Natchez, July 18, 1836 and July 27, 1836, Port of Philadelphia, Outward Coastal Manifests, RG36-NA.

153 Ducoff-Barone, 207; Page Talbott, Classical Savannah Fine & Decorative Arts 1800-1840 (Savannah, GA: Telfair Museum of Art, 1995) 145; Jennifer Goldsborough and Gregory R. Weidman, Classical Maryland 1815-1845 Fine and Decorative Arts from the Golden Age (Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1993) 132.

181

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Like any urban furniture firm that wished to maintain popularity among wealthy

clients, Cook & Parkin undoubtedly sold furniture in different styles. The Mercer table

is unique to this study of furniture since it is one of only a handful of cataloged objects

with a Natchez provenance, that has any or all three of the following characteristics:

brass mounts, gilding, and vert antique or “bronzed” feet. The absence of these design

elements on the majority of cataloged Natchez objects speaks more to the lack of

interest in these decorative features among the wealthy nabobs rather than to individual

choice by planters or their families. As a whole, the sofa table adheres to the principles

of the new Grecian style in the 1830s, but the smooth veneered surfaces and round

columns are interrupted with lion’s paw and lotus leaf feet, reflecting a retention for the

late neo-classical taste.

Cook & Parkin sold objects that expressed both Grecian and late-neoclassical

i m p u l s e s , 154 similar to the Mercer table, that were probably influenced by European

deigns. For example, a Grecian style winged armoire at Arlington marked by Cook &

Parkin is similar to a design that appears in the contemporary publication of an English

pattern book, published by J. Taylor about 1825 (Figures 66-67)155 while the overall

154 for another example of a documented Cook & Parkin sideboard that shares both Grecian and late-neoclassical attributes, see Wendy Cooper, Classical Taste in America (New York: Abbeville, 1993) 56-57.

155 lam grateful to Arlington research file (HNF) for providing the image of a winged armoire published by J. Taylor about 1825.

182

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. form can be considered English, the actual style and decoration of the armoire could

have been influenced by the German Biedermeier taste that was significant in

Philadelphia design during the second quarter of the nineteenth century. 1 56 The

armoire is absent of any surface carving, and other than two brass candle holders

screwed to the sides of the flame, the object is completely decorated with mahogany

veneered surfaces. The modernistic, rounded arches segmented by long rectangles,

form the geometric juxtaposition within a basic cube that suggests Biedermeier

influence. Further Biedermeier influence is obvious in the clean, crisp lines, frontal

orientation of the object, continuous matched veneers (even over the rounded tops),

and absence of gilding or massive scale. *57

Barry & Krickbaum (c. 1829-1839) were another Philadelphia firm retailing

furniture to Natchez that probably reflected the Biedermeier style popular in

Philadelphia from about 1830-1850. In 1832, Barry & Krickbaum advertised that “an

extensive assortment was always on hand for the Southern and Western Markets,”

suggesting that the firm was cultivating southern patrons and ports like Natchez. The

firm is only documented in Natchez by one object, a center table that is original to

156 For the most complete study of the Biedermeir influence in antebellum Philadelphia, see Charles L. Venable, “Philadelphia Biedermeir: Germanic Craftsmen and Design in Philadelphia, 1820-1850” (master’s thesis, University of Delaware, 1986).

157 Venable, 55, 56.

183

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Arlington (Figure 68). The design of the table relates closely to one that appears in a

set of furniture designs drawn in 1825 by Friedrich Gutekunst, Sr., a native German

cabinetmaker who immigrated to Philadelphia in 1831. Gutekunst’s drawing of the

table is also similar to several Philadelphia tables captured in nineteenth-century

photographs. The Arlington table is probably German influenced, whether or not

Krickbaum actually came from Europe, and despite the placement of brass disks on all

four feet, the design adheres to Biedermeier principles. If Barry & Krickbaum were

primarily designing Philadelphia Biedermeier style furniture, one has to question if

Charlotte Bingaman, who owned Arlington when the Cook & Parkin and Barry &

Krickbaum objects arrived, had a penchant for the Biedermeier taste in Philadelphia

furniture. 158

The suburban villa of Arlington has already been referred to several times in an

exploration of its antebellum owners, Charlotte Bingaman and Samuel Boyd, or in the

large amount of marked furniture from the Meeks businesses that still remain in the

mansion. If Bingaman did not individually patronize Philadelphia craftsman, then her

158 Ducoff-Barone, 133 and Charles J. Wistar Family Papers, Winterthur Library, Winterthur, Delaware; The American Advertising Directory fo r Manufacturing and Dealers in American Goods (New York: Jocelyn, Darling & Co., 1832) 175 or 225, as partially reprinted in Ducoff-Barone, 197; Venable, 117, 273; The Gutekunst drawings are photographed in Charles L. Venable, “Philadelphia Biedermeir: Germanic Craftsman and Design in Philadelphia, 1820-1850” (master’s thesis, University of Delaware, 1986) and are in the collection of the Philadelphia Atheneaum, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

184

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. tastes convey her admiration for the antebellum styles produced by some of the most

prolific makers in the city, the best documented of whom is Charles H. White. As with

Crawford Riddle and Cook & Parkin, Charles White can be considered one of

Philadelphia’s most significant furniture exporters. During the later half of his career,

between 1824 and 1851, White won five silver medals and an honorable mention for

furniture that he entered in annual exhibitions for the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia.

White’s reputation probably influenced prospective northern, southern, and foreign

clients that might have attended the exhibitions. Furthermore, judging by his presence

in custom manifests, receipts, and marked furniture at mansions like Arlington and

Melrose, White’s furniture was popular among the wealthiest and most powerful

nabobs in Natchez. White’s influence in Natchez is particularly helpful because it

illuminates Philadelphia furniture fashion and taste; White worked from at least 1818

until 1860, and the variety of styles that he used to design and decorate his furniture are

well-represented in objects with Natchez provenance. 159

White sent at least eight orders on four different shipments of furniture to

Natchez between 1836 and 1838, a remarkable number considering the few extant

custom manifests from Philadelphia to Natchez between 1820 and 1840. While

manifests always list White as consigning furniture to commission merchants, such as

Stanton & Buckner, Brigg & Lacoste, Becket & O’Farrell, and Alfred Cochran, the

159 Catalano, 133; Philadelphia: Three Centuries o f American Art, 264.

185

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. orders were undoubtedly placed by prominent planters identified on the shipping bills,

such as Edward Turner, Chief Justice of the Mississippi Supreme Court. On

September 7, 1836, White sent planter Henry Chotard thirteen boxes of merchandise

and Elijah Bell eight boxes, possibly to furnish Mansion House, his Natchez hotel.

Planter Levin R. Marshall of Richmond also received three boxes of merchandise. In

this one shipment in 1836, White sent a total of thirty-five boxes of furniture to four

different consignees on five different orders, while Crawford Riddle sent two additional

orders of chairs and furniture, and Philadelphia chair maker George Mitchell consigned

six bundles of chairs to Day & Beasley. 160

The amount of furniture sent and the number of commission merchants and

Natchezians involved in the September 7, 1836 Philadelphia shipment may seem

unusual. However, shipments to Natchez from Philadelphia were few and far between,

and often accompanied by orders for ports north of Natchez like Grand Gulf and

Vicksburg, Mississippi. Higher quantities of goods purchased and shipped resulted in

lower per unit freight costs, lower prices for the actual furniture, and, as long as trusted

business relationships were formed with the consignees, a longer time period to pay off

debt. With the seasonal flow of currency determined by how much cotton was

160 Manifests from Philadelphia to Natchez, July 27, 1836, September 7, 1836, October 22, 1836, October 8,1838, Port of Philadelphia, Outward Coastal Manifests, RG36-NA; Miller, et al. The Great Houses o f Natchez, 53.

186

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. cultivated and when prices on the product were paid, a liberal time of credit to pay for

domestic manufactures was essential for Natchez p l a n t e r s . 161

Apparently planters like Levin Marshall valued White’s design and quality.

Two years after he received three boxes of merchandise from the Philadelphia furniture

firm, Marshall ordered thirteen more boxes of furniture. Chances are good that several

White objects, some of which are possibly marked, remain intact in Richmond.

Considering that Charlotte Bingaman purchased directly or indirectly from White, but

left no receipts or other documentation in Arlington, the surviving contents of her

mansion prove that she admired White’s late-neo-classical designs (Figures 69-71). 162

The stenciled label that appears on both the dressing table and the two matching

sofas at Arlington suggest that the three objects were made between 1824 and 1838,

when White was listed in Philadelphia city directories at 109 Walnut S t r e e t . 163 The

sofas and dressing tables were probably made sometime in the late 1820s or early

1830s, as they share the same carved gadrooning along the fronts and exhibit finely

carved column capitals, shell motifs, stylized fruit, and fluted scrolls that are

161 Ducoff-Barone, 199-200, 210.

162 Manifest from Philadelphia to Natchez, October 8, 1838 Port of Philadelphia, Outward Coastal Manifest, RG36-NA.

163 Deborah Ducoff-Barone, “Philadelphia Furniture Makers 1816-1830,” Antiques (May, 1994) 755; Harris’s Commercial Directory ami Merchant's Guide for Philadelphia, 1838 (Philadelphia: S. Harris, 1838) 67.

187

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. characteristic of late-neoclassical Philadelphia carving before the advent of the fashion

for smooth Grecian veneers in the early-mid 1830s. Furthermore, the carving on the

crest of the mirror surround on the dressing table is nearly identical to that which

appears on the crest of the headboards to two identical beds that are contemporary

with the dressing table and also original to Arlington (Figure 72). The characteristically

late-neo-classical Philadelphia carving on the hat stand at Arlington was also done to

achieve the same affect as the twisted carving that appears on the bedposts (Figure 73).

Given the absence of concrete data about carvers in Philadelphia or, for that matter,

any urban furniture center in the second and early third quarter of the nineteenth

century, one should be cautious in making attributions of unmarked objects based

primarily on applied decoration. Nonetheless, considering the quantity of Philadelphia

furniture in Arlington and the significant representation of White among this group, it is

justifiable to suggest that the beds and hat stand were made in Philadelphia, probably by

White, and that they may have arrived with the same shipment as the sofas and dressing

table.

A significant amount of White furniture also remains in Melrose, where it was

probably bought by John T. McMurran both before he moved into Melrose in 184S and

before he sold the house in 1865 (Figures 74-76). Two mahogany drop-leaf tables and

one sideboard have the same type of carving that appears on the Arlington furniture

made by White. Similar to the Arlington examples, the White furniture at Melrose

displays a strong retention of late neo-classical elements characteristic of Philadelphia

188

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. from this time period, including finely carved lion’s paw feet, heavy gadrooning, and

stylized scrolls and fruit. However, the Melrose sideboard and tables were perhaps

made earlier than the objects at Arlington, as the Melrose objects all bear the engraved

label rather than the stencil label of Charles White. The addresses on the label and

stencil are the same, but perhaps White was using the label before the stencil, as the

former is decorated with early-neoclassical furniture and only mentions that White was

a cabinet and chair manufacturer, while the latter does not diagram any furniture but

does mention that White had a furniture warehouse, perhaps a relatively new feature to

his business in the 1830s. If the Melrose furniture was purchased before the objects at

Arlington, then perhaps patronage of White represents an example of influence between

two nabob families.

Another piece of furniture at Melrose that was probably made by White

documents the type of work that White produced between 1852 and 1857, and offers

an example of the rococo revival style interpreted in Philadelphia furniture. A rare

revolving sofa original to Melrose is decorated with naturalistic foliage on the crest and

animalistic ducks at the end of the arms (Figures 77-81). The sofa is remarkably

similar in overall design to another revolving sofa that has an original provenance in

Richmond, Virginia, and is marked with the stenciled label of Charles White. Both

189

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. sofas are identical in the feet, base, removable center table, and duck heads. The rarity

of the form alone suggests that both revolving sofas were made by the same firm. 164

Support for the suggestion that the Melrose revolving sofa was produced by

White exists in the only known catalogue ever published by the furniture maker. The

catalogue was produced in 18S4 while White worked at 250 Chestnut Street, then the

most fashionable street in Philadelphia for furniture shops and fancy goods. The design

of the text and images indicates that the book was meant to be used by prospective

patrons. Any number of Natchez planters could have owned copies of the catalogue,

especially considering the early patronage of White in Natchez during the late-1820s

and early 1830s. However, whether or not the fact was actually known to his public,

the essay about “style” as well as all of the exotic, highly carved and decorated

woodcuts of probably European furniture contained in White’s catalogue, were copied

by him from The Art Journal Illustrated Catalogue of the Crystal Palace in London

(1851). The captions under the images were apparently written by or for White, but

suggest to the readers that the furniture represented in the wood cuts was made by the

firm. Considering the only known examples of furniture marked by White between

1851 and 1860, there is little indication that White could even produce furniture of the

same detail of carving and design that he included in his catalogue. Possibly the whole

1641 am grateful to David Calcote for sharing with me provenance information on the marked White sofa from Richmond, Virginia.

190

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. idea behind the catalogue was to leave readers with the understanding that White could

produce the furniture, and then entice them to buy from the thoroughly described and

priced furniture listed in the back of the book. White listed an endless variety of

furniture that could be used for hall, bed chambers, libraries, dining rooms, boudoirs, or

drawing rooms. Included in the boudoir for $77.00-$ 110.00, depending on the use of

rosewood, mahogany, or the wood choice used at Melrose, walnut, was listed a

“Fautuel or Revolving Ends Sofa, very handsome Satin or Brocatelie covering.”

Charles White as well as other Philadelphia and New Orleans furniture makers

and retailers, were sought after by wealthy Natchezians that desired the most

fashionable furniture from the most reputable firms. Obviously both furniture makers

and retailers in Cincinnati and New York were also influential in the amount of

furniture they provided to Natchezians, many of them nabobs, primarily through

retailers like Stewart or agents like the Leveriches. A summary of the implications of

the antebellum furniture of Natchez for its contemporary community and the present

study of nineteenth-century decorative arts, is critical to this study.

165 McElroy's Philadelphia Directory, for 1852 (Philadelphia: Edward C. & John Biddle, 1852) 470; McElroy’s Philadelphia City Directory, for 1858 (Philadelphia: Edward C. & John Biddle, 1858) 727; For images that White used in his 1854 catalogue, see The Art Journal Illustrated Catalogue: The Industry o f All Nations (London: George Virtue, 1851) (I am grateful to Roger Moss for originally suggesting that images in the White catalogue were copied from those that appeared in the London Crystal Palace illustrated guide); Charles H. White, Chas H White Upholstery and Furniture Bazaar (Philadelphia: Sickles and Reading, 1854) 23.

191

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 40. Bureau, labeled by William McCracken, New Orleans, c. 1850-1855. Lansdowne. Photo taken by the author, courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

192

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 41. Desk, labeled by William McCracken, New Orleans, c. 1855-1860. Melrose. Photo taken by the author, courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

193

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 42. Label of William McCracken, New Orleans. Melrose. Photo taken by the author, courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

194

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 43. Design for Desk, Foster & Lee, New York City, c. 1855-1860. Printed in Foster A Lee Furniture Dealers No. 198 Broome S t New York City (catalogue) (New York: J. Huggins, & Co., 1858). Photo courtesy of Winterthur Library. Winterthur, Delaware.

195

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 44. Secretary, once labeled by C. Flint & Jones, New Orleans, c. 1850. Melrose. Photo taken by the author, courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

196

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 45. Hall Stand, labeled with the stencil of C. Flint & Jones, New Orleans, c. 1840-1850. Melrose. Photo taken by the author, courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

197

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 46. Hall Stand, c. 1830-1850. Arlington. Photo taken by the author, courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

198

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 47. Armoire, c. 1850-1860. Stanton Hall. Photo taken by the author, courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

199

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 48. Dressing Table, probably New York, c. 1850-1860. Stanton Hall. Photo taken by the author, courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

200

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 49. Arm Chair (originally part of a suite), probably New York, c. 1850- 1860. Stanton Hall. Photo taken by the author, courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

201

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure SO. Hall Stand (originally part of a set), c. 1850-1860. Stanton Hall. Photo taken by the author, courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

202

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 51. Hall Chair (one of a pair, originally part of a set), c. 1850-1860. Stanton Hall. Photo taken by the author, courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

203

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 52. Desk, c. 1855-1860. Stanton Hall. Photo taken by the author, courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

204

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 53. Armoire, c. 1850-1855. Melrose. Photo taken by the author, courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

205

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 54. Armoire, c. 1850-1855. Arlington. Photo taken by the author, courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

206

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 55. Armoire, c. 1850-1855. Rosalie. Photo taken by the author, courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

207

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 56. Bureau, c. 1850. Private Collection. Photo taken by the author, courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

208

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 57. Bureau, c. 1850. Melrose. Photo courtesy of Natchez National Park Service.

209

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 58. Arm Chair, probably Philadelphia, c. 1845. Private Collection. Photo taken by the author, courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

210

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 59. Side Chair, probably Philadelphia, c. 1845. Private Collection. Photo taken by the author, courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

211

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 60. Arm Chair, probably Philadelphia, c. 1845. Melrose. Photo taken by author, courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

212

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 61. Side Chair, probably Philadelphia, c. 1845. Melrose. Photo taken by the author, courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

213

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 62. Rocking Chair (one of a pair), labeled by John Hancock & Company, Philadelphia, c. 1830-1840. Arlington. Photo taken by the author, courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

214

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 63. Rocking Chair, labeled by John Hancock & Company, Philadelphia, c. 1830-1840. Photo courtesy of Winterthur Museum. Winterthur, Delaware.

215

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ifcC fc.

STREETS.

and attend I.Vv i^ business. op spju&Kvm iC5ltf 54fl x CHAIRS. Wtic^tpr eftbot b nr^Mtcd. i. UKBmSC TUOlB HHiOLT APPBOTKD JPATBJIT »FE L L ED BEAM W K.\DL.i» 8 B E DSTEADS ft'kitk iam m jxsttg acquired a rrptttotnm in JYrm York a«< cUrxherc.

Figure 64. Label of John Hancock & Company, Philadelphia, c. 1830-1840. Photo courtesy of Winterthur Museum. Winterthur, Delaware.

2 1 6

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 65. Sofa Tablet signed “By / David Bodensick From Baltimore / And Sold By Mr. Cook & Perkins [sic] / Philadelphia, PA,” Baltimore, c. 1830. Photo courtesy of Maryland Historical Society. Baltimore, Maryland.

217

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 66. Winged Armoire, labeled with the stencil of Cook & Parkin, Philadelphia, c. 1830. Arlington. Photo taken by the author, courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

218

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 67. Stenciled Label of Cook & Parkin, Philadelphia. Arlington. Photo taken by the author, courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

219

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 68. Table, labeled with the stencil of Barry & Krickbaum, Philadelphia, c. 1835. Arlington. Photo taken by the author, courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

220

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 69. Dressing Table, labeled with the stencil of Charles H. White, Philadelphia, c. 1824*1835. Arlington. Photo taken by the author, courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

221

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 70. Sofa (one of a pair), labeled with the stencil of Charles H. White, Philadelphia, c. 1824-1835. Arlington. Photo taken by the author, courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

222

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 71. Stenciled Label of Charles H. White, Philadelphia, c. 1824-1838. Arlington. Photo taken by the author, courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

223

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 72. Bed, probably Philadelphia, c. 1825-1830. Arlington. Photo taken by the author, courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

224

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 73. Hat Stand, probably Philadelphia, c. 1825-1830. Arlington. Photo taken by the author, courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

225

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 74. Sideboard, labeled by Charles H. White, Philadelphia, c. 1824-1835. Melrose. Photo courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

226

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 75. Table (one of a pair), labeled by Charles H. White, Philadelphia, c. 1824-1835. Melrose. Photo taken by the author, courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

227

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 76. Label of Charles H. White, Philadelphia, c. 1824-1830. Melrose. Photo taken by the author, courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

228

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 77. Revolving Sofa, probably Philadelphia, c. 1850-1855. Melrose. Photo taken by the author, courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

229

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 78. Stand for Revolving Sofa, probably Philadelphia, c. 1850-1855. Melrose. Photo taken by the author, courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

230

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 79. Revolving Sofa, labeled with the stencil of Charles H. White, Philadelphia, 1852-1857. Private Collection. Photo taken by the author, courtesy of Historic Natchez Foundation.

231

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 80. Stenciled Label of Charles H. White, Philadelphia, 1852-1857. Photo courtesy of the Ebenezer Maxwell Mansion. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

232

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The preceding analysis uses furniture as a vehicle for understanding the local,

domestic, and international connections of Natchezians, and the distribution and

function of material goods within the antebellum cotton economy. Coupled with

relevant primary source documents, the furniture reveals consistent patterns of

patronage and consumption among the most wealthy southerners from the lower

Mississippi delta between approximately 1828-1863. This study of wealthy planters is

important because it provides the best evidence of the material life of Natchezians.

From this information, the lifestyles of more middling and working classes in Natchez

can begin to be re-constructed.

Many of the Natchez planters were well-educated and well-connected men from

the east that had little to no experience in cotton planting. They were few among many

that headed west in the early-nineteenth century to claim land and become successful

from what the land could yield. The risk taken by many of these young entrepreneurs

was more than compensated for in the wealth they amassed from cotton production. A

limited number of these successful planters controlled the financial institutions in

Natchez, and ensured the survival of their wealth through the strength of their

friendships and kinship ties. Never wed to the land, let alone to Natchez, these shrewd

233

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. capitalists strove to increase cotton and sugar production, expand their investments

both domestically and internationally, and create homes that reflected culture and

refinement. Shielded by fashion and formality from the consequences of slavery, they

built an aristocratic lifestyle on the foundations of human tragedy.

The “cotton craze” attracted natives of the Mississippi delta and immigrants

alike, ultimately affecting the number of skilled workers that wanted to devote their

time and money to furniture making rather than cotton farming. Similar to many other

areas of the lower south, cotton and slaves seemed a surer and quicker way to achieve

wealth than skilled artisanry. Those woodworkers that did produce for the planter

community seemed to have specialized in their skills. Turners, carvers, and furniture

makers formed cooperative efforts to gather a share of the market, but they nearly

always had to compete with a national and international furniture market. Undoubtedly

many of these makers, including Robert H. Stewart, saw profitability in serving as

furniture handymen for the nabobs. Stewart also had the business acumen to import

furniture from the north and east, where cities like Boston, Cincinnati, and New York

had established industries that mass-produced furniture for local, domestic, and foreign

markets. As Boston and New York became so integral to the sale and distribution of

cotton from the south, it made even more sense for furniture retailers to patronize these

cities, as travel routes had already been established to and from Natchez.

From at least the late 1820s through the Civil War, trade along the Mississippi

River would prove the most significant factor in the transportation of furniture to

234

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Natchez from northern and east coast cities. Auction houses like Jacob Soria &

Company and F. H. Dolbeare & Company had taken advantage of this trade by the

1830s; variety goods merchants, furniture makers, and other furniture retailers would

control this market in Natchez by the 1850s and early 1860s. The significant role of

auctions in the distribution of stylish furniture has been discussed by scholars looking at

antebellum Boston, Charleston, Philadelphia, New York, and Savannah. During the

1820s and 1830s, the same is true for Natchez. However, by the 1840s, New Orleans

had emerged as another reliable source for imported furniture, which quickly appeared

to supersede the role of auctions for the nabobs of Natchez. Undoubtedly, purchasing

habits of furniture retailers in Natchez and New Orleans waxed and waned. Planter

demand, not the availability of furniture, controlled consumption, as the market was

always dictated by the fluctuating economic situations of the planters, who depended

on the success of annual cotton crops.

A few Natchez retailers were connected to some of the most stylish furniture

manufacturers in the nineteenth century furniture industry, such as Mitchell &

Rammelsberg, yet they still may have imported predominantly lesser scale, lesser

quality furniture. Undoubtedly, they realized that even the wealthiest nabobs were

willing to buy this furniture for some sections of their mansions. Assuredly more

successful retailers had a better understanding of the varied consumption habits in

Natchez, and developed business connections with the same furniture makers and

dealers patronized by nabobs, such as Henry Siebrecht, Henry Weil & Company, and

235

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. John Hancock & Company. Nonetheless, despite documented patronage of Stewart,

there was little loyalty among wealthy planters to furniture makers or retailers in

antebellum Natchez. Nabobs had the ability and desire to go wherever they chose for

furnishings.

Personal contact seemed to be utterly important to the Natchez planters. Ideas

about form, style, and design were perhaps first developed through exposure to what

was being sold at local auctions and displayed in local furniture warerooms. Ideas were

also cultivated when planters annually spent the summers visiting family and friends in

the northeast and vacationing at resorts like Saratoga and Newport. There they

patronized and visited the showrooms of expensive, high quality taste setters, like

Meeks and Belter of New York. At the same time, equally fashionable American as

well as European furniture was also readily available in New Orleans, where primarily

northern manufacturers found profits in retailing to Natchezians all the patterns and

styles of house furnishings desired, within the accessibility of one shop or along one

principle street. Between the late 1830s and the late 1850s, the range of furniture

choices and sources available to the nabobs, not necessarily the middling and lesser

classes, expanded greatly. Convenience ultimately made all these New Orleans and

New York purchases attractive.

Essentially the retailing trade in Natchez and New Orleans relied on a national,

not local, furniture market, demonstrated by the complex patterns of patronage and

consumption in antebellum Natchez. Cities like Boston, Cincinnati, Philadelphia, and

236

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. New York increasingly came to dominate furniture design and production. They

competed with each other to secure the patronage of certain areas, such as the south,

which was devoid of any comparable industry and had a significant amount of

consumer wealth concentrated in specific areas. Through the use of labels or other

marks strategically placed on furniture, these makers and retailers advertised their

names to often distant patrons. In so doing, they hoped to procure other clients and

remain competitive with other firms. However, even with makers’ or retailers’ marks,

much of this furniture is difficult to connect with regional trends, suggesting antebellum

furniture cannot be analyzed using the same connoisseurship principles that have guided

the study of objects from the seventeenth, eighteenth, and early-nineteenth centuries.

In Natchez, it was not the case of one family or one community favoring the fashion of

furniture from one particular manufacturing center. Furthermore, the varied furniture

connections between Natchez planters and makers or retailers were dictated by

financial profit. Francis Surget’s patronage of J. & J.W. Meeks demonstrated that

wealthy planters would not allow their geographic isolation from furniture makers

affect the quality of product they desired, especially to save the maker the time and

expense in suiting a patron’s rigid specifications. However, Surget was one of many

customers for Meeks, and the Natchez planters were one among many groups that

patronized high-scale makers.

The nabobs were living in an age of form, style, and quality proliferation,

recognized in their varied furniture patronage. Marked furniture identifies makers and

237

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. retailers, and proves that wealthy planters were consumers of furniture from different

east coast cities. Undoubtedly stylistic interpretations that are difficult to identify today

were much easier for the Natchez nabobs, reflected in their varied preferences for

furniture from Baltimore, Boston, Cincinnati, Philadelphia, and New York. One

unifying thread between the different aesthetic interpretations from these style centers

is that the nabobs appear to have had a propensity for the late classical, Grecian designs

and variations, moreso than other popular revival styles. Perhaps this taste developed

to complement the predominantly Neo-Classical and Greek Revival homes that the

planters built. More broadly, the taste for the classical in Natchez signifies a stylistic

preference that consumed a national audience of middle and upper class Americans

throughout the first half of the nineteenth century.

As this study shows, the mass production of furniture in style centers did not

necessarily result in the elimination of skill, but rather a redefinition of design aesthetic

during the antebellum period. Furniture manufacturers in Boston, Cincinnati,

Philadelphia, and New York, were no longer just producing individual custom orders

for local customers. They had to change shop organization, production output, and

advertising strategies to attract new markets. Inevitably, increased production of

furniture from different style centers resulted in fragmentation of the furniture industry

by form, design, and class, as represented in the variety of firms that Robert H. Stewart

patronized for certain objects or patterns. Furniture manufacturers seemed to take

advantage of this situation, however, by providing retailers as well as patrons with

238

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. illustrated guides, such as the catalogues of Foster & Lee and Charles White. Furniture

distribution became as complex as production. In Natchez, antebellum commission

merchants, local furniture retailers, planters, and manufacturers had to establish strong

business relationships to ensure acceptable and efficient furniture distribution. All of

these changes began to occur in the 1840s and 1850s, perhaps earlier than has been

previously realized.

Patronage and consumption in antebellum Natchez reflected a shift in

purchasing decisions that began to occur in American in the early-nineteenth century.

By the 1820s, furniture selection could no longer be broken down into a simplistic

formula of social emulation among a certain class. Undoubtedly the personal taste and

social habits of nabobs influenced others in their class, but furniture choice was also

dictated by availability ~ what could be provided by the maker or retailer -- at the time

a product was needed or desired. Gender also came to increasingly affect these

decisions, as receipts indicate that the wives of nabobs and other wealthy women

personally made or ordered significant amounts of furniture from expensive, well-

known makers and retailers. Mary Gustine, Jane Conner, and even Mary Linton,

illustrate early documented examples of the growing importance of women in the

selection of furniture and interior decoration. The patronage and consumption of

furniture in antebellum Natchez, then, is significant to a study of nineteenth century

economics, business history, and decorative arts. This study, however, can only be

239

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. considered one of many important contributions to recent scholarship on southern

material culture.

The consumers of the antebellum south can not be separated from those of the

antebellum north. Differences in business, economy, and production did not reflect

differences or even distinct variations in wealth or furniture consumption between these

two geographic regions. In analyzing antebellum furniture and other decorative arts in

the south, essentially one is trying to understand the furniture trade as a whole during

much of the nineteenth century.

240

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX

GEORGE J. HENKELS FURNITURE INVOICE TO HALLER NUTT July 25, 1861 [From Ina May Ogletree McAdams, The Building o f Longwood

(Austin, TX: Ina May Ogletree McAdams, 1972: 76-80]

Parlor-Rosewood

1 large sofa 2 medium sofas 2 arm chairs 6 chairs 1 centre table $1700.00 1 Etageri [sic] in glass 140.00 2 shell chairs 130.00 4 reception chairs 140.00 1 Confidante 150.00 2 Cabinets of Boule 400.00 2 Pedestals “ “ 200.00 1 Grand Piano 800.00 1 Piano Stool 25.00 $3,715.00

Dining Room

2 sideboards $300.00 1 dining table 130.00 18 chairs (side) 360.00 2 large arm chairs 60.00 2 service tables 90.00 $940.00

241

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Nursery

Walnut Bedstead $35.00 Walnut Bureau 40.00 Walnut Washstand 25.00 Walnut Wardrobe 45.00 Walnut Rocker Chair 17.00 Walnut Table 15 .00 6 Walnut Chairs 30.00 Mattress 35.00 Bolster and Pillows 16.00 $258.00

Library-Antique Style

2 bookcases $500.00 1 table 125.00 2 antique chairs 90.00 2 antique Turkish chairs 130.00 1 antique lounge 65.00 1 antique step chair 40.00 $950.00

Billiard Room

Rosewood Billiard Tables $400.00 6 arm chairs 36.00 One rack 25.00 $461.00

Office

1 Bookcase $65.00 1 Secretary 120.00 1 table 40.00 2 Comfortable chairs 80.00 6 chairs 48.00 1 sofa 40.00 $393.00

242

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reception Room-Rosewood

2 sofas, 6 chairs, 2 armchairs $550.00 1 Confidante 90.00 1 Shell Armchair 60.00 4 Reception Chairs 64.00 1 Center Table 100.00 2 Cabinets 300.00 2 Pedestal Tables 150.00 $ 1314.00

Mrs. Nutt’s Chamber

1 Pompeir Bedstead 1 “ Bureau 1 “ Wardrobe 1 “ Washstand 4 Chairs $500.00 1 table 65.00 2 comfortable chairs 80.00 1 lounge 65.00 1 spring mattress 45.00 1 towel stand 6.00 Bolster and Pillows 16.00 Nightstand 30.00 $807.00

Mr. Nutt’s Chamber-Rosewood

1 Bedstead $220.00 1 bureau 130.00 1 wardrobe 350.00 1 washstand 65.00 4 chairs 60.00 1 night stand 30.00 1 writing table 55.00 1 lounge 55.00 2 comfortable chairs 100.00 Spring mattress 45.00 Towel Stand 6.00 Bolster and Pillows 16.00 $1002.00

243

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Misses Nutt’s Room

3 bedsteads $225.00 3 wardrobes 300.00 3 bureaus 195.00 3 washstands 105.00 12 chairs 60.00 3 towel stands 9.00 3 spring mattresses 120.00 3 sett [sic] bolsters and Pillows 48.00 3 tables 60.00 3 comfortable chairs 90.00 3 lounges 105.00 3 night stands 48.00 $1365.00

3 Other Chambers

3 Walnut bedsteads $135.00 3 Walnut bureaus 135.00 3 Walnut wardrobes 135 .00 3 Washstands 75.00 3 lounges 60.00 3 comfortable chairs 75.00 12 chairs-st. [straight?] 48.00 3 tables 24.00 3 spring mattresses 105.00 3 sets bolsters & pillows 48.00 $802.00

Smoking Room

2 lounges $110.00 10 chairs 80.00 2 st. [straight?] chairs 18.00 1 sideboard 65.00 2 card tables 80.00 $353.00

TOTAL FOR FURNITURE: $12,366.00

244

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources

Manuscripts

Blackburn Family Papers (1840-1896). Filson Club Historical Society. Louisville, Kentucky.

Circuit Court Case Files, Adams County, Mississippi. Historic Natchez Foundation. Natchez, Mississippi.

Conner, Lemuel P. Family Papers (1810-1953). Louisiana and Lower Mississippi Valley Collection. Hill Memorial Library, Louisiana State University. Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Cottrell Collection. Rare Books and Special Collections, Department of Public Library of Cincinnati and Hamilton County. Cincinnati, Ohio.

Decorative Arts Photographic Collection (DAPC) Files, Winterthur Museum. Winterthur, Delaware

Dun, R. G. and Company Collection. Historical Collections Department, Baker Library. Harvard University Graduate School of Business Administration. Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Faires, J.W.(?). Journal. Historical Society of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Historic Research Files. Historic Natchez Foundation. Natchez, Mississippi.

Historic Site Files, Natchez and Adams County. Historic Natchez Foundation. Natchez, Mississippi.

Inventory and Appraisement Books, Adams County, Mississippi. Adams County Courthouse. Natchez, Mississippi

245

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Lecture Files. Historic Natchez Foundation. Natchez, Mississippi.

Leverich, Charles P. Papers (1833-1854). Mississippi Department of Archives and History. Jackson, Mississippi.

Leverich Family Papers. New York Historical Society. New York City, New York.

Meader, Daniel F. Collection of Secondary Source References. Cincinnati Historical Society. Cincinnati, Ohio.

Minor, William J. and Family. Papers (1779-1898). Louisiana and Lower Mississippi Valley Collection. Hill Memorial Library, Louisiana State University. Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Office of the Chancery Clerk, Adams County Probate Files. Historic Natchez Foundation. Natchez, Mississippi.

Partnership Agreement between Charles D. Johnston, John Lyford, and Aaron Shaw, September 1859. Cincinnati Historical Society. Cincinnati, Ohio.

Petravage, Carol. Notes from Natchez Family Papers. Historic Natchez Foundation. Natchez, Mississippi.

Probate Records, Adams County, Mississippi. Adams County Courthouse. Natchez, Mississippi.

Quitman, John A. Papers (1788-1858). Letters of 1843-1858. Historical Society of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Records o f Ante-bellum Southern Plantations from the Revolution through the Civil War. Series F, Part 1. Haller Nutt Papers, 1846-1860. Microfilm. University of Delaware. Newark, Delaware.

Records of the Bureau of the Census. Seventh Census of the United States (1850). Manufacturing Schedules for Natchez and Adams County, Mississippi. Microfilm. University of North Carolina. Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Records of the Bureau of the Census. Seventh Census of the Unites States (1850). Population Schedules for Natchez and Adams County, Mississippi. Microfilm. National Archives and Records Administration Mid Atlantic Region. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

246

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Records of the Bureau of the Census. Eighth Census of the United States (1860). Manufacturing Schedules for Natchez and Adams County, Mississippi. Microfilm. University of North Carolina. Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Records of the Bureau of the Census. Eighth Census of the United States (1860). Manufacturing Schedules for Natchez and Adams County, Mississippi. Microfilm. National Archives and Records Administration Mid Atlantic Region. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Records of the United States Bureau of Customs. Inward Coastal Manifests, Port of New Orleans. National Archives. Washington, D.C.

Records of the United States Bureau of Customs. Outward Coastal Manifests, Port of Philadelphia. National Archives. Washington, D.C.

Registration Office Files. Winterthur Museum. Winterthur, Delaware.

Stewart, Robert H. Account Books (1834-1904). Louisiana and Lower Mississippi Valley Collection. Hill Memorial Library, Louisiana State University. Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Surget Family Papers (1795-1867). Mississippi Department of Archives and History. Jackson, Mississippi.

Wistar, Charles J. Family Papers. Winterthur Library. Winterthur, Delaware.

Newspapers

The Ariel, 1827; 1828.

The Independent, 1857.

Mississippi Free Trader, 1838; 1843; 1848; 1851; 1853; 1858.

Mississippi State Gazette, 1818; 1819; 1820;

Natchez Courier and Adams, Jefferson and Franklin Advertiser, 1833.

Natchez Daily Courier, 1863.

247

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Secondary Sources

City Directories

Adams, George. The Boston Directory. Boston: George Adams, 1849.

Boston Directory For the Year 1855. Boston: Damrell & Moore, 1855.

Boston Directory For the Year Ending June 30, 1860.Boston: Adams, Sampson, and Co., 1859.

The Boston Directory. Boston: Damrell & Moore, 1860.

The Boston Directory. For the Year Commencing July 1, 1860. Boston: Adams, Sampson & Co., 1860.

Boyd’s Pictorial Directory o f Broadway. New York: William H. Boyd, 1859.

Boyd, William H. Boyd’s Philadelphia City Business Directory. Philadelphia: John Monier, 1860.

Boyd, William H. Boyd’s Philadelphia City and Business Directory, to Which is Added a Co-Partnership Directory, 1860-61. Philadelphia: William H. Boyd, 1861.

Bywater’s Philadelphia Business Directory and City Guide for the Year 1851. Philadelphia: Maurice Bywater, 1851.

Carroll, G. Danielson. Carroll's New York City Directory. New York: Carroll & Co., 1859.

Cohen, S.E. Cohen's Philadelphia City Directory, City Guide, and Business Register, fo r I860. Philadelphia: John L. Hamelin, 1860.

Cohen's New Orleans and Lafayette Directory for 1849. New Orleans: D. Davies & Son, 1849.

Desilver’s Philadelphia Directory and Stranger’s Guide for 1835 and 1836. Philadelphia: Robert Desilver, 1835.

Desilver’s Philadelphia Directory and Stranger’s Guide for 1837. Philadelphia: Robert Desilver, 1837.

248

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Dogett, John, Jr. Dogett 's New-York Business Directory for 1846 & 1847. New York: H. Ludwig, 1847.

Dogett’s New York City Directory, Illustrated with Maps o f New York and Brooklyn. 1849-1849. New York: John Doggett, Jr. & Co., 1849.

Dogett’s New York City Directory, for 1849-1850. New York: John Doggett, Jr. & Co., 1850.

Gardner, Charles. Gardner & Wharton’s New Orleans Directory, for 1858. New Orleans: Wharton, 1858.

Gardner’s Commercial and Business Registry o f New Orleans. New Orleans: Isaac T. Hinton, 1860.

Gardner’s New Orleans Directory, for 1859. New Orleans: Charles Gardner, 1858.

Harris’s Commercial Directory and Merchant's Guide for Philadelphia, 1838. Philadelphia: S. Harris, 1838.

Hellier’s New Orleans Business Directory, for 1860 and ‘61.New York: Hellier & Co., 1860.

McElroy’s Philadelphia Directory for 1843. Philadelphia: Edward C. Biddle, 1843.

McElroy’s Philadelphia Directory, for 1851. Philadelphia: Edward C. & John Biddle, 1851.

McElroy’s Philadelphia Directory, for 1852. Philadelphia: Edward C. & John Biddle, 1852.

McElroy’s Philadelphia City Directory, for 1858. Philadelphia: Edward C. & John Biddle, 1858.

McElroy’s Philadelphia City Directory for 1860. Philadelphia: Edward C. and John Biddle & Co., 1860.

Michel and Company. New Orleans Annual and Commercial Register for 1846. New Orleans: E. A. Michel & Co., 1846.

New York City Directory, for 1851-1852. New York: Doggett & Rode, 1852.

249

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. O ’Brien’s Wholesale Business Intelligencer and Southern and Western Merchant's Packet Directory to the Principle Mercantile Houses in the City of Philadelphia for 1838-1839. Philadelphia: John G. O’Brien, 1838.

Rainey, W. H., ed. A. Mygatt & Co. ’s New Orleans Business Directory. New Orleans: A. Mygatt & Co., 1858.

Sketches and Business Directory o f Boston and Its Vicinity. Boston: Damrell & Moore and George Cooiidge, 1861.

Stimpson's Boston Directory. Boston: Charles Stimpson, Jr., 1835.

Williams’ Cincinnati Directory and Business Advertiser, for 1851-52. Cincinnati: C. S. Williams, 1852.

Williams ’ Cincinnati Directory, City Guide and Business Monitor, for 1859. Cincinnati: C. S. Williams, 1859.

Williams ’ Cincinnati Directory City Guide and Business Mirror, for 1860.Cincinnati: C. S. Williams, 1860.

Wilson, H. Trow’s New York City Directory. New York: John F. Trow, 1860.

Wilson, H. Trow’sNew York City Directory. New York. John F. Trow, 1861.

Wilson’s Business Directory o f New York City.New York: H. Wilson, 1848.

Wilson's Business Directory o f New-York City.New York: John F. Trow, 1853.

Wilson’s Business Directory o f New York City.New York: John F. Trow, 1859.

Wilson's New York City Copartnership Directory, for 1859-60. New York: John F. Trow, 1859.

Wilson's New York City Copartnership Directory, for 1860-61. New York: John F. Trow, 1860.

Wood’s Baltimore City Directory. Baltimore: John W. Woods, 1860.

250

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Books and Articles

A Completed Century 1826-1926 The Story of the Heywood-Wakefield Company. Boston: Heywood-Wakefield, Co., 1926.

A Review o f the Trade, Commerce and Manufactures of Cincinnati For the Year Ending August 31, 1850. Cincinnati: Chamber of Commerce, 1850.

Adams, E. Bryding. “Mortised, Tenoned, and Screwed Together: A Large Assortment of Alabama Furniture.” In Made in Alabama A State Legacy, ed. E. Bryding Adams. Birmingham, AL: Birmingham Museum of Art, 1995.

Albion, Robert Greenhalgh. The Rise o f New York Port (1815-1860). Boston: Northeastern University, 1967.

The American Advertising Directory for Manufacturing and Dealers in American Goods. New York: Jocelyn, Darling & Co., 1832.

The American Heritage History o f American Antiques from the Revolution to the Civil War. American Heritage; 1968.

Ames, Kenneth L. “Designed in France Notes on the Transmission of the French Style to America.” Winterthur Portfolio (1977):12 103-114.

Ames, Kenneth L. “George Henkels, Nineteenth-Century Philadelphia Cabinetmaker.” Antiques (October 1973): 641-650.

Ames, Kenneth L. “Renaissance Revival Furniture in America.” Part 1. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1970.

Annual Statement o f the Trade and Commerce o f Cincinnati. 1855-1863. Cincinnati: Gazette, 1855-1863.

“Antiques in Domestic Settings Ante-Bellum Homes in Natchez.” Antiques (March 1942): 190-191.

The Art Journal Illustrated Catalogue: The Industry o f All Nations London: George Virtue, 1851.

Banks, William Nathaniel. “Melrose in Natchez, Mississippi.” Antiques (March 1987): 650-657.

251

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Bates, Elizabeth Bidweil and Jonathan L. Fairbanks. American Furniture 1620 to the Present. New York: Richard Marek, 1981.

Behrens, Dorothy W. “When Pittsburgh was Superior to New York in Furniture Style.” American Collector (March 1945): 8-10.

Bennett, Swannee and Worthem William B. Arkansas Made A Survey o f Decorative, Mechanical, and Fine Arts Produced in Arkansas, 1819-1870. Vol. 1. Fayetteville, AK: University of Arkansas, 1990.

Berlin, Ira and Herbert G. Gutman. “Natives and Immigrants, Free Men and Slaves: Urban Workingman in the Antebellum American South.” American Historical Review 88 (December 1983): 1175-1200.

Bigelow, David. History o f Prominent Mercantile and Manufacturing Firms in the United States. Vol. 6. Boston: 1857.

Bishop, J. Leander. A History o f American Manufactures from 1608 to I860. London: Samson Low, Son & Co., 1868.

Bolding, Gary. “Change, Continuity and Commercial Identity of a Southern City: New Orleans, 1850-1950.” Louisiana Studies 14 (Summer 1975): 161-178.

The Book o f the Exhibition Seventh Annual Exhibition o f the Maryland Institute for the Promotion o f the Mechanic Arts. Baltimore: Mills & Cox: 1854.

Brown, Dale Campbell; Mary B. Eidt; Joan W. Gandy; and Caroline V. Smith. Stanton Hall Natchez. Natchez, MS: Mrytle Bank, 1980.

Butler, Joseph T. American Antiques 1800-1900 A Collector's History and Guide. New York: Odyssey, 1965.

Callon, Sim C.; David G. Sansing; and Caroline Vance Smith. Natchez An Illustrated History. Natchez, MS: Plantation, 1992.

Campbell, Gavin. Archival Shadows o f the Old Natchez District A Guide to Selected Natchez Holdings. Chapel Hill, NC: Center for the Study of the American South, 1996.

Cantor, Jay. E. “A Monument of Trade A.T. Stewart and the Rise of the Millionaire’s Mansion in New York.” Winterthur Portfolio 10(1975): 165-197.

252

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Catalano, Kathleen Matilda. “Cabinetmaking in Philadelphia, 1820-1840.” Master’s thesis, University of Delaware, 1972.

Catalano, Kathleen M. “Cabinetmaking in Philadelphia 1820-1840 Transition from Craft to Industry.” Winterthur Portfolio (1979):13 81-138.

Catalano, Kathleen M. “The Empire Style: Philadelphia.” Nineteenth Century Furniture Innovation, Revival, and Reform, ed. Art & Antiques. New York: Billboard, 1982.

Cincinnati: The Queen City Bicentennial Edition. Cincinnati: Cincinnati Historical Society, 1988.

Cist, Charles. Sketches and Statistics o f Cincinnati in 1851. Cincinnati: William H. Moore, 1851.

Cist, Charles. Sketches and Statistics o f Cincinnati in 1859. Cincinnati: 1859.

Claiborne, J. F. H. Mississippi as a Province, Territory and State with Biographical Notices o f Eminent Citizens. Vol. 1. (1880) Reprint. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University, 1964.

Clark, Victor. History o f Manufactures in the United States. Vol. 1, 1607-1860. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1929.

Collins, Bruce. White Society in the Antebellum South. New York: Longman, 1988.

Comstock, Helen. American Furniture Seventeenth, Eighteenth, and Nineteenth Century Styles. New York, Viking, 1962.

Conradson, David. “The Stock-in-Trade of John Hancock and Company.” In American Furniture 1993, ed. Luke Beckerdite. Hanover, NH: The Chipstone Foundation, 1993.

Cooper, Wendy A. Classical Taste in America 1800-1840. New York: Abbeville, 1993.

The Crystal Palace Exhibition Illustrated Catalogue London 1851. Reprint. New York: Dover, 1970.

Davidson, Marshall B. and Elizabeth Stillinger. The American Wing a t the Metropolitan Museum o f Art,New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1985.

253

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Davis, Edwin Adams and William Ransom Hogan, eds. William Johnson’s Natchez The Ante-Bellum Diary o f a Free Negro. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University, 1979

Delehanty, Randoplh and Van Jones Martin. Classic Natchez. New Orleans: Martin-St. Martin, 1996.

Douglas, Ed Polk. “Rococo Revival: John Henry Belter.” In Nineteenth Century Furniture Innovation, Revival, and Reform, ed. Art & Antiques. New York: Billboard, 1982.

Downing, Andrew Jackson. The Architecture o f Country Houses. New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1850.

Drake, E. and E. D. Mansfield. Cincinnati in 1826. Cincinnati: Morgan, Lodge, and Fisher, 1827.

Dubrow, Eileen and Richard Dubrow. American Furniture o f the I9th Century 1840- 1880. Exton, PA: Schiffer, 1983.

DucofF-Barone, Deborah. “The Early Industrialization of the Philadelphia Furniture Trade, 1800-1840.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1985.

DucofF-Barone, Deborah. “Philadelphia Furniture Makers 1816-1830.” Antiques (May 1994): 742-755.

Eisterhold, John A. “Lumber and Trade in the Lower Mississippi Valley and New Orleans, 1800-1860.” Louisiana History (Winter 1972): 71-91.

Ettema, Michael John. “Technological Innovation and Design Economics in American Furniture Manufacture of the Nineteenth Century.” Master’s thesis, University of Delaware, 1981.

Fazio, Michael. “Architectural Preservation in Natchez, Mississippi: A Conception of Time and Place.” Southern Quarterly 19 (1980) 136-149.

Fishlow, Albert. “Antebellum Regional Trade Reconsidered.” American Economic Review 54 (1964): 352-364.

Fitgerald, Oscar P. Four Centuries o f American Furniture. Radnor, PA: Wallace- Homestead, 1995.

254

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Foster & Lee. Furniture Dealers, No. 198 Broome Street New York (catalogue).City New York: J. Huggins & Co., 1858.

Fox-Genovese, Elizabeth. Within the Plantation Household Black and White Women o f the Old South. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina, 1988.

Fulkerson, Howard S. Random Recollections o f Early Days in Mississippi. Vicksburg, MS: 1885.

Gaines, Edith. Collector’s Notes, “A Pair of Meeks Chests.” Antiques (December, 1959): 565.

Gaines, Edith. “Meekses West and South.” Antiques (July 1970): 127.

Gamble, Robert. “The White-Column Tradition: Classical Architecture and the Southern Mystique.” Southern Humanities Review 11 (1977): 41-59.

Gandy, Joan W. and Thomas H. Gandy Norman’s Natchez An Early Photographer and His Town. Jackson, MS: University Press of Mississippi, 1978.

Garrett, Wendell. Victorian America Classical Romanticism to Gilded Opulence. New York, Rizzoli, 1993.

Gillespie, Michelle K. “Planters in the Making: Artisanal Opportunity in Georgia, 1790- 1830.” In American Artisans Crafting Social Identity 1750-1850, eds. Robert Asher; Paul A. Gilje; and Howard B. Rock. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1995.

Gillis, Irene S and Norman E. Gillis Genealogical Abstract o f Biographical Section to Historical Memoirs o f Mississippi. Baton Rouge, LA: Irene S. and Norman E. Gillis, 1962.

Godey's Lady’s Booh, 1849-1854, 1861.

Goldfield, David R. “Pursuing the American Dream: Cities in the Old South.” In The City in Southern History The Growth o f Urban Civilization in the South, eds. Blaine A. Brownell and David R. Goldfield. Port Washington, NY: Kennikat, 1977.

Goldsborough, Jennifer F. and Gregory R. Weidman. Classical Maryland 1815-1845 Fine and Decorative Arts from the Golden Age. Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1993.

255

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Goodrich, Charles Rush and Benjamin Silliman, Jr. The World o f Science, Art, and Industry Illustratedfrom Examples in the New-York Exhibition, 1853-54. New York: G. P. Putnam, 1854.

Greenwood, Richard N. The Five Heywood Brothers (1826-1951) A Brief History of the Heywood-Wakefield Company During 125 Years. New York: The Newcomen Society in North America, 1951.

Hanks, David. “Gothic Revival Furniture in Philadelphia.” Antiques (May 1976) 1024- 1031.

Hanks, David; Rodris Roth; and Page Talbott. Innovative Furniture in America From 1800 to the Present. New York: Horizon, 1981.

Harrison, Sarah Webster and Lucianne Wood. Rosalie A Mansion o f Natchez. Natchez, MS: Myrtle Bank, 1978.

Harrison, Stephen G. “C.LEE’: Maker of Bedsteads for the Southern Market.” Maine Antiques Digest (April 1994): 28-29a.

Harrison, Stephen G. “Furniture Trade in New Orleans, 1840-1880: The Largest Assortment Constantly on Hand.” Master’s thesis, University of Delaware, 1997.

Harrison, Stephen G. “The Nineteenth-Century Furniture Trade in New Orleans.” Antiques (May 1997): 748-759.

Hawks, Joanne V. “Julia Nutt of Longwood.” The Journal o f Mississippi History 57 (November, 1994): 291-308.

Henkels, George J. Catalogue o f Furniture (catalogue). 1850-1857.

Henkels, George. Household Economy (catalogue). Philadelphia: King & Baird, 1867.

Heywood Brothers Manufacturing Company (catalogue). 1878.

Historical Statistics o f the United States Colonial Times to 1970. Part 1. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Commerce, 1975.

Howe, Katharine S. and David B. Warren. The Gothic Revival in America, 1830-1870. Houston, TX: The Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, 1976.

256

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Hunter, Louis C. Steamboats on the Western Rivers An Economic and Technological History. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1949.

Ingerman, Elizabeth A. “Personal Experiences of an Old New York Cabinetmaker .” Antiques (November 1963): 576-580.

Ingraham, Joseph Holt. The South-West. By a Yankee. New York, Harper and Brothers, 1835.

James, D. Clayton. Antebellum Natchez. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University, 1968.

Jayne, Thomas Gordon. “The New York Crystal Palace: An International Exhibition of Goods and Ideas.” Master’s thesis, University of Delaware, 1990.

Jobe, Brock and Myma Kaye. New England Furniture: The Colonial Era. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1984.

Jones, Katharine M. The Plantation South. New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1957.

Judge's Report, United States Centennial Commission, International Exhibition, 1876. (E. W. Vaill Catalogue).

Ketchum, William C., Jr. American Cabinetmakers Marked American Furniture, 1640- 1940. New York: Crown, 1995.

Kettel, Thomas Prentice. Southern Wealth and Northern Profits. New York: George W. & John A. Wood, 1860.

Kolchin, Peter. American Slavery 1619-1877. New York, Hill and Wang, 1993.

Leath, Robert A. and Maurie D. Mclnnis. “Beautiful Specimens, Elegant Patterns: New York Furniture for the Charleston Market, 1810-1840.” In American Furniture 1996, ed. Luke Beckerdite. Hanover, NH: The Chipstone Foundation 1996.

McAdams, Ina May Ogletree. The Building o f Longwood. Austin, TX: Ina May Ogletree McAdams, 1972.

McGehee, Mildred Blewett. “Levi Weeks, Early Nineteenth -Century Architect.” Master’s thesis, University of Delaware, 1976.

257

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Mayhew, Edgar deN and Minor Myers, Jr. A Documentary History o f American Interiors From the Colonial Era to 1915. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1980.

Meining, D.W. The Shaping o f America A Geographical Perspective on 500 Years of History. Vol. 2, Continental America 1800-1867. New Haven, CT: Yale University, 1993.

Melrose Estate Natchez National Historical Park Historic Structures Report. Vol. 1. Boston: Ann Beha Associates, 199S.

Miller, Mary (Mimi). “Brief Narrative Look at Robert Stewart.” Unpublished paper. Historic Natchez Foundation. Natchez, Mississippi.

Miller, Mary Warren (Mimi) and Ronald W. The Great Houses o f Natchez. Jackson, MS: University Press of Mississippi, 1986.

Miller, Ronald. “Historic Architecture and Interiors in Natchez, The Bath or Clifton of the South.” Unpublished lecture. Historic Natchez Foundation. Natchez, Mississippi.

Miller, Ronald W. “Historic Preservation in Natchez, Mississippi.” Antiques (March 1977): 538-548.

Miller, Ronald W. “Stanton Hall Lecture” (for the Pilgrimage Garden Club Antiques Forum, November 6, 1991). Unpublished lecture. Historic Natchez Foundation. Natchez, Mississippi.

Mitchell, Harry A. “The Development of New Orleans as a Wholesale Trading Center.” The Louisiana Historical Quarterly 27 (October 1944): 933-963.

The Momento Old and New Natchez 1700-1897 (1897) Reprint. Natchez, MS: Myrtle Bank; 1984.

Moore, John Hebron. Andrew Brown and Cypress Lumbering in the Old Southwest. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University, 1967.

Natchez National Historical Park Natchez, Mississippi Historic Resource Study. Boston: Ann Beha Associates, 1995.

Neo-Classicism in America Inspiration and Innovation 1810-1840. New York: Hirschl & Adler Galleries, 1991.

258

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Nineteenth Century America Furniture and Other Decorative Arts. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1970.

North, Douglass C. The Economic Growth o f the United States 1790-1860. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1961.

Official Catalogue o f the New-York Exhibition o f the Industry o f All Nations 1853. New York: George P. Putnam, 1853.

Oliver, J. L. The Development and Structure o f the Furniture Industry. New York: Pergamon, 1966.

Oliver, Nola Nance. This Too is Natchez. New York, Hastings House, 1953.

Olmsted, Frederick Law. The Cotton Kingdom (1861). Reprint. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1966.

Olmsted, Frederick Law. A Journey in the Back Country (1860). Reprint. New York: Burt Franklin, 1970.

One-Hundred Years at Paine's 1835-1935 A History o f America's Oldest Furniture Store. Boston: Paine Furniture Co., 1935.

Otto, Celia Jackson. American Furniture o f the Nineteenth Century. New York: Viking, 1965.

Otto, Celia Jackson. “Pillar and Scroll: Greek Revival Furniture of the 1830s.” Antiques (May 1962): 504-507.

Owens, John and Reid Smith. The Majesty o f Natchez. Prattville, AL: Paddle Wheel, 1969.

Pearce, John N. and Lorraine W. Pearce “More on the Meeks Family of Cabinetmakers. Antiques (July 1966): 69-73.

Pearce, John :N.; Lorraine W. Pearce; and Robert C. Smith. “The Meeks Family of Cabinetmakers. Antiques (April 1964): 414-420.

Pease, Jane H. Notes and Documents A Note on Patterns o f Conspicuous Consumption Among Seaboard Planters, 1820-1860. Journal of Southern History (1969): 381-393.

259

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Peirce, Donald C. “Mitchell and Rammelsberg: Cincinnati Furniture Makers 1847- 1881.” Master’s thesis, University ofDelaware, 1980.

Peirce, Donald C. “Mitchell and Rammelsberg Cincinnati Furniture Manufacturers 1847-1881.” Winterthur Portfolio 73(1979): 209-229.

Pennington, Estill Curtis. “The Aesthetics of Everyday Life in Old Natchez.” In Natchez Before 1830, ed. Noel Polk. Jackson, MS: University Press of Mississippi, 1989.

Pennington, Estill Curtis. The Climate of Taste in the Old South.” The Southern Quarterly 24 (Fall-Winter 1985). 7-31.

Pennington, Estill Curtis. “Plantation Baroque: Ambitious Intent at Kirkwood and Melrose.” The Southern Quarterly 26 (fd3\ 1987): 125-142.

Pessen, Edward. “How Different from Each Other Were the Antebellum North and South.” American Historical Review 85 (December 1980) 1119-1149.

Philadelphia: Three Centuries o f American Art. Philadelphia: Philadelphia Museum of Art, 1976.

Poesch, Jessie. The Art o f the Old South Painting, Sculpture, Architecture & the Products o f Craftsmen 1560-1860. New York: Harrison House, 1989.

“Quitman, John Anthony.” In Dictionary o fAmerican Biography, ed. Dumas Malone. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1935.

Reps, John W. Cities o f the Mississippi Nineteenth-Century Images of Urban Development. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri, 1994.

Resseguie, Harry E. “A T Stewart’s Marble Palace — The Cradle of the Department Store,” New York Historical Society Quarterly (April 1964): 130-162.

Richards, William C. A Day in the New York Crystal Palace and How to Make the Most o f It. New York: G. P. Putnam, 1853.

Roeder, Robert E. “Merchants in Ante-Bellum New Orleans.” Explorations in Entrepreneurial History 10 (April 1958): 113-122.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Roth, Rodris. “Seating for Anyplace: The Folding Chair.” In Victorian Furniture Essays from a Victorian Society Autumn Symposium, ed. Kenneth L. Ames. Philadelphia: Victorian Society in America, 1983.

Rothstein, Morton. “The Natchez Nabobs: Kinship and Friendship in an Economic Elite.” In Toward a New View o f America: Essays in Honor o f Arthur C. Cole, ed. Hans L. Trefousse. New York: Burt Franklin and Co., 1977.

Rothstein, Morton. “Sugar and Secession: A New York Firm in Ante-Bellum Louisiana.” Explorations in Entrepreneurial History 5 (Winter 1968): 115-131.

Scarborough, Thomas A.H. “Cotton, Planters, and Plantations in the Natchez District, 1760-1880.” In Natchez on the Mississippi A Journey Through Southern History 1870-1920, eds. Joyce L. Broussard and Ronald L. F. Davis. Northridge, Ca: California State University School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1995.

Scarborough, William K. “Lords or Capitalists? The Natchez Nabobs in Comparative Perspective. The Journal o f Mississippi History (August 1992): 239-267.

Schmidt, Louis Bernard. “Internal Commerce and the Development of National Economy Before 1860.” The Journal o f Political Economy 47 (December 1939): 798-822.

Schwartz, Marvin D. “The Rococo Revival Style and the Work of John Henry Belter.” In The Furniture o fJohn Henry Belter and the Rococo Revival, eds. Marvin D Schwartz; Edward J. Stanek; and Douglas K. True. New York: E. P. Dutton, 1981.

Seidler, Jan M. “A Tradition in Transition: The Boston Furniture Industry, 1840- 1880.” In Victorian Furniture Essays from a Victorian Society Autumn Symposium, ed. Kenneth L. Ames. Philadelphia: Victorian Society in America, 1983.

Sikes, Jane . The Furniture Makers if Cincinnati 1790 to 1849. Cincinnati: Jane E. Sikes, 1976.

Sloan, Samuel. Sloan’s Homestead Architecture. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1861.

Smith, Caroline Vance. “Stanton Hall in Natchez, Mississippi.” Antiques (March 1988): 704-713.

261

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Smith, Thomas Gordoa John Hall and the Grecian Style in America. New York: Acanthus, 1996.

Somers, Dale A. “New Orleans at War: A Merchant’s View.” Louisiana History 14 (Winter 1973): 49-68.

Somers, Dale A. “War and Play: The Civil War in New Orleans.” Mississippi Quarterly 26 (Winter 1972-73): 3-28.

“Southern Patronage to Southern Imports and Domestic Industry.” DeBow’s Review 29 (August 1860): 77-83.

Spiotta, Robert S. “Remembering Father: Merchants, Materials, and a New Ashland.” In “Midwestern Decorative Arts” (abstracts of papers presented at the Taft Museum, Cincinnati, 26 April 1991). Newsletter o f the Decorative Arts Society, Inc. 1 (Winter 1992) 3.

Stillinger, Elizabeth. The Antiques Guide to Decorative Arts in America 1600-1875. New York: E. P. Dutton, 1973.

Stott, Richard B. Worker in the Metropolis Class, Ethnicity, and Youth in Antebellum New York City. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, 1990.

Streifthau, Donna. “Cincinnati Cabinet-and Chairmakers, 1819-1830.” Antiques (June 1971): 896-905.

Streifthau, Donna. “Fancy Chairs and Finials: Cincinnati Furniture Industry, 1819- 1830.” Cincinnati Historical Society Bulletin 29 (1971): 171-200.

Talbott, Page. “Boston Empire Furniture.” Part 1. Antiques (May 1975): 878-887.

Talbott, Page. “Boston Empire Furniture.” Part 2. Antiques (May 1976): 1004-1013.

Talbott, Page. Classical Savannah Fine and Decorative Arts 1800-1840. Savannah, GA: Telfair Museum of Art, 1995.

Talbott, Page. “The Furniture Industry in Boston.” Master’s thesis, University of Delaware, 1974.

Talbott, Page. “The Furniture Trade in Boston, 1810-1835.” Antiques (May 1992): 842-855.

262

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Talbott, (Elizabeth) Page. “The Philadelphia Furniture Industry 18SO to 1880.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1980.

Talbott, Page. “Seating Furniture in Boston, 1810-1835.” Antiques (May 1991): 956- 969.

Taylor, George Rogers. The Transportation Revolution 1815-1860. Vol. 4, The Economic History of the United States. White Plains, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1951.

Tyree, Mrs. Raymond. Natchez Ante-Bellum Homes. Natchez, MS: Tom L. Retchings, 1964.

Vaill, E. W. Circular and Price List (catalogue). Worcester, MA: 1875.

Vaill, E. W. Circular and Price List, (catalogue) Worcester, MA; 1876.

Venable, Charles L. “Philadelphia Biedermeier: Germanic Craftsman and Design in Philadelphia, 1820-1850.” Master’s thesis, University of Delaware, 1986.

“Wants of the South.” DeBow's Review (August 1860) 215-223.

Way, Frederick, Jr. Way's Packet Directory 1848-1994. Athens, OH: Ohio University, 1994.

Way, Frederick, Jr. and Joseph W. Rutter. Way’s Steam Towboat Directory. Athens, OH: Ohio University, 1990.

Way, R.B. “The Commerce of the Lower Mississippi in the Period 1830-1860.” Proceedings o f the Mississippi Valley Historical Association 10(1920): 57- 69.

Wayne, Michael. The Reshaping o fPlantation Society The Natchez District, 1860- 1880. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University, 1983.

Weaver, Gustine Courson. The Gustine Compendium. Cincinnati: Powell & White, 1929.

Weaver, Herbert. Mississippi Farmers 1850-1860. Nashville, TN. Vanderbilt University, 1945.

263

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Weidman, Gregory R. Furniture in Maryland 1740-1940. Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1984.

Westerfield, Ray Bert. “Early History of American Auctions - A Chapter in Commercial History.” Transactions o f the Connecticut Academy o f Arts and Sciences 23 (May 1920): 159-210.

White, Charles H. Chas H White Upholstery and Furniture Bazaar (catalogue). Philadelphia: Sickles & Reading, 1854.

Whitwell, William L. The Heritage o f Longwood. Jackson, MS: University Press of Mississippi, 1975.

Wilentz, Sean. Chants Democratic New York City & The Rise o f the American Working Class, 1788-1850. New York: Oxford University, 1984.

Wilson, Charles R. “Cincinnati A Southern Outpost in 1860-61?” Mississippi Valley Historical Review. 473-482.

Winkler, Gail Caskey. “Influence of Godey’s ‘Lady’s Book’ on the American Woman and Her Home: Contributions to a National Culture (1830-1877).” Ph. D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1988.

264

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (Q A -3) <0

^ o ,

a V

l £ 12.8 1 2 3 I . 0 | 5 0 «

■ >1 I I 2 -2 £ £ I.I u t£& S 5 ? S U I I I 1 - 2 5 III! — — 4 J I I I u III1,6

150mm

APPLIED J IIVMGE. Inc _ ^ S 1653 East Main Street - = = ~- Rochester, NY 14609 USA -===~— Phone: 716/482-0300 - = '- = = Pax: 716/288-5969

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.