Fine Dining: the 1828 Detached Dining

FINE DINING:

THE 1828 DETACHED DINING ROOM OF JOHN S. BRATTON

Jane McCollum Marion

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

Spring 2006

UMI Microform 1435837 Copyright 2006 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346

FINE DINING:

THE 1828 DETACHED DINING ROOM OF JOHN S. BRATTON

Jane McCollum Marion

Approved: ______Bernard L. Herman, Ph.D. Professor in charge of thesis on behalf of the Advisory Committee

Approved: ______J. Ritchie Garrison, Ph.D. Director of the Winterthur Program in Early American Culture

Approved: ______Thomas M. Apple, Ph.D. Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences

Approved: ______Conrado M. Gempesaw II, Ph.D. Vice Provost for Academic and International Programs

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank Bernie Herman for his continuous advice, guidance, and inspiration over the past year. I am also indebted to the many staff and friends of the

Culture and Heritage Museums of York County, South Carolina, including Chuck

LeCount, Pat Veasey, Mike Scoggins, Wade Fairey, and Nancy Craig for their assistance and permission to use previously copyrighted material. Most of all, thanks go to my friends and family who have supported and helped me throughout my graduate education.

This manuscript is dedicated to:

My grandmother, Ann Davidson Marion, for her inspirational love of history and family.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………………..v ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………………....viii TEXT INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………...... 1 PROBLEMS INHERENT IN BRATTON DETACHED DINING ROOM DOCUMENTATION……………………………………………………..3 PHYSICAL EVIDENCE………………………………………………….6 PLANTATION LANDSCAPE…………………………………………..10 LANDSCAPE OF YORK COUNTY……………………………………15 COMPARABLE EXAMPLES…………………………………………..19 EXPERIMENTAL ARCHEOLOGY…………………………………...…….28 CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………33 ILLUSTRATIONS……………………………………………………………………...35 BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………………81

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Home of John Simpson Bratton………………………………………….35

Figure 2. Detached dining room and home of John Bratton……………………….36

Figure 3. Bratton detached dining room……………………………………………37

Figure 4. Bratton detached kitchen ………………………………………………...38

Figure 5. Bratton detached dairy…………………………………………………...39

Figure 6. Dining room front door…………………………………………………..40

Figure 7. Dining room rear entrance……………………………………………….41

Figure 8. Dining room interior……………………………………………….…….42

Figure 9. Dining room door surround…………………………………………...…43

Figure 10. Dining room mantel……………………………………………………...44

Figure 11. Detail, wall cupboards …………………………………………………..45

Figure 12. Detail, openings to left of hearth…………………………………………46

Figure 13. Dining room cellar……………………………………………………….47

Figure 14. Floor plan, Bratton house………………………………………………...48

Figure 15. View of Bratton house on road from Yorkville………………………….49

Figure 16. View of formal and informal parlor……………………………………...50

Figure 17. Original wainscoting, upstairs bedchamber……………………………...51

Figure 18. Dining room pine corner cupboards……………………………………..52

Figure 19. Dining room ceiling showing replaced boards…………………………..53

Figure 20. Opening in floor to left of dining room hearth………………………..…54

Figure 21. Federal-style mantel in Bratton parlor…………………………………...55

Figure 22. View of wing to right of Bratton home…………………………………..56

Figure 23. Site plan of Historic Brattonsville………………………………………..57

Figure 24. Bethesda Presbyterian Church, 1820s…………………………………....58

Figure 25. Panoramic view of Brattonsville by Martha Bratton, 1840……………...59

Figure 26. Home of Colonel William Bratton,………………………………….…...60

Figure 27. Home of Rufus Bratton, 1850s…………………………………………..61

Figure 28. Oval Ballroom, 1810s, Fayetteville, NC…………………………………62

Figure 29. Oval Ballroom interior…………………………………………………...63

Figure 30. Detail of carved molding, Oval Ballroom………………………………..64

Figure 31. John Wheeler house and detached dining room, Murfreesboro, NC…….65

Figure 32. John Wheeler house, view from rear…………………………………….66

Figure 33. Dining room interior and wall cupboards, John Wheeler house………....67

Figure 34. Ballard-Salisbury house, Hassell, NC……………………………………68

Figure 35. Dining room mantel, Ballard-Salisbury house…………………………...69

Figure 36. Ballard-Salisbury house, dining room, and kitchen……………………...70

Figure 37. Brick kitchen house, Greene County, NC………………………………..71

Figure 38. Dining room interior, brick kitchen house……………………………….72

Figure 39. Gaston house, Chester County, SC………………………………………73

Figure 40. Price house and detached dining room, Moore, SC……………………...74

Figure 41. Price house, 1790s……………………………………………………….75

Figure 42. Dining room, Price house………………………………………………..76

Figure 43. Kitchen, Price house……………………………………………………..77

Figure 44. Participants in 1840s experimental archaeology dinner…………………78

Figure 45. Breezeway connecting Bratton house to detached dining room…………79

Figure 46. View from detached kitchen to Bratton detached dining room………….80

vii

ABSTRACT

In 1828, planter, physician, and entrepreneur, John S. Bratton completed construction on his detached dining room in York County, South Carolina. This two and a half-story, twenty-foot wide by forty-foot long brick building, complete with cellar and attic, was an architectural phenomenon, set apart by its exceptional size, design, and particular function. Its existence today as a structure without historical documentation required a study of the surrounding landscapes of the Bratton plantation, York County, and the antebellum South. In addition, experimental archaeology in the form of a 1840s simulated dinner facilitated understanding about how the detached dining room engendered movement and behavior. Physical evidence from this study suggests the room’s versatile and mediatory nature, serving both as a special place for formal entertainment and an efficient space for effective service. The detached dining room was an architectural status symbol, communicating the wealth, power, and prestige of the

Brattons to travelers, local residents, and the enslaved population in York County, South

Carolina.

viii

INTRODUCTION

Food is a powerful signifier of cultural and regional identity, and Southern foodways are arguably the most well defined in all the regions of the modern United

States. Stereotypical delicacies such as shrimp and grits, banana pudding, and fried chicken conjure up images of a place caught between myth and reality where life is a bit slower and more refined. In part, this fantasy builds on a foundation of historical reality in which the antebellum Southern planter once created an image of wealth, power, and gentility through control of the land, local community, and an enslaved labor force. Food and the entertainments created to consume and celebrate it set the South apart from its neighbors while simultaneously defining social boundaries between black and white.1

While the historical record contains some descriptive accounts of dinners, receipts for meals, and store ledgers of goods bought, physical evidence is often the most powerful aid in our understanding of the role dining played in antebellum Southern society.

In 1828, Dr. John Simpson Bratton (1789-1843) completed construction on his two-story frame house (Figure 1) and surrounding outbuildings. Bratton was the wealthiest resident of York County, South Carolina, and records upon his death in 1843 indicated he owned one-hundred and thirty-nine slaves, six-thousand acres, a successful

1 Sam M. Hilliard, “Hog Meat and Cornpone,” in Material Life in America 1600- 1860, ed. Robert Blair St. George (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1988), 311.

medical practice, and two mercantile stores, one of which was on his plantation.2 The

structures he created on his plantation supported this image of a wealthy planter and

influential community member. One architectural element, in particular, stood apart in

the landscape: a brick building located to the rear of the main house that served as a

dining room (Figure 2). The detached dining room was an integral part of the Bratton

house, yet it was a room apart, distinguished by its size, materials, and very placement in

the plantation landscape. Compared to other buildings on plantations throughout the

antebellum South, this was an exceptional structure, designed to contain and enhance

both the entertaining experience and the efficient service required.

This detached two-and-a-half story “brick house,” connected to the back door of

the main house via a covered breezeway. Twenty feet wide by forty feet long it

accommodated a twelve-foot ceiling on the main story and eight-foot ceilings in the full

cellar and attic. Five course common bond completed each brick wall, and twelve windows with granite sills, six on the main story and six lighting the cellar, emphasized the height of the building (Figure 3). Flanking the dining room breezeway were two detached buildings, a brick kitchen (Figure 4), and a brick dairy (Figure 5). A Federal- style fanlight and sidelights illuminated the front door to the building (Figure 6), while the other entrance, located at the rear, provided access to the cellar through a very simple and unnoticeable doorway (Figure 7). The room on the main floor was larger than any space in the rest of the main house (Figure 8). Interior details included fluted trim around the door surround and windows (Figure 9), a Greek-revival-style mantel opposite the

2 Michael C. Scoggins, “Historic Brattonsville,” Unpublished manuscript, York, SC: York County Culture & Heritage Commission, June 2003, 9.

doorway (Figure 10), and built-in wall cupboards to the right of the hearth (Figure 11).

To the left of the hearth were openings to the attic above and cellar below (Figure 12).

Two small windows on either side of the chimney and a larger window opposite the main house lit the floored attic. The cellar contained the exposed beams supporting the floorboards above and an open hearth (Figure 13). An 1873 inventory of the house and its contents identified these spaces as the “Dining Room,” the “Room over Dining room,” and the “Cellar, Room under Dining Room.”3

PROBLEMS INHERENT IN BRATTON DETACHED DINING ROOM

DOCUMENTATION

When studying a house or architectural patterns, one common challenge is scant documentation, and this problem is inherent in the Bratton detached dining room.

Although much is known about the Bratton family, especially since their home-site

developed into a publicly visited historic site, Historic Brattonsville, the dining room is

not well documented.4 Historical documentation of the Bratton detached dining room is

3 Harriet Bratton, inventory dated 1873, Bratton History Collection, RG-25, no. 20, box 1, Archives, Historical Center of York County, York, SC.

4 Wade Fairey, former director of the site, set out to establish the Brattons as integral to the rise of the planter class in York County, in his work Historic Brattonsville: A Wedge of County History. He chronicled the Bratton family from their Scots- Irish origins to their pivotal roles in the American Revolution to their rise and fall as plantation owners in the nineteenth century. He placed priority on establishing a chronology for the architecture created by three generations of Brattons, using existing documentary evidence as the primary source of information. In addition, ongoing research by staff members Pat Veasey, Chuck LeCount, and Michael Scoggins has uncovered much more about the Brattons, their complex familial and community relationships, and their contributions to local society. The most challenging task remaining is to uncover the material world of the first seventy-five years of Bratton occupation (1775-1850). The majority of Bratton family papers held at the University of South Carolina’s Caroliniana

sparse and at best conjectural. Contractor, Henry Alexander billed the Brattons on a regular basis for his work on the “dwelling house” from 1820-1828, and he referenced a

“brick house,” “out houses,” and a “dairy” in a bill dated January 31st, 1828.5 Because there seems to have been no other prominent brick structure on the Bratton plantation besides the dairy and the flanking outbuildings, the “brick house” was probably the detached dining room. The only other reference to the detached dining room dates to

1863. While one of the Bratton daughters-in-law stayed at the Bratton homestead, she wrote to her husband away at war outlining her daily activities, including going to “help

Jane in the dining room, anything to keep from sitting down in our room to think.”6 This

comment provided no detail about the dining room or specific associated activities,

leaving us to wonder at the nature of the Bratton detached dining room.

“I shall now tell you something about our concert,” wrote sixteen-year old Martha

Bratton (1825-1908) from her home in a letter dated March 15, 1842, to her older brother

John (1819-1888), attending school in Columbia, South Carolina.7 Martha’s letter is the

only document that directly refers to any event, celebration, or social occasion in the

Library from this time period contain business papers and property records, most of which are not descriptive concerning material culture.

5 Henry Alexander, bill to John Bratton dated January 31, 1828, Bratton History Collection, RG-25, no. 1, box 1, Archives, Historical Center of York County, York, SC.

6 Minnie Mason, letter to Napoleon Bratton dated October 2, 1863, Bratton Collection, no. 77, box 2, South Caroliniana Library, Columbia, SC.

7 Martha Bratton, letter to John Bratton dated March 15, 1842, Bratton History Collection, RG-53, no. 15, box 1, Archives, Historical Center of York County, York, SC.

Bratton house.8 Considering the scale, materials, and design of her 1820s two-story

frame house and brick detached dining room, however, it is clear that these buildings

were meant for public consumption and admiration. Although Martha Bratton gave no

details of her 1842 concert, including where it took place, stating instead that “I suppose

the old Lady has given you a full description of it before this time,”9 the detached dining

room seems an ideal location for such a concert. Its size could have easily

accommodated large numbers of people with tables and dining furniture pushed to the

wall and chairs aligned to create a concert hall. Acoustically, this room was perfect for

musical performance. Vibrations of sound created by the delicate strum of a harp string,

the high timbre of a soprano voice, or the hammered string on the piano forte resonated

throughout this enclosed, boxed-in space. Isolated from the rest of the main house, the

detached dining room would have also been easier to keep climate controlled for the benefit of the instruments and guests. Windows admitted warming light or cool breezes.

The room could also have been shut off and arranged in such a way as to take advantage

of a warm fire in the hearth. While it is difficult to imagine exactly how the Brattons as

well as their guests and slaves used various spaces within the house, grasping the many

layers of meaning carried through words, objects, and actions is essential to

understanding the importance and implied meaning of the Bratton dining room.10

8 Scoggins, 9.

9 “Martha Bratton, letter to John Bratton dated March 15, 1842.

10 Robert Blair St. George, Conversing by Signs: Poetics of Implication in Colonial New England Culture (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1998).

PHYSICAL EVIDENCE

With little documentary evidence as to how the detached dining room was used, the artifact serves as the most compelling piece of evidence. However, understanding the detached dining room is also complicated by change over time to the structure and its surrounding landscape. Ascertaining how the dining room related to the design of the rest of the house is crucial to identifying its place in the plantation’s physical and spatial layout. An imposing and impressive wood-frame, two-story double-parlor house

Bratton’s home included a full entry hall through the center, one-story flanking wings, and the detached dining room (Figure 14). Foundation blocks, originally stuccoed and scoured, raised the house approximately two feet off the ground, further emphasizing the height and importance of the structure from the road.11 Central chimneys, whitewashed

siding, and arched gable windows were other elements that created a sense of balance and made travelers notice the house (Figure 15).

Interior architectural fittings also communicated wealth and status. Carved and fluted trim around the windows and door surrounds, decorative motifs and carvings on the staircase, plastered walls, and Greek-Revival mantels made this a very stylish and respectable home in the 1820s. Wainscoting throughout the house was painted and combed bright red, black, and yellow (Figure 16). Upstairs, the larger bedchamber and its adjoining dressing room retain their original red, black, and yellow wainscoting from which the other wainscoting in the house is reproduced (Figure 17).

11 Wade Buice Fairey, Historic Brattonsville (York: Wade B. Fairey, 1993), 24.

Likewise, architectural details in the detached dining room set this room apart, but much has been lost and altered since its original construction. To either side of the dining room’s front door were at one time built-in pine corner cupboards (Figure 18). Ghost marks on the floor and ceiling indicate their location. Thought too plain to have dated to the original construction of the building by preservationists, they were removed during restorations in the 1970s. In addition, boards in the ceiling at the left-hand corner closest to the hearth hide the opening of a stairway to the attic that opened into the dining room

(Figure 19). This stairway was later replaced with double doors, which mirrored the doors to the right of the hearth. Behind these doors on the left is a hole in the floor, large enough to accommodate a dumbwaiter (Figure 20). From analyzing the opening, it is clear that this hole was cut later in the building’s history, probably dating to the late nineteenth or earlier twentieth century.12

The dining room’s architectural trim seems lacking compared to the rest of the house and the remaining trim surrounding the dining room door. There is no wainscoting, crown molding, or baseboard in the dining room. This contrasts with the brightly colored wainscoting found in the main house, accented by the molding and baseboards. Oral tradition states that in the late nineteenth century a dividing wall was put up in the middle of the room to separate a kitchen space from a smaller dining room.

Faint marks on the floor confirm this alteration of the trim now missing from the walls.13

12 Chuck LeCount (site director, Historic Brattonsville, York County Culture & Heritage Commission) in discussion with the author, June 2005.

13 Joe Rainey, “Architectural History of the Homestead 1823-1977,” Unpublished manuscript, York, SC: York County Culture & Heritage Commission, 3.

Considering the dining room’s elegant and extravagant use of brick in its outward appearance, this was the finest room in the house that saw the largest percentage of public gatherings, and interior details would have reflected the grand nature of this room.

Physical evidence suggests several stages of construction and improvement on the plantation, but that sequence is not altogether clear. Construction on both the main house and outbuildings took place throughout the 1820s in a single extended building campaign, but construction of the detached dining room and especially the wings flanking each end of the façade have raised questions concerning their purpose. The wings have often been referred to as additions, suggesting they were both afterthoughts in the original design.14 Certainly, these two elements extended the width and depth of the

house in size and importance, but the artifact and documents that record them point to

differences in the way in which the Brattons conceived the wings versus the detached

dining room.

This documentary evidence in Henry Alexander’s 1828 bill for work on the “brick house” suggests the detached dining room was conceived as part of the main house, but completed at the end of the building campaign along with the brick slave quarters and

dependencies like the dairy. The Federal fanlight and sidelights to the entrance of the

dining room and the fluted trim inside were in keeping with Federal details in the main part of the house. However, stylistic characteristics of the mantel link the construction of

the dining room to that of the two one-story wings. The mantels in these spaces were all

Greek-Revival in style with rounded columns, while the main house featured Federal

14 Fairey, 24-25.

style dental moldings and fluted columns on its mantels (Figure 21). The dining room could have been built before these wings and then served as the impetus for adding more entertaining space to the main house. It is also possible that the mantel in the dining room was replaced with the construction of the new one-story wings to keep up with the latest stylistic trends or that the detached dining room might have also remained unfinished for several years.

It is more apparent in the wings than in the finished, but detached dining room, that these spaces were considered additions or afterthoughts. The room to the left of the entry way as you walk into the house possessed an open sight line to the far end of the wing that expanded the space for movement and conversation, but there was still a distinct division between the two rooms with a slightly inset partition on each side of the middle wall. This partition distinguished between a more formal and a less formal parlor.15 In contrast to the lateral expansion of space to the left of the house, the addition

to the right of the house was a completely separate room. In this addition, the original

end wall of the house was kept intact, complete with its window and door (Figure 22).

Perhaps because this was a less formal space than the parlor to the left of the entry, there

was little attempt to hide evidence of earlier design intentions. If the Brattons considered

the wing additions as acceptable afterthoughts, why did they not add the dining room

flush to the back of the house like they did the wings? John and Harriet Bratton

consciously and deliberately chose to build a dining room that was separate from the rest

of the house. Although Henry Alexander named the dining room the “brick house” in his

15 Scoggins, 10.

1828 bill, this does not mean that the detached dining room was a house. But, conceptualizing the dining room as a room apart with its own household orders and behaviors is helpful when considering how this structure fit into the physical and social landscape of the plantation.

PLANTATION LANDSCAPE

Physically and spatially, the detached dining room was closely tied to the quarters for enslaved labor on the plantation. Flanking each side of the detached dining room were two rows of brick service buildings and slave quarters, sixteen in all. Only two originals still stand. Two more have been reconstructed since the 1990s, based on archeological excavations completed on the sites of the two quarters (Figure 23).

Thermal imaging suggests the placement of these buildings continuing straight back from the house. Other outbuildings formed a line on the North side of the workyard.16

The use of brick for the dining room is physical evidence that this structure was considered part of the original design of the plantation landscape, built with a specific set of goals in mind to create a separate space for entertaining and service. Brick is often referred to in building histories as an expensive, refined material that only the elite would and could have used into the early nineteenth century. By the mid-nineteenth century, brick buildings were becoming more popular and widespread in the mid-Atlantic.17

Brick was not the preferred material choice for the main house, however, whose frame

16 Ibid., 15.

17 Gabrielle M. Lanier and Bernard L. Herman, Everyday Architecture of the Mid-Atlantic: Looking at Buildings and Landscapes (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997), 97-105.

façade and gable ends were visible from the road. The brick dining room, in contrast, was screened by the trees and other structures. Viewing it from the back of the house, there is nothing lacking in its design or execution, however, with its impressive size, articulated windows, and stylish architectural elements.

Even more surprising than the differences in materials of house and dining room are the common bonds shared between the dining room and slave quarters. The quarters’ use of brick and mortar set the Brattons apart economically, visually, and socially from many slaveholders in the South. It is likely that the Bratton field slaves inherited log or frame structures more comparable to slave housing in the rest of the South, but brick slave cabins, even for trusted house slaves, were highly unusual. Two lines of interpretation emerged from this realization in Historic Brattonsville’s retelling of the

Bratton story. One traditionally discounted view held that the use of brick in slave quarters was Bratton’s way of rewarding his slaves and making their conditions more bearable and humane. Another and probably more accurate view maintained that the use of brick was an extravagant display of Bratton’s wealth and successful plantation management.18 Henry McAlpin, owner of the Hermitage, a rice plantation near

Savannah, Georgia, also used brick for his outbuildings. A Northern journalist who

visited the plantation in 1864 captured the intention to create an idyllic landscape. He wrote, “There are about seventy or eighty Negro houses all built of brick and

18 Scoggins, 15.

whitewashed so they look very neat, and rows of live oaks between, making it the handsomest plantation in Georgia.”19

The surrounding landscape provides some clues and more interesting questions concerning this issue of materials. The Brattons, like Henry McAlpin, had their own brickyard on the plantation, and slave labor was certainly involved in the construction of these buildings. While brick may have appeared as an expensive material to visiting guests and travelers on this busy road, it may not have been that costly, especially if the red clay existed on the plantation and was made into bricks by Bratton’s own workforce.20

The seasonal nature of farming and an enslaved labor force suggests why bricks

may have been chosen for the dining room and surrounding outbuildings. Bernard

Herman has written about “overbuilt” outbuildings in central Virginia, suggesting that

their quality of craftsmanship was not a result so much of superior work but of a need to

provide more work for an idle work force in the slower agricultural months.21 Masonry

buildings did take a longer time to build compared to frame structures, especially if the

bricks had to be molded on site.22 Perhaps, the use of brick represented a combination of

needs on the part of the Brattons. They used existing labor and natural resources on the

19 Quoted in Back of the Big House: The Architecture of Plantation Slavery by John Michael Vlach (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1993), 158.

20 Scoggins, 15.

21 Bernard L. Herman (Goodman Rosenberg Professor, Art History, University of Delaware) in discussion with the author, October 2005.

22 James Ayres, Building the Georgian City (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998), 101-118.

plantation to create the brick dining room and slave quarters, buildings which stand as lasting and impressive monuments upon the landscape.

Similarities in materials between the detached dining room and the slave quarters also reflect notions about the spatial relationship of the dining room to the plantation landscape. While the elegant brick dining room was set apart from the main house in design and form, it was visually and spatially tied to the brick outbuildings that surrounded it. In this light, the dining room served as a mediator of space, movement, and behavior for a community that was at once united and divided: the Bratton family and their guests and the slaves who served them. Standing on the breezeway facing the dining room, the brick kitchen was directly to the right and the brick dairy to the left: two service and food related structures whose close proximity expedited activities in the dining room. Another service area directly related to the dining room was the full cellar below, accessed at the rear of the dining room. This space was as large as the twenty-by- forty foot room above, spacious enough to accommodate a variety of work-related activities. The excavated cellar, lit by six windows at ground level, was cool in the summer and lit by six windows at ground level. It had a dirt floor, eight-foot ceiling, and working hearth. Dining and entertaining were certainly activities that required a great deal of service to ensure a pleasant and efficient experience for the guest. A detached room for dining and entertaining provided plantation slaves needed access for service.

The detached dining room, a genteel and fashionable part of Bratton’s house, was built with the same materials as the dwellings he built for those he owned and forced to work for him without pay. The implications that this room held for the slaves on the

plantation were probably much different than those for the Brattons or their guests.

Designed as a place of refinement and respectability, the dining room was where the

Brattons entertained family, visitors, and their most honored guests with lavish dinners, stately events, and community celebrations. It was also designed to facilitate service.

Although slaves did not openly participate in conversation or activity, they were closely involved in the operation of this room, preparing, serving, and cleaning up for any event that took place. The detached dining room was involved in a choreographed set of rules establishing decorum between whites and blacks. While guests listened to information about the latest political race, attended a musical performance, or shared the latest local gossip, slaves were also silent partners in this conversation. They simultaneously concentrated on perfecting every detail of invisible service to their guests while also listening to conversations, taking note of important news and information that might be beneficial to them. Benjamin Russell, an ex-slave from another plantation near

Winnsboro, South Carolina, accounted that slaves received information from other house slaves, especially the “girls that waited on the tables.”23 Leftovers, too, might have been

enjoyed by the slaves who prepared and served them. So this building mediated a love-

hate relationship with its slaves. It was, in part, designed for their use, and it both

restrained and liberated them in the process.

23 Benjamin Russell interviewed by W.W. Dixon, Winnsboro, South Carolina, Project #1655, 3.

LANDSCAPE OF YORK COUNTY

Just as slaves were essential to making the Bratton detached dining room operate efficiently and effectively, they were also important symbols of economic, political, and social success for the planter class. The Bratton plantation was the center of local activity, and the detached dining room was at the locus of entertaining on the plantation.

Compared to other buildings in York County, the Bratton’s detached dining room was impressive and unique. Log or frame buildings were the norm, and the use of brick for a separate dining room and slave quarters was exceptional.24 Bratton’s own church,

Bethesda Presbyterian was the earliest known brick building in the county, built in 1820,

only eight years before the dining room (Figure 24).25

Like the brick church, the brick dining room should also be considered a public

building and community center, equipped to accommodate a large group for dining,

dancing, and other amusements. The dining room was part of a landscape of landed

identity, and Martha Bratton embraced this notion in her schoolgirl landscape painting of

her family’s estate in 1840 (Figure 25). In this panoramic view, she romantically

visualized the approach from the town of Yorkville leading up to her house. Neat rows

of fences and buildings framed by a manicured landscape showcased the order and

efficiency with which her family’s plantation was run. The primary subject of her

painting was not her father’s 1820s house but her grandfather, William Bratton’s (c.1740-

24 Fairey, 25.

25 Louise Pettus, “Bethesda Presbyterian Church,” York County South Carolina Gen Web, RootsWEB, http://www.rootsweb.com/~scyork/Pettus.htm#12 (accessed February 15, 2006).

1815), eighteenth-century house, which had been remodeled and turned into a female seminary in 1839 for the Bratton daughters and the surrounding community (Figure 26).26

Its appearance in the central left portion of the painting, with whitewashed clapboard, a wing addition to the side, plaster walls, sash windows, and Classical-revival style mantels was the result of her father’s alterations to the structure. Before renovations, this was the one-room, one and a half story log house and tavern where the first generation of

Brattons established themselves as planters, politicians, and businessmen. The renovations to this house for the purpose of a school reflected a pivotal point in the life of the plantation when it became a center of learning and opportunity for young women.

Although established in 1839, ten years after the dining room was built, the female seminary may have generated a great deal of activity for the dining room, as evidenced by the reference to the concert in Martha’s letter. Certainly, the Brattons needed a large space to serve meals with fourteen children, frequent visitors, and young students in want of a place to stay and eat. Young female students who lived far away and could not travel from home to school and back again every day especially required lodging, and the attic above the dining room provided ample space detached from the rest of the family house. The seminary brought opportunity to the local community, providing them with a place to educate young women. Art, music, needlework, and academic subjects were taught at the school which remained in operation until 1860.27

An accomplished woman would have a better chance of attracting an acceptable suitor,

26 Scoggins, 8.

27 Ibid., 9.

and performances like the concert which required a large space such as the dining room provided avenues for introductions and conversations between the sexes. Martha’s letter revealed that the young women from the school and the Bratton family were not the only ones attending the concert. “There were two gentlemen from York…a Lawyer

Black…and namely E. Gunning.” These two gentlemen caused a stir in the household among the ladies vying for their attention. Martha wrote about her friend’s infatuation with one of the men. “I was fearful M. Steele would go crazy about Edd.” She later concluded, saying that these two gentlemen stayed the night and went to church with the party the next day.28 Such an opportunity to spend time with young men from town was

certainly welcomed, and the dining room provided space to transform relations from

merely social acquaintances into marriageable prospects.

The January, 1855 wedding of William Knox Hackett to Charlotte Jane Reynolds

took place in the nearby home (Figure 27) of John Bratton’s son Rufus. This is another

type of event that might have taken place in the 1828 detached dining room. The groom’s

father, Hugh Hackett, wrote a descriptive letter of the event, stating “It was the finest and

largest wedding I ever saw in my life.” Hackett was quite anxious to describe the

opulence of the dining room at the outset of the letter. “The table was set in the form of

an X, but first I must tell you about the marriage.” His son married a young woman who

boarded at Dr. Rufus Bratton’s house, but was not related to the Bratton family. Hackett

related how the ceremony processed through the house, and each successive room was

more special than the last. “I went into the parlor where everything was a blaze of light

28 Martha Bratton, letter to John Bratton dated March 15, 1842.

and William and his five groomsmen were upstairs, where the bride and her attendants were.” As the wedding party came down, Hackett remarked on the beautiful dresses and described the ceremony in the parlor. “After they got through with all this they all sat down and we all went to chatting as hard as we could.” The ceremony began at 7:30 pm, but the most exciting event was kept hidden until later. “About nine o’clock the supper room was thrown open and such a table you never saw in your life.” Hackett was quite impressed with the display, stating “I would have come all the way from Ireland just to see it.” The supper room was a visual feast, emphasized by the dramatic lighting of the night. “As I said before it was in the form of an X, in the centre was a high syllabub stand filled with glasses of jelly, custard, etc. and trimmed with gold fringe which fairly glittered with all the lights that were about. On the table was everything that you could name that was good and amongst the rest some fine punch…I wish you could have seen the cakes, they were all as white as snow, some trimmed with gold and some silver, all done by Jane’s own hands.”29

Although Rufus did not have a detached dining room, the description of

movement through the house mirrored the configuration of his father’s home. The supper

room was kept closed until late evening, suggesting this room was a special space

dramatically revealed like the opening of the curtain announcing the beginning of a play.

Similarly, his father’s detached dining room served as a center for community functions

and could have been closed off from the rest of the house. In 1856, thirteen years after

John Bratton died, his daughter, Jane, was married at Brattonsville, and the detached

29 Hart Family Papers, RG-6, Archives, Historical Center of York County, York, SC.

dining room was presumably used in the same way as Rufus’s dining room.30 The display

of wealth and opulence at Rufus’s house in 1855 corresponds with what is known about

his parents’ consumption habits. His mother’s financial records in the 1840s show

several trips to New York City and Charleston, South Carolina, where she bought the

very best in dress goods, tablewares, and furniture. 31

COMPARABLE EXAMPLES

Another challenge intrinsically linked with any study of the Bratton detached

dining room is the fact that the detached dining room as an architectural phenomenon has

not been systematically documented or explored in scholarly research, though several examples still exist. Our understanding of these buildings is further complicated by their low survival rate and change in function or interpretation over time. Interpreting detached outbuildings in the antebellum Southern landscape generally has been problematic because so little remains or was written about them. Also these buildings largely made up the black landscape, and scholars have tended to underestimate the influence that slaves who lived and worked there had in this system of detached architecture. Detached kitchens are one example of the discussion surrounding outbuildings. Reasons given for their existence often include the need to prevent fires, offensive smells, or noise from affecting the main house. As John Michael Vlach argues,

30 Wedding Announcement, Yorkville Enquirer, March 27, 1856.

31 Bratton History Collection, RG-25, box 1, Archives, Historical Center of York County, York, SC.

however, separating an important household function from the main house reinforced the divide between those who served and those who were served.32

Apart from the important roles the detached dining room played in the Bratton

plantation landscape and the broader York County landscape, casting a wider net helps to ascertain how this dining room fit into the larger landscape of nineteenth-century

America. Documentary evidence is scant, but does enlighten us about the customs of dining and the possible need for detached dining rooms. Also several endeavors into the development of the dining room in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries and the art of dining are of interest.33

At Home: The American Family 1750-1870, by Elisabeth Garrett, explores in the

chapter “The Dining Room” the rise of this room as a formal, codified space. She noted

that during the eighteenth century stylish English families began to adopt the French

fashion of reserving a room for the sole purpose of dining. When that custom reached

32 John Michael Vlach, Back of the Big House (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1993), 43.

33 Southern foodways and their differences among the classes appear in Sam Hilliard, “Hog Meat and Cornpone: Foodways in the Antebellum South” in Material Life in America: 1600-1860, ed. Robert Blair St. George (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1988.); Charles LeCount, “ ‘Every one’s table is furnished with the same dishes’: A Look at Some of the Aspects of Plantation Society in the Southern Carolina Piedmont, 1785-1830,” (paper, Museum of Early Southern Decorative Arts, Winston-Salem, NC, July 1, 2003); Joe Taylor, Eating, Drinking, and Visiting in the South, (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1982). In addition several sources discuss the rise of the dining room in the United States, with special focus on the South, including: James C. Jordan, III, “The Neoclassical Dining Room in Charleston,” Journal of Early Southern Decorative Arts XIV (1988): iv-25; Mark Wenger, “The Dining Room in Early Virginia” in Perspectives in Vernacular Architecture III, ed. Thomas Carter and Bernard L. Herman (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1989).

America by the late eighteenth century, it became a popular symbol of economic and social success, but dining customs remained flexible. Some chose not to build one at all and continue eating in their kitchens or sitting rooms, while others ate informal meals in back parlors and saved the dining room for the most formal of occasions. Dining rooms were also not just for dining, but saw a variety of activities during the day.34 The Bratton

dining room had many windows which provided light by which to sew or read. It was

also a large space that could accommodate a variety of activities, including dining, dancing, musical entertainment, or housework. It seems that the dining room as a form

was still not completely codified at the time that the Brattons built their dining room, and

this is evident in the types of similar structures that are still standing.

A search for detached dining rooms in the continental United States revealed

several in Eastern North Carolina. From Fayetteville to the Virginia state line, these

examples roughly date from 1810 to 1840. This region provided fertile land for tobacco and prime trade locations up from the outer banks and in route from D.C. to Charleston.

Many made their fortune here in the nineteenth century and left grand plantations that have since been abandoned.35 The four dining rooms in this comparative study present

other problems in an analysis of the Bratton dining room. From such a small sample of

remaining detached dining rooms, each example has unique characteristics, and

determining innate patterns in the detached dining room form is problematic.

34 Elisabeth Garrett, “The Dining Room,” in At Home: The American Family 1750-1870 (New York: H. N. Abrams, 1989).

35 E. Frank Stephenson, Jr., Renaissance in Carolina (Murfreesboro, NC: Historic Murfreesboro, 1971), 3.

Their range in size, form, detail, and finish, suggest a variety of reasons for the construction of detached dining rooms, thereby complicating an attempt to establish a typology for these buildings. Some appear to be part of the original design of the main house, while others are clearly later additions. Two exist without their original houses, while others remain in their original setting with the house and its outbuildings. Several similarities remain, however, between these structures, and an analysis of their implications as compared to the Bratton detached dining room reveals common threads among the owners and their buildings. All were removed or detached from the main house either to the side or rear and were connected at one time by an open or covered breezeway. In addition, they were related either physically or spatially at some point to a kitchen.

The one-story frame Oval Ballroom in Fayetteville, North Carolina is both the finest example of a detached dining room and the most frustrating (Figure 28). This is the only detached dining room that oval in shape and has by far the finest interior detail and finish (Figure 29). Although the elaborately carved trim and detail of the interior are certainly superior to the other detached dining rooms in this study (Figure 30), the rest of the house no longer exists for contextual comparison. Instead, the local historical society chose to save this dining room when the original house was slated to be demolished in the

1950s, and the dining room was moved to another site. The fact that the historical society chose to save this building instead of the rest of the house could have been the result of economic and practical thinking, but it might also indicate how this detached dining room generated its own identity among members of the local community. The dining room

certainly asserts its importance in size and finish, a testament to the Halliday family, prominent merchants, who constructed it.36

The 1820s brick house, detached dining room, and kitchen of John Wheeler in

Historic Murfreesboro are also fine examples of this architectural form that have been

preserved for study. John Wheeler was a local merchant, and his house served both as his

residence and business, with rooms on the first floor set aside for each purpose (Figure

31). Off the back of the house a porch led to what may have been formal gardens. On either side of the porch is a two-story brick building: one served as the kitchen, while the other, more refined structure was the dining room (Figure 32).37 Inside, the dining room

had built-in cupboard space to the right of the hearth (Figure 33), and a finished loft was

above. Considering the back porch that connects the two buildings, the detached dining

room was, like Bratton’s dining room, part of a landscape of articulation and service.

Guests were accepted through several barriers of doors and spaces before gaining access to the back porch and dining room, while slaves had direct access to this space. The back porch also raises questions about how weather might have affected eating habits. Such a large open, but covered space took advantage of both the view of the gardens and any breezes that go by, while still protecting people from the hot sun.

Unlike the previous examples, not much is known about the families for the next two structures. The Ballard-Salisbury House is another example of an articulated

36 Lucile Johnson, “History of Heritage Square,” Unpublished manuscript, Fayetteville: Woman’s Club, 2002, 7-10.

37 Peggy Stephenson, “Information on the John Wheeler House, Historic Murfreesboro, N.C.,” Unpublished manuscript, Murfreesboro, NC: Historic Murfreesboro.

landscape designed for the benefit of service. This eighteenth-century house with its typical hall and parlor plan went through a stage of renovations in the 1830s or 1840s, in which a dining room was added to the back of the house (Figure 34).38 Compared to the

other two examples, the interior finish in this dining room is not particularly fine (Figure

35). Directly behind this detached dining room, however, is the original log kitchen.

Figure 36 clearly shows the articulation of space from house to dining room to kitchen,

moving closer to service activities.

The two-story Brick Kitchen House in Greene County is a misnomer. The upper

story was actually a dining room with access to the cellar kitchen below (Figure 37).

Like the oval ballroom, this structure is missing its original house, which burned after the

Civil War and was then replaced by a two-story frame structure that still connected to the

brick dining room.39 Like the Ballard Salisbury House, this structure’s interior finish was

not highly ornamented. There was a built-in cupboard to the left of the hearth, and to the

right was an open stairway to the kitchen below (Figure 38). This configuration of space

with the dining room right above the kitchen allowed for efficient service and two

different points of access for whites and blacks. White owners and guests came through

the front door of the structure into the dining room, while the black slaves entered the

space on the ground floor’s kitchen and ascended the staircase to the dining room.

Although there is considerable variety among these existing structures, they can

be applied to the study of the Bratton dining room. Like the Brattons, the Hollidays and

38 Reid Thomas (restoration specialist, North Carolina state historic preservation office) in discussion with the author, August 2005.

39 Ibid.

the Wheelers were influential members of their local communities involved in successful business enterprises. These families were merchants, and their dining rooms reflected an attention towards displaying attitudes of consumption in a space where guests themselves dined. Built-in cupboards in Wheeler’s and Bratton’s detached dining room and the

Brick Kitchen House were not only practical storage spaces; they could also display valuable household goods. The association of all the dining rooms to the landscapes of service and gentility further suggests the use of these spaces as efficient systems for the art of dining and entertaining that facilitated movement. In the Brick Kitchen House, the dining room was located just above the kitchen, and the stairway to the right of the hearth provided service access to both levels. The John Wheeler House had a covered back porch connecting its kitchen and dining room.

Detached dining rooms seem to be concentrated in the South and associated with foodways, etiquette, slavery, and rural, plantation society. Other known examples from the antebellum era appear in Georgia, Texas, and in the Petersburg area of Virginia. In addition, it is very likely that many of these structures have been lost as detached rooms became unpopular and were then demolished or remodeled into something else. Two examples from the area where John Bratton lived give insight into the changing nature of these dining rooms. A 1880s photograph of the 1840 Gaston House in Chester County shows the family gathered outside their family home (Figure 39). Through the open door and central hallway, was the door to another structure, a small detached dining room.

The house and its dining room were demolished in the late twentieth century, suggesting

the fate of other detached dining rooms at comparable complexes.40 Another detached

dining room appears in a York County court document from 1908. The plaintiff had a dispute with the defendant over a property in Yorkville. Included in the testimony was an account of how the disputed property was configured in 1850. On one lot were two houses owned by the same family. The family used the larger house for its residence and reserved the smaller two-room house for a dining room in one bay and a store operation in the other. This organization of space proposes a close relationship between business and pleasure that has since been lost because these structures are now considered as two separate entities.41

Likewise, other detached dining rooms have been mistaken for something else

completely. This study uncovered one such structure that was interpreted as the detached

quarters for enslaved people on the plantation (Figure 40). The Price House was built in

1795 by Thomas and Ann Price at the crossroads of two important trade routes. This

two-story Flemish bond, brick building had a steep gambrel roof and inside-end

chimneys (Figure 41). Like Bratton, Price owned over 2000 acres and operated the local

post office as well as the general store. In addition, he ran a tavern out of his home.

Around the time of the couple’s deaths between 1820 and 1821, the detached one-story

brick building to the rear of the house was added. The addition of this building happened

in conjunction with the Price family continuing to apply for a tavern license for a few

40 Ann Marion (descendant, Gaston family) in discussion with the author, July 2005.

41 Mary A. Brian, Plaintiff, vs. E.F. Bell et. al., S.C. 83, 4005. (1908).

years before financial and legal troubles split the family apart.42 This suggests that even

after their deaths in 1820 and 1821, Thomas and Ann Price’s children determined there

was a need for a detached space to serve the tavern operation. The two rooms in this

detached building have previously been interpreted as slave quarters. The front room has

paneled woodwork as well as a built-in cupboard to the right of the hearth, similar to

examples found in other detached dining rooms (Figure 42). The back room is

unfinished, with whitewash as the only decorative feature (Figure 43). The differences in degrees of finish for these two rooms suggest completely different purposes, perhaps dining versus meal preparation. These activities were linked physically and spatially under one roof, again suggesting an attention towards efficient service. A slave narrative taken by the Works Progress Administration in the 1930s may further explain this organization of rooms. A young man formerly enslaved on a plantation in upstate South

Carolina described his master’s rationale behind removing his dining room from the rest of the house and putting it in the same building as the kitchen. He stated, “Marster said he had rather get cold going to eat than to have the food get cold while it was being fetched to him. So, he had the kitchen and dining room joined, but most folks had the dining room in the big house.”43 Here, it seems, the detached dining room was a

42 Stanley South, Exploratory Excavation at the Price House (38SP1) Institute of Archeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, 1970.

43 Alexander Scaife interviewed by Caldwell Sims in Pacolet, South Carolina in Before Freedom: When I Just Can Remember: Twenty-Seven Oral Histories of Former South Carolina Slaves, ed. Belinda Hurmence (Winston-Salem, North Carolina: John F. Blair, 1989), 47-48.

practical concern related to the experience of enjoying food in an efficient manner rather than a desire to design a room to impress other guests.

EXPERIMENTAL ARCHEOLOGY

In addition to examining an artifact through historical documentation, physical evidence, and comparative analysis other approaches can be used to understand buildings. Dell Upton stated in his study, “Black and White Landscapes in Eighteenth-

Century Virginia” that “an individual’s perception of a landscape changes with the experience of moving through it” or not being able to do so.44 Engaging the object is

crucial to a thorough understanding of how this room operated, and resolving the

challenges of scant documentation and changing material evidence suggested another

approach: experimental archaeology. Historic Brattonsville and the Culture and Heritage

Museums organized a 1840s period dinner for ten on a Thursday night in the middle of

August (Figure 44). Two were chosen as the host and hostess, and participants also

included four servants. The choice of participants was largely restricted to those who

owned reproduction clothing of their own; most worked at the historic site with

experience interpreting the past. Two members of the local farming community who were

not history scholars or interpreters were also invited. All were dressed in clothing similar

to styles popular at the time. Participants prepared a four course meal from period

cookbooks, followed period dining etiquette, and listened to classical, early nineteenth-

44 Dell Upton, “White and Black Landscapes in Eighteenth-Century Virginia,” Material Life in America 1600-1860 edited by Robert Blair St. George (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1988), 357.

century piano music.45 Guests were greeted at the front porch and then escorted to the dining room, while servants prepared and served dinner from the detached brick kitchen.

At first glance this project reads as a “living history” experience, in which the

goal was to recreate a certain moment from the past.46 However, this was an attempt to

generate questions about this space, not to educate. There were no visitors, only individuals who experienced and communicated how the dining room felt, moved, and

sounded. At the end of the dinner, participants filled out a questionnaire about their

experiences and took part in a group interview about the dinner. The event was recorded

through several different media, including video, photographs, and written interviews.

What resulted from this archaeological experiment was a different way to think about this

room and how it implicated movement and behavior, especially between servant and

guest. Moreover, this experience raised questions that may never be answered, but more

importantly approached the complex nature of this room. Questions challenged the

relationship of this room to the surrounding landscape and design of the house, the

sensory experience of dining in this space, and the implications this room held for owner,

guest, and servant.

Engaging in experimental study required sensitivity to its limitations. People

today can never recapture the political, economic, and social context that made up the

nineteenth-century mindset of the time and how that influenced certain decisions and

45 Nancy Craig (master cook and volunteer, Historic Brattonsville, SC) in discussion with the author, August 2005.

46 Jay Anderson, A Living History Reader: Volume One, Museums, (Nashville: American Association for State and Local History, 1991).

personalities. Also, recreations, reenactments, or period experiences are hindered by the small body of evidence left behind in documentary and material evidence.47

Nevertheless, modern sensibilities can, when put into a space that has lasted for over one hundred and fifty years, approach issues of physical movement and overall impressions of spatial organization. This experiment involved generating questions from bodies in motion.

As the night ended, participants reflected upon this experiment, focusing first on their sensory experiences. The first observation upon which everyone agreed was the physical discomfort of the evening, with August heat and soaking humidity. Despite opened windows allowing air to circulate, several participants felt uncomfortable and took breaks to walk out onto the breezeway, which offered a gentle breeze every now and then. The reaction of the farmer to the August heat offered a counterpoint, however.

Contrary to other complaints, he remarked that the weather was not that bad and suggested that in 1840, it might be considered tolerable.48 This man never before donned

the reproduction wool trousers, cravat, and coat that he wore that night, but his work took

him outside every day in the most intense summer heat. He was accustomed to this type

of weather, whereas the living history interpreters spent most of their summer days in the

air-conditioning.

47 Ibid., 3-11.

48 Jeff Wilson (volunteer, Historic Brattonsville, SC) in discussion with the author, August, 2005.

The seasonality of the dining room was a difficult issue to resolve. In the

Lowcountry of South Carolina the entertaining seasons of late fall, winter, and early spring avoided the most unbearable of conditions.49 In light of this, Martha’s concert

took place in the middle of winter, when the heat and humidity was not as oppressive and

not as likely to affect the tuning of her instruments. The breezeway suggests a place for

summer entertaining, though it could not accommodate as many people as the dining

room (Figure 45). It allowed views of the landscape and full access to breezes, while

protecting people from the hot sun. Perhaps, then, the Bratton dining room was used

mainly during cooler weather for large entertainments, and the summer brought informal

and infrequent gatherings, lessening the use of the dining room. In addition, participants

were very aware of other sensations. When the taped music stopped playing, they were

struck by how the sounds outside became part of the dining experience. Several

suggested that barnyard animals might have been heard at that time, while others

reminded us how close the slave quarters were and how quiet these slaves would have to

be during a dinner.50

Participants acting as guests in contrast to those portraying servants also had very

different perspectives of the evening. Most were aware of the movements of servants

going on around and behind them. But, there was a great divide between guest and

49 Joe Gray Taylor, Eating, Drinking, and Visiting in the South (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1982), 54.

50 Kitty Wilson-Evans (interpreter, Historic Brattonsville, SC) in discussion with the author, August 2005. Chuck LeCount (site director, Historic Brattonsville, SC) in discussion with the author, August 2005.

servant, impressing upon reenactment servants what the dining room meant to be enslaved.51 In contrast to the quiet conversation happening at the table, servants were in

constant motion, preparing and serving the next course, clearing the last one, and

attending to the needs of guests. While guests communicated openly, servants used

nonverbal signals, nods of the head, and glances of the eye to communicate what was to

happen next. It was a highly choreographed dance, and with only four servants, the meal

was a difficult undertaking.

Traveling back and forth from the kitchen to the dining room also made clear to

the servants the relationship between the two buildings. At any given time, servants

could look from the brick kitchen into the dining room windows and get a sense of how

the dinner was progressing (Figure 46). Likewise, the hostess was seated at the head of

the table, facing the doorway so that she could observe and monitor the activity. What

was not considered, however, in planning this dinner, was the placement of the table in

regards to a view of the brick kitchen. This would have been most advantageous for the

hostess to be able to see what was going on in preparation for the next course.52

Relations between guests and servants were tense with no communication between servant and guest. This reinforced the black and white or master versus slave divisions created by this room. What was clear to the servants, however, was how they could move about the room freely, despite the irony of it being designed to restrict the

51 Craig, in discussion with the author.

52 Ibid.

behaviors of those who served.53 Slaves had direct access to the detached dining room with the brick kitchen directly off the path of the breezeway steps. In contrast, guests were shown through the front door and received in other formal spaces before being allowed access to the dining room. Once seated, guests were lower than standing servants. Slaves, however, moved about the room controlling the performance of food: its display, approach to the table, and the precise timing involved.

CONCLUSION

Observations that resulted from this study of the dining room’s sensory landscape generated questions about how this building fit into the landscape of the Bratton plantation, the architectural landscape of York County, and the landscape of the antebellum Southern planter. The detached dining room was a both a room apart from and a part of the rest of the house. It is one of a few standing detached dining rooms in the South, representing an architectural phenomenon that has not been systematically studied or documented. Its location, design, and construction reflect choices that articulate spaces for consumption, service, and performance, placing the dining room in physical and social landscapes associated with both the planter class and enslaved labor.

The Bratton dining room, then, was at the crossroads of stratified society and cultural difference. It stood apart from the main house as a space that accommodated both formal entertainments and choreographed service. It also remained closely linked to the house sharing the goal of communicating power and knowledge through architecture. This was

53 Holly Winchell (interpreter, Historic Brattonsville, SC) in discussion with the author, August 2005.

a structure of both inclusion and exclusion, depending on the status of owner, guest, or servant.

Compared to the landscapes of the Bratton plantation, York County, and nineteenth-century America, the Bratton detached dining room was a room set apart. The

Brattons were extremely wealthy and successful planters, able to build a completely separate dining room to entertain family and community members. Its size and use of brick distinguished it from many other buildings, including those of its own type.

Moreover, its existence in the plantation landscape in which it was created is monumental, leaving us with a better understanding of what these buildings meant to the people who built, enjoyed, and serviced them. The Bratton detached dining room, therefore, is a compelling artifact first because it simply exists; second because it remains in its original plantation landscape; and third because of the knowledge about the Bratton family who built and used it.

ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure 1: Home of John Simpson Bratton Brattonsville, SC Courtesy of Malcolm L. Marion, III

Figure 2: Detached dining room and home of John Bratton Historic Brattonsville, SC Courtesy of Malcolm L. Marion, III

Figure 3: Bratton detached dining room Historic Brattonsville, SC Courtesy of Malcolm L. Marion, III

Figure 4: Bratton detached kitchen Historic Brattonsville, SC Courtesy of Malcolm L. Marion, III

Figure 5: Bratton detached dairy Historic Brattonsville, SC Courtesy of Malcolm L. Marion, III

Figure 6: Dining room front door Historic Brattonsville, SC Courtesy of Malcolm L. Marion, III

Figure 7: Dining room rear entrance Historic Brattonsville, SC Courtesy of Malcolm L. Marion, III

Figure 8: Dining room interior Historic Brattonsville, SC Courtesy of Malcolm L. Marion, III

Figure 9: Dining room door surround Historic Brattonsville, SC Courtesy of Malcolm L. Marion, III

Figure 10: Dining room mantel Historic Brattonsville Courtesy of Malcolm L. Marion, III

Figure 11: Detail, wall cupboards Historic Brattonsville, SC Courtesy of Malcolm L. Marion, III

Figure 12: Detail, openings to left of hearth Historic Brattonsville, SC Courtesy of Malcolm L. Marion, III

Figure 13: Dining room cellar Historic Brattonsville, SC Courtesy of Malcolm L. Marion, III

Figure 14: Floor plan, Bratton house Historic Brattonsville, SC Wade B. Fairey, Historic Brattonsville, (York: Wade B. Fairey, 1993), 24.

Figure 15: View of Bratton house on road from Yorkville Historic Brattonsville, SC Courtesy of Malcolm L. Marion, III

Figure 16: View of formal and informal parlor Historic Brattonsville, SC Courtesy of Malcolm L. Marion, III

Figure 17: Original wainscoting, upstairs bedchamber Historic Brattonsville, SC Courtesy of Malcolm L. Marion, III

Figure 18: Dining room pine corner cupboards Historic Brattonsville, SC Collection of Historic Brattonsville, York County Culture & Heritage Museums

Figure 19: Dining room ceiling showing replaced boards Historic Brattonsville, SC Courtesy of Malcolm L. Marion, III

Figure 20: Opening in floor to left of dining room hearth Historic Brattonsville, SC Courtesy of Malcolm L. Marion, III

Figure 21: Federal-style mantel in Bratton parlor Historic Brattonsville, SC Courtesy of Malcolm L. Marion, III

Figure 22: View of wing to right of Bratton home Historic Brattonsville, SC Courtesy of Malcolm L. Marion, III

Figure 24: Bethesda Presbyterian Church, 1820s McConnells, SC Courtesy of Malcolm L. Marion, III

Figure 25: Panoramic view of Brattonsville by Martha Bratton, 1840 Wade Buice Fairey, Historic Brattonsville, (York: Wade B. Fairey, 1993), 27.

Figure 26: Home of Colonel William Bratton, 1760s, renovated by John S. Bratton, 1839 Historic Brattonsville, SC Courtesy of Malcolm L. Marion, III

Figure 27: Home of Rufus Bratton, 1850s McConnells, SC Courtesy of Malcolm L. Marion, III

Figure 28: Oval Ballroom, 1810s, Fayetteville, NC Photograph by author

Figure 29: Oval Ballroom interior Fayetteville, NC Photograph by author

Figure 30: Detail of carved molding, Oval Ballroom Fayetteville, NC Photograph by author

Figure 31: John Wheeler house and detached dining room, Murfreesboro, NC Photograph by author

Figure 32: John Wheeler house, view from rear Murfreesboro, NC Photograph by author

Figure 33: Dining room interior and wall cupboards, John Wheeler house Murfreesboro, NC Photograph by author

Figure 34: Ballard-Salisbury house, Hassell, NC Photograph by author

Figure 35: Dining room mantel, Ballard-Salisbury house Hassell, NC Photograph by author

Figure 36: Ballard-Salisbury house, dining room, and kitchen Hassell, NC Photograph by author

Figure 37: Brick kitchen house, Greene County, NC Photograph by author

Figure 38: Dining room interior, brick kitchen house Greene County, NC Photograph by author

Figure 39: Gaston house, Chester County, SC Photograph by author

Figure 40: Price house and detached dining room, Moore, SC Photograph by author

Figure 41: Price House, 1790s Moore, SC Photograph by author

Figure 42: Dining room, Price house Moore, SC Photograph by author

Figure 43: Kitchen, Price house Moore, SC Photograph by author

Figure 45: Breezeway connecting Bratton house to detached dining room Historic Brattonsville, SC Courtesy of Malcolm L. Marion, III

Figure 46: View from detached brick kitchen to Bratton detached dining room Historic Brattonsville, SC Courtesy of Malcolm L. Marion, III

BIBLIOGRAPY

Anderson, Jay. A Living History Reader: Volume One, Museums. Nashville: American Association for State and Local History, 1991.

Ayres, James. Building the Georgian City. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998.

Bierce, Lucius Verus. Travels in the Southland 1822-1823. ed., with a biographical essay, by George W. Knepper. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1969.

Bishir, Catherine and Michael Southern. A Guide to the Historic Architecture of Eastern North Carolina. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996.

Bold, John. Wilton House and English Palladianism: Some Wiltshire Houses. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1988.

Bratton Collection. Archives. South Caroliniana Library. Columbia, SC.

Bratton History Collection. RG-25. Archives. Historical Center of York County. York, SC.

Bushman, Richard. The Refinement of America: Persons, Houses, Cities. New York: Knopf, 1992.

Cooper, Nicholas. Houses of the Gentry: 1480-1680. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999.

Edgar, Walter. South Carolina, A History. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1998.

Fairey, Wade B. Historic Brattonsville: A Wedge of County History. York: Wade B. Fairey, 1993.

Garrett, Elisabeth. “The Dining Room” in At Home: The American Family 1750-1870. New York: H. N. Abrams, 1989.

Genovese, Elizabeth Fox. Within the Plantation Household: Black and White Women of the Old South. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1988.

Girouard, Mark. Life in the English Country House: A Social and Architectural History. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1978.

Hanson, Julienne. Decoding Homes and Houses. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Hart Family Papers. RG-6. Archives. Historical Center of York County, York, SC.

Herman, Bernard. “The Charleston Single House” in The Buildings of Charleston: A Guide to the City’s Architecture by Jonathan H. Poston. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1997.

Hilliard, Sam. “Hog Meat and Cornpone: Foodways in the Antebellum South” in Material Life in America: 1600-1860. Edited by Robert Blair St. George. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1988.

Issac, Rhys. The Transformation of Virginia: 1740-1790. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1982.

Johnson, Lucile. “History of Heritage Square.” Unpublished manuscript. Fayetteville: Woman’s Club, 2002.

Jordan, James C. III. “The Neoclassical Dining Room in Charleston.” Journal of Early Southern Decorative Arts XIV (1988): iv-25.

Lanier, Gabrielle M. and Bernard L. Herman. Everyday Architecture of the Mid-Atlantic: Looking at Buildings and Landscapes. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997.

LeCount, Charles. “ ‘Every one’s table is furnished with the same dishes’: A Look at Some of the Aspects of Plantation Society in the Southern Carolina Piedmont, 1785-1830.” Paper. Museum of Early Southern Decorative Arts, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. July 1, 2003.

Mary A. Brian, Plaintiff, vs. E.F. Bell et al. March 25, 1908. State of South Carolina County of York Court of Common Pleas, box 83, case 4005. Archives, Historical Center of York County, York, SC.

Pettus, Louise. “Bethesda Presbyterian Church,” York County South Carolina Gen Web. RootsWeb. http://www.rootsweb.com/~scyork/Pettus.htm#12 (accessed February 15, 2006).

Rainey, Joe. “Architectural History of the Homestead 1823-1977.” Unpublished manuscript. York, SC: York County Culture and Heritage Commission.

Rice, Kym. Early American Taverns: For the Entertainment of Friends and Strangers. Chicago: Regnery Gateway, 1983.

Scaife, Alexander interviewed by Caldwell Sims in Pacolet, South Carolina in Before Freedom: When I Just Can Remember: Twenty-Seven Oral Histories of Former South Carolina Slaves. ed. Belinda Hurmence. Winston-Salem, NC: John F. Blair, 1989.

Scoggins, Michael C. “Historic Brattonsville.” Unpublished manuscript. York, SC: York County Culture & Heritage Commission, 2003.

Shields, David. Civil Tongues and Polite Letters in British America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1997.

South, Stanley. Exploratory Excavation at the Price House (38SP1). Institute of Archeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, 1970.

Stephenson, E. Frank. Renaissance in Carolina. Murfreesboro, NC: Historic Murfreesboro, 1971.

Stephenson, Peggy. “Information on the John Wheeler House, Historic Murfreesboro, N.C.” Unpublished manuscript. Murfreesboro, NC: Historic Murfreesboro.

St. George, Robert Blair. Conversing By Signs: Poetics of Implication in Colonial New England Culture. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1998.

Taylor, Joe Gray. Eating, Drinking, and Visiting in the South. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1982.

Tuan, Yi-Fu. Segmented Worlds and Self. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1982.

Upton, Dell. “Vernacular Domestic Architecture in Eighteenth-Century Virginia.” Winterthur Portfolio, Vol. 17, No. 2/3 (Summer-Autumn, 1982), 95-119.

------. “Black and White Landscapes in Eighteenth-Century Virginia” in Material Life in America: 1600-1860. ed. Robert Blair St. George. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1988.

Veasey, Patricia V. Virtue Leads and Grace Reveals: Embroideries and Education in Antebellum South Carolina. Greenville, SC: Curious Works Press, 2003.

Vlach, John Michael. Back of the Big House: The Architecture of Plantation Slavery. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1993.

------. “ ‘Snug Li’l House with Flue and Oven’: Nineteenth-Century Reforms in Plantation Slave Housing” in Gender, Class, and Shelter: Perspectives in Vernacular Architecture, V. ed. Elizabeth Collins Cromley and Carter L. Hudgins. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1995.

------. The Planter’s Prospect: Privilege and Slavery in Plantation Paintings. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2002.

Wenger, Mark. “The Dining Room in Early Virginia” in Perspectives in Vernacular Architecture, III. ed. Thomas Carter and Bernard L. Herman. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1989.

Wedding Announcement. Yorkville Enquirer. March 27, 1856.