The Rise of Flour Milling in Richmond Author(s): Thomas S. Berry …bordergroves.com/canal_lives/omeka/files/original/... · 2015-03-23 · The Rise of Flour Milling in Richmond 389

Virginia Historical Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Virginia Magazine ofHistory and Biography.

http://www.jstor.org

The Rise of Flour Milling in Richmond Author(s): Thomas S. Berry Source: The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. 78, No. 4 (Oct., 1970), pp. 387-408Published by: Virginia Historical SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4247594Accessed: 16-03-2015 21:40 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.72 on Mon, 16 Mar 2015 21:40:47 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=vhs

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4247594

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


O.N.

A

Valontinx Museum, Richmoxd, Virgiiar

Joseph Gallego



7The Virginia Magazine | OF HISTORY AND BIOGRAPHY

~ VOL. 78 October 1970 NO. 4

THE RISE OF FLOUR MILLING IN RICHMOND

by THOMAS S. BERRY*

IF Lieutenant Matthew Fontaine Maury had been asked to choose the most important path he discovered in the ocean seas, one suspects he would have named the one leading around Cape Horn from New York to San Fran- cisco.' Many will recall that his Sailing Directions, and the improvements in ship design by Donald McKay and others, succeeded in reducing the typical time of westward passage from I50-I 8o days to I I0-I30 days. In view of Maury's identification with Richmond and Virginia, it is appropriate to note that Virginia flour was probably the item of greatest value to make the lengthy voyage around the Horn during the decade following the gold rush. This is a bold assertion in view of the enormous volume and variety of goods dispatched to the far West at the time. It is based on the fact that San Francisco reported receiving some 743,000 barrels of Atlantic flour in the i850's, virtually all ground in Richmond's Gallego or Haxall mills. The peak year was i853, when nearly 300,000 barrels entered the Golden Gate. The present account traces the development of Virginia's wheat crops and Richmond's mills to the point where it became possible to make flour shipments of this magnitude.

Tobacco has attracted much more attention than the other early products of Virginia, in spite of the fact that, beginning around I750, grain and its derivatives played an increasingly prominent role in the production and

* Dr. Berry, who teaches economic history at the University of Richmond, acknowledges numerous useful suggestions from Dr. W. Harrison Daniel and Mrs. Ralph T. Catterall, and un- stinting cooperation from the staffs of the Virginia Historical Society, the Virginia State Library, and the Boatwright Memorial Library of the University of Richmond.

' One authority places Maury's oceanography in the top rank of Southern scientific achievement before i86i (S. E. Morison, Oxford History of the American People [New York, I965], p. 5I3. The flour trade to California will be discussed in a separate article.



388 The Virginia Magazine

exports of the Old Dominion. Wheat became the leading crop in areas north, west, and east of Richmond whereas tobacco remained supreme in the southern part of the state. The cleavage of the Commonwealth in political and social matters found a parallel here: tobacco was the chief staple of the Tidewater producers whereas settlers in the Piedmont region became much more concerned with wheat, corn, and hay. A long and steady development of grain acreage was well in evidence by the time the Revolution began.

This trend continued after the war. The expansion of wheat acreage was attended by increased milling facilities. In 1783, for instance, Virginia's annual exports of grain products were worth about one-half as much as her shipments of tobacco, and flour was the second item in financial importance.2 The volume of flour and wheat then doubled within two years, reaching 25,622 barrels and 93,396 bushels, respectively.3 This advanced breadstuffs to a point equivalent to about seventy-five percent of tobacco exports, which may be compared with five or ten percent early in the century. In the next five years (1786-I790) food exports expanded again, this time practically threefold (76,350 barrels of flour and 305,070 bushels of wheat). Tobacco shipments, to be sure, increased fivefold dulring that half- decade, indicating they were not yielding supremacy without a struggle.4 The Old Dominion had an annual surplus equivalent to about 700,000 bushels of wheat well before the end of the eighteenth century; and if home consumption be estimated at 5oo,ooo bushels, this means an annual crop of almost a million and a quarter bushels.

Wheat acreage expanded rapidly after I790, and Virginia's annual crop eventually climbed to first place on the eastern seaboard. It was placed at 7.7 million bushels in I839, 9.2 million in I849, and io.8 million in I859.

The total value went from $9.3 million in I 849 to $14.5 million in the following decade.5 This latter compared with $io.i for tobacco, $o.6 for

2 In I783-1784 (year ended April Io) tobacco exports were ?99,140 compared with flour at ?25,o64, wheat at ?12,154, and corn at ?7,888. Breadstuffs totaled ?45,580 (William P. Pal- mer and S. McRae, editors, Calendar of Virginia State Papers and other Manuscripts, x652-1781 [Richmond, I875-I8931, III, 575).

9Exports in 1785-1786 were reported as follows: tobacco, ?125,796; flour, ?5I,244; wheat, ?32,689; and corn, ?i I,245. The breadstuffs thus added to ?96,843. Note Virginia's balance of trade. Her total exports were ?288,802 whereas total imports came to only ?103,356 (ibid., IV, 121).

4One notes a healthy increase in 1786-179I in barreled bread and corn meal, and a phenomenal gain in the corn surplus, from 31,950 to 387,142 bushels (Arthur G. Peterson, 'The Commerce of Virginia, 1789-9i," William and Mary Quarterly, 2nd ser., X [I930], 307).

5Arthur G. Peterson's price study, the best single source of statistics on Virginia's agricultural history, was issued as Technical Bulletin 37 of the Agricultural Experiment Station. The ex- clusion of West Virginia counties proved to have little effect on the totals (Historical Study of Prices Received by Producers of Farm Products in Virginia, z80z-z927 [Blacksburg, 1929], pp.



The Rise of Flour Milling in Richmond 389

cotton, and $24.7 million for corn. As the era came to a close, then, wheat was second only to corn in total crop value; and the smaller grain was probably the leading money crop because a much larger portion of corn was consumed on the farm.

Virginia attained a high rank in the nation's wheat production, and held it in spite of the pronounced geographical shift between i830 and i86o. She was fourth in I849 (behind Pennsylvania, Ohio, and New York) and fifth in I859 (following Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana, and Ohio). Within the state, about two-thirds of the wheat harvest was concentrated in crop- reporting districts Two, Five, and Six. District Five (Chesterfield County and nineteen others to the north and west thereof) rose to first place during the 'fifties. District Two (fifteen counties at the northeastern corner of the state) led in I839 and I849, but fell to second place in I859. District Six (immediately east of District Five) forged into third place. One surmises that the development of marketing and milling facilities was a significant factor in the geographical distribution of the acreage. Taking all this into consideration, it is easier to understand why much of the pioneering in American machinery for harvesting wheat, by the McCormricks and others, took place in Virginia.

As for flour manufacture, it appears that city and country production both flourished during the antebellum period. One could say that the former tended to supplement, rather than supplant, the latter. Thus, country mills accounted for about two-thirds of the 242,9I6 barrels inspected in Richmond during the year i831 6 Since the output of the typical country establishment was very small compared with a good-sized city mill, one infers that the number and average capacity of the rural establishments were probably on the increase. Richmonders occasionally referred to the country product as "canal flour" because much of it came to market by that route. As in other areas, Virginia country flour was generally inferior to the city brands in several respects, such as the raw material, the fineness of the gfi'nd, and the cooperage. Naturally, the difference in quality was matched by a difference in market price.

Richmond milling, as appears below, was dominated throughout the era before i 86 I by a very few concerns, whose individual capacity clearly tended 6-i6, 205 f.). See also Joseph C. G. Kennedy, Preliminary Report on the Eighth Census, I86o (House Exec. Doc. I I6, Washington, i 862), p. 200.

liThe colonial assembly inaugurated the flour inspection system in i 4 in an effort to promote export trade. An important by-product was that millers were required to place brand-marks on all barrels. In general the industry was resigned to the institution, but bitter com plaints were registered from time to time (Report of the Committee on Agriculture and Manufactures, pp. 8, 17, in Journal of the Virginia House of Delegates, Document No. 3I [i831/32]).




to increase as time went on. It was a lumber business as well as a grain business, since the product had to be packaged in barrels sound enough to withstand storage and long sea voyages. The leading entrepreneurs accumulated relatively large holdings of slaves, draft animals, and assorted real estate. Though capital appears to have come from profits in merchandising and real estate at certain junctures, there was by no means a one-way flow of funds. Since milling profits undoubtedly also found their way into other activities, it is a question whether more capital flowed into the flour industry or in the opposite direction. In a number of instances Richmond millers branched out into other manufacturing, particularly cotton, woolens, nails, and other ferrous products. Milling functioned as a training ground for industry, as it were. The large millers faced a variety of heavy risks, including loss by fire and flood, death or disability of the proprietor or partner (they avoided incorporation)7 and changes in the market and price situation. They depended a great deal upon slave labor, as did other local manu- facturers. Furthermore, as already mentioned, they commonly exacted a premium price above country flour. This spread or differential varied considerably from time to time, and rarely exceeded one dollar a barrel.8

The importance of the family in early American enterprise is exemplified in Richmond industrial development. Three families, or family groups, succeeded in retaining the leading stakes in Richmond flour-mill ownership and management during much of the nineteenth century. One identifies them as the Gallego-Chevallie-Warwick-Barksdale group, the Haxall- Crenshaw group, and the Cunningham-Deane-Anderson group. Except for the admission of Lewis D. Crenshaw into the firm in I859, the Haxall properties went from father to son between I809 and I894. The Gallego Mills brand passed from Gallego, Richard and Company first to P. J. Chevallie and Company, then to Warwick and Barksdale, and still later to Warner Moore and Company, without ever leaving the family group.9

The bond between John Augustus Chevallie and Joseph Gallego began

7Virginia legislation between i8 iz and i86i apparently includes no acts incorporating milling companies in Richmond, and extremely few elsewhere. Richmond millers were nevertheless prominent among those securing charters in various other types of manufacturing. The Gallego and Haxall interests both promoted corporations to make textiles, paper, and ferrous products (Acts of the Virginia Assembly: chap. I85, pp. 231-234 [1833/34]; chap. I67, pp. 231-233 [i831/32]).

See note 64. sThis differential tempted city millers to mix other flour with their own, particularly when

market demand outran their capacity. In I82I and i822 the spread first appeared in Richmond at 25 to 50 cents a barrel (Richmond Enquirer, passim.).

9Many of these family relationships may be traced from the biographical sketches of leading millers and their wives in the Valentine Museum's Richmond Portraits in an Exhzibition of Makers of Richmond, Z737-1860 (Richmond, I949), pp. 5-6, 36-40, 54-55, 85-86, i82-183, and 200-20 I.



The Rise of Flour Milling in Richmond 39I

with the fact that they married the sisters Sarah and Mary Magee of Phila- delphia, and was cemented further by the circumstance that Chevallie's only son (Peter Joseph) grew up in the Gallego household - his mother died days after his birth, and his Aunt Mary had no children of her own.10 Though Peter Joseph shared Gallego's estate with John Richard, he was be- queathed numerous specific items including the flour mill. Abraham War- wick, who married Peter Joseph's daughter Sally, assumed the mantle of leadership in the third generation with the collaboration of William J. Barksdale. The Warwick and Barksdale families were also closely tied by intermarriage.

The rate at which Richmond production expanded from year to year or decade to decade was by no means constant; and in this respect, city milling stayed more or less in step with the American economy as a whole. One marks off four periods: 1772-1797, I798-I8 I8, I8 19-I848, and I849-186I. In the first period the successive promoters of the infant industry included Samuel Overton, David Ross, and John Augustus Chevallie. The second period saw a much higher rate of expansion, with a sudden burst of activity after i 8oo. Production remained at a high level for practically two decades, broken occasionally by drastic interruptions in overseas trade. The dominant personalities were Joseph Gallego, Thomas Rutherfoord, Edward Cunning- ham, and Philip Haxall. The end of the period coincided with Gallego's death. The third period was marked by two major depressions, one at the beginning and one towards the end. The earlier decline was so far-reaching that the industry required over ten years to recover. The leaders were Philip and Richard B. Haxall, Peter Joseph Chevallie, Edward Cunningham, Abraham Warwick, and William J. Barksdale. As this period closed, gold was discovered in California and fire destroyed the Gallego Mills (for the fourth time, apparently). In the last period production set new records, higher than ever before, largely in response to orders from the new market in the Far West. By then Richmond's milling was under control of the Gallego Mills, operated by Warwick and Barksdale, and the Columbia Mills, owned and managed by the Haxall family. The peak production of the 'fifties reached a mark rarely matched thereafter, as the industry appeared to lose its impulse to grow further. Signs of an impending major depression

l1The elder Chevalli6, bom Jean Marie Auguste in Rochefort, France, took the English name at an early age. He and his father were active for many years in behalf of Caron de Beaumarchais (or his widow), pressing claims on the United States for military supplies furnished Virginia during the Revoludonary War (Claim of Beaumarchais' Heir against the United States, by P. J. Chevallie, her Attorney [Washington, i 8 7]) .




were evident, even as the nation girded for civil war, and the slump continued to gather momentum after the war began.11

I One dates the beginning of the first period in I772, for in that year

Samuel Overton of Hanover County - presumably the earliest to operate on a considerable scale- purchased Lot 74I from William Byrd III and his assigns for ?700 current money.12 This parcel later proved to be one of the most valuable in the entire Byrd lottery plan, as it became the place where Richmond manufacturing tended to concentrate. Containing some 93 acres, it was a long, triangular tract to the west of I4th Street, embracing the area between the city line along Arch Street and the James River. Since the western boundary was a southwesterly extension of ist Street to a point near present Belvidere Street and thence to the river, the lot enjoyed a river frontage of nearly seven-eighths of a mile, far more than other tracts in the plan. It was crossed by a small stream, later developed and long employed to power flour mills and other establishments. Overton carved parcels from time to time out of Lot 74I which he conveyed to David Ross, John Harvie, Robert Gamble, the Virginia Company, and the Commonwealth (for the state armory and part of the penitentiary site), among others. Part of the tract also went to the James River Company for its main waterway, and for a basin fed by the stream just mentioned.

Authorities tell us nothing about the exact location of Overton's mill. The two best possibilities are a site on the rocks off the foot of I2th Street, and one on the stream further up the river, near 2nd and 3rd Streets extended. Later both were favorite milling sites for many years. Overton was not long getting into production. As early as I 777 he agreed to deliver five hundred barrels of flour to Richard Adams, then purchasing for the Commonwealth.13 This covered a quarter of Adams's total requirements, and

"IThomas S. Berry, Estimated Annual Variations in Gross National Product, z789 to 1909 (Richmond, x968), pp. 5, 8, 32.

12Overton has commonly been credited with water rights halfway across the river. The deed signed by Byrd, and Peyton Randolph, appears to specify only "water and water courses" be- longing to the property. Originally admitted to record in June 1772, the document reappeared in the Henrico Court in March I8I9 and was entered again in February 1820 (Henrico County Deed Book I8, pp. 421-422).

The sharp eastern end of the pennant-shaped Lot 741 was broadened into a rectangular form between ioth and I4th Streets, extended. The Byrd Lottery Plan is an inset to Richard Young's "Plan of the City of Richmond" (I809-I8I0), a I9I6 tracing of which is in the Valentine Mu- seum. Several years ago the original in the City Engineer's Office was reported to have dis- appeared. The map is reproduced in Alexander Wilbourne Weddell, Richmond Virginia in Old Prints, 1737-1887 (Richmond, 1932), facing page 32.

"3Adams described it as "Overton's mill in this town" in a letter to Governor Henry dated March 2I, 1777. A shortage of barrels impeded deliveries ("Correspondence of William Aylett,




the implication was that Overton's plant had a somewhat greater capacity than a typical gst mill. One searches in vain for clues to his later experience. The mill may have been destroyed in Arnold's raid. It is not mentioned in the series of annual county tax books, which is far from complete for the years prior to i 8oo.

David Ross, a merchant of considerable prestige, and several associates later operated what may have been the same grist mill. Built on rocks in the river at the Falls near the foot of I2th Street and "approached by planks laid from one rock to another," it was swept away together with "near 3000 bushels of wheat and a quantity of flour" when a sudden thaw during the last week in January I784 produced a disastrous fresh. Both the miller and his assistant perished in the flood.14 In I789 Ross entered again upon the milling scene by purchasing seven acres in the easternmost portion of Over- ton's property, roughly from gth to I4th Street, extended. Ross commenced construction of a canal close to the river, approximately from 8th to I3th Street, extended. Venable, who saw the work in process in June I 79I as an adjunct "to build mill in fall of James River," noted the "prospect of there being great and useful works at a future time." 15

Of Scottish birth, Ross was a most enterprising individual. Aside from managing an iron furnace in Bedford County, coal pits near the James, and a plantation at Point of Fork, he acted as Commercial Agent for the Com- monwealth in 178I-I782 and later became a director of the James River Company.'6 His original agreement for the seven acres stipulated a per- petual annual payment of two thousand barrels of good Indian corn to Overton and his heirs, but this was changed in I793 to two thousand bushels.'7 Overton's assent to the revision may have occurred because corn

Commissary General of Virginia," Tyler's Quarterly Historical and Genealogical Magazine, I [1919], 97). At a later date Adams reported his own grist mil (and large acreage) to the Henrico tax authorities. Located in Shockoe Valley as early as I803, it passed later into other hands and was in production as late as x865 (Times-Dispatch, September Io, 1865).

Other war correspondence mentions deliveries from Westham, which could have been a mill location and/or a supply depot (Mary Newton Stanard, Richnwnd: Its People and its Story [Philadelphia, 1923], pp. 36, 43-44).

'4Virginia Gazette, or, The American Advertiser, January 31, 1784; Samuel Mordecai, Vir- ginia, Especially Richmond, in By-gone Days (Richmond, I86o), pp. 329, 132 (the best single account of early Richmond milling at hand).

15"Richard N. Venable's Diary, 179I-92," Tyler's Quarterly, II (I920), 136. IS "Mr. Ross" was treated with remarkable deference by wartime military and civilian officials,

who were vexed towards the close of the campaign by shortages of various commodities. The acute scarcity of buttons received considerable attention (Calendar of Virginia State Papers, II, 476, 509 et passim).

17 Appropriate penalties were provided in case the payment was not made by the last day of the year. Since the original deed of record (June x9, 1793) was destroyed by fire, it was presented for record in I867 (Richmond Hustings Court Deed Book 84B, pp. iI6, I21). The Granberry- Haxall deed of I809 (see below) states that the 1793 deed was recorded "in the General Court of this Commonwealth" (Henrico County Deed Book 8, p. 563).




prices were rising sharply at the time. It is curious that the canal and mill do not appear on the Valentine Museum's water-color map, drawn by R. B. James in I804. The map made about five years later by Richard Young (also in the Museum) shows "Ross's Mill Canal" to good advantage, flanked by two structures near the foot of I2th Street labeled "Ross Corn and Manufactg Mills."

Ross's establishment soon became known as "the Columbia Mills," an appellation which remained in usage for plants at that location for many years.18 Henrico County tax lists carried the property from I799 (the earliest available) until i813, although it lay in an area annexed to the city in i8io.'9 Ross himself was not a consistent operator, judging from the number of slaves reported for taxes. To be sure, he listed 23 in 1790, many of whom were probably employed in the construction work. He also listcd 13 in 1799. From i 8oo to I 804 he reported only three to six, as compared with two in i8o6, three in I809, and none in I805 or I807. Indeed, other evidence suggests he rented the mill to others much of the time.

In the spring of I796 the Duc de La Rochefoucauld found two mills at Richmond and inspected one of them. This he described as a fine mill below the falls, with six pairs of stones and "a great power of water." It was most probably Ross's establishment.20 It was under lease at an annual rent of "near six thousand dollars" to a partnership headed by "Monsieur Chevalier," who could be none other than John Augustus Chevallie.21 Though the other partners were not named, they probably included John Hopkins and Joseph Gallego. The young republic was then undergoing a recession from the war-borne inflation of the early I790'S. The Richmond entrepreneurs, apparently interested as much in speculation as milling, were reportedly unhappy because flour was down to ten dollars which could have been sold at thirteen only two months before.

The Virginia product had not yet built a reputation for quality. On the contrary, it was commonly re-inspected in the Philadelphia market, where it sold at a discount ranging from 50 cents to $I.50, compared with the

18It was commonly "Columbian Mills" later on. The town carved out of Ross's land at the fork of the Rivanna and the James was also called "Columbia."

19 The county also listed David Ross and Company for 88o acres for many years, and "Ross & Currie (CP)" for 1,350 acres during several years around the turn of the century. The mill properties discussed here all lay in the Upper District of the County.

20 Though the mill used the latest techniques, it was cramped for space and had wheels with poorly fitted cogs. Unfortunately, nothing whatsoever was said about the second mill (Travels through the United States of North Amnerica . . . in the Years I795, I796 and 1797 [London, I799], III, 72).

21 "Chevalier" is identified as from Rochefort, and also as former director of the French packets to America.




Pennsylvania and Brandywine product. Nevertheless, the southern industry was growing rapidly, according to customs clearances at City Point and Norfolk. The combined volume at the two ports all but doubled between I79I and I794 (45,000 to 85,ooo barrels); and the total declared value nearly tripled between 179 I and I 79 5 ($240,000 to $7 I I,ooo)Y22

After i8oo Ross found himself in financial difficulty on more than one occasion, perhaps because he overextended himself in the investments mentioned above, or suffered unusual trading losses. In that year he and George Nicolson lost a Richmond District Court judgment of B6,ooo and costs to Elizabeth and Richard Overton. Possibly this concerned the rent for the mill site - the circumstances surrounding the action are not given. The most interesting feature of the case, for present purposes, is that the appeal bond filed by the defendants named only Nicolson's estate as security.23 In I 804, again, the property of David Ross and Benjamin B. Forde was assigned to William Jones and Neill McCoull for the benefit of 25 creditors claiming $27,739.42 altogether. The trust deed cited "losses and misfortunes" of the trading firm of Ross and Forde.24 Then in i8o6 the Columbian Mills, together with several other Ross properties, were specifically entrusted to Edmund Rootes, Nelson Allen, and John F. Price to secure "divers sums of money" owed to Granbery and Hancock (a Norfolk concern) and Littleton W. Tazewell. Adhering to the procedure set forth in this deed, the Rootes trio sold the mill property to John Granbery in i8o8. The latter conveyed it to the Haxalls the following year.25 In other words, the Haxalls purchased the mills not from Ross but from a creditor who had bought them in at a foreclosure sale.

The James River Company's canal played an important role in the early development of milling by providing a power supply protected from drouths and floods. The main waterway was roughly parallel to Ross's canal at a rather greater distance from the river, and a considerably higher level. Some sections were open to travel as early as I 789, it was finished to the head of

22La Rochefoucauld, Travels through the United States, III, I I 7. Norfolk reported much greater flour clearances than City Point, which featured tobacco.

23Few attorneys seem to recall the Richmond District Court, which figures in several cases cited here. This particular appeal bond was recorded in the Richmond Hustings Court (Deed Book 5, p. 517).

24 Te Ross named in this action was also known as David R. Ross. Five of the claims exceeded three thousand dollars each; and Gallego, Richard & Company was listed for $526.88 (Richmond Hlustings Court Deed Book 4, pp. 5 I 1-514).

25The Richmond District Court deeds of I8o6 and I8o8, though not at hand, are cited at length in the deed from Granberry to Haxall (Henrico County Deed Book 8, pp. 563-566).

David Ross died May 4, 18I7, aged about eighty. His will suggests he held considerable property when he died. It mentions special bequests of 36 slaves and a plantation of 1400 acres, a residuary estate, and an executors' bond of $300,000 (Henrico County Will Book 5, p. 185).




the basin (gth to iith Streets between Canal and Cary) by I795, and a connection with tidewater was completed at a later date. Though the charter was designed to prevent undue diversion of water to industrial use, such employment indeed took place, and continued long after the abandonment of navigation. Eventually a network furnished water at different levels between 8th and I 3th Streets.26

In November I79I the directors of the Company (John Harvie, William Foushee, and David Ross) marked off a 4o-by-250-foot strip next to the canal on the river side, opposite the first stone quarry above the head of Broad Rock Island, and leased it to Joshua Gibson and Enoch Churchman of Harford County, Maryland. This upstream location, or "mill seat" as it was commonly identified for tax purposes, was destined to be a prominent factor in Richmond flour production for forty years. The agreement, which was to run for only a short term (some two years), provided that the James River Company furnish three sluices of water from the canal, and that the lessees were to erect mills or houses and have at least one pair of stones operating within a year. The Marylanders conveyed their reversionary rights to Thomas and Ebenezer Maule four years later, and the latter sublet the property to Ladd, Anthony and Company not long thereafter.27 It appears that a mill was built and placed in operation, but the scale of its output is unknown.

II In I798, the beginning of our second period, Joseph Gallego is com-

monly supposed to have organized the mills bearing his name. Originally from Malaga, he had been a merchant in Richmond for about ten years.28 Colorful and energetic, Gallego was quite active in Richmond political, social, and financial circles. He did much to establish milling on a firn footing, and accumulated a considerable estate in the process, largely but not entirely in urban property. Between I798 and I805 his city holdings expanded from five parcels to eighteen, and the total assessed annual rents went from ?205 to Fi1,248. These included several quarter-blocks as provided in the city plan. This interval seems to have embraced Gallego's most

26It is noteworthy that the charter of I784 provided that the $Ioo,ooo capital be said only in coin. The James River project apparently materialized ahead of the Potomac Cana, yet the latter commonly receives more attention from historians (Laws of Virginia, Chap. 19, pp. 340 if.; Mordecai, Virginia, Especially Richmond, in By-gone Days, pp. 300-301).

27The original lease was reproduced in full in the conveyance of March I5, 1795, from Gibson and Churchman to Ebenezer Maule of Richmond (Henrico County Deed Book 5, pp. 234-238). The annual rent of x20o was to begin on April I, 1793. See also page 349 of the same volume for later transfers of interest in this same property.

28COne authority places him in Richmond as early as I784 (Mary Wingfield Scott, Houses of Old Richmond [Richmond, 1941, p. 47).




prosperous years. Though he disposed of several parcels in I8I6, he was taxed in I8I8 for twelve pieces of city property carrying an aggregate taxable rent of $II,550, and a number of possessions outside the corporation limits.29

Gallego's first mill, which according to Mordecai was at Ross's site near the foot of I12th Street, was destroyed before long by fire.30 He was probably renting from Ross - the county taxed Gallego for nine blacks above sixteen years of age in 1799-i8oo but no realty. Effective September I, I799, the engaging Spaniard took over the canal location mentioned above, only to suffer two more fire losses within a few years. Acting irn association with John and Edward Cunningham of Cumberland County, Gallego assumed the lease of Thomas and Ebenezer Maule for a fairly large cash payment (?2,5I 3,s.3d. in current money), which suggests that the previous lessees had accumulated a considerable equity in the property.31

In I8oI Gallego reported eleven blacks for taxes, as well as the mill seat.32 There followed a rapid expansion until I 804, when John Richard was first listed as a partner. Gallego, Richard and Company was then taxed for 4I blacks by the county and six by the city, where the firm maintained a store and "lumber house" - presumably for the manufacture of barrels. In I805 and i8o6 it listed blacks at the "upper mills" and others at "the Columbia Mills," implying it was using the latter under an arrangement with Ross (or his assigns). The taxed labor force reached a maximum in I 804 and remained comparatively large for several years thereafter. In I 814 two mill seats were reported, evidently adjacent to each other; and from then until I8I8 the Henrico authorities assessed each site with an annual rent of $333.33. A special county tax list of mills revealed the commanding position of the enterprise in the Upper District in 1814. Its annual rental was set at $4,000, compared with $i,88o for the eight other establishments combined.33

29 Richmond city land books, 1798- I 8 I 8. 80 Mordecai, Virginia, Especially Richmond, in By-gone Days, p. 329.

31 Henrico County Deed Book 5, p. 693. The deeds index fails to indicate when the Cunning- hams relinquished their interest: one surmises it was not long thereafter. No other reference at hand points to the fact that Gallego and the Cunninghams were once associated in a business enterprise. The County taxed the mill seat to Ladd, Anthony and Company in I8oo, probably because the conveyance from the Maules was not recorded until April 7 of that year. Meanwhile Ebenezer Maule had died on December 4, 1799 (Virginia Argus, December 6, 1799).

32The property was listed for an annual rental of ?50 and a tax of 8o cents per annum from I8oI to x809, then doubled for a few years. Such a tax advantage may have influenced Gallego's choice of location.

33Lyddell Bowles was the largest of the eight others (rental of $6oo), which included Robert Gamble ($200) and William Foushee ($150).




Gallego thus ground practically all his flour in the county, and conducted cooperage and commercial operations in the city. A recent search for physi- cal traces of the mills has not been successful. One surmises they were located along the present roadbed of the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway, below the canal's towpath yet well above the river. There is a steep slope below the railway tracks all through this vicinity. The "Galego mill" is entered in pencil on the Virginia State Library's copy of the John Wood county map of I8I9, near the point where the river bends towards the north, just westward of the line between the Riverview and Hollywood cemeteries, extended, and slightly upstream from the western end of Broad Rock Island (Belle Isle). Warwick and Barksdale apparently used the same site much later, under an arrangement with the canal companies.-4

Thomas Rutherfoord, a Glaswegian who was Gallego's chief competitor during the first decade of the nineteenth century, marked his barrels either "Rutherfoord's" or "Richmond Mills." His career resembled Gallego's in that he also accumulated a rather large holding of Richmond property. Rutherfoord's mill site, acquired in i802 from the Virginia Company according to tax lists, was to the south of the smaller canal basin constructed at the foot of Gamble's Hill. The mill appears between 2nd and 3rd Streets, extended, on the maps of I804 and i 809-I8I0. Towards the western end of Overton's original tract, it was in the general area devoted later on to the manufacturing of cotton, nails, and other ferrous products.

In I8o i-i 8o6 Rutherfoord reported only from ten to seventeen blacks for taxes, indicating that he was operating on a modest scale. In I 807-i8i i,

however, this component of his labor force increased to around 25, equivalent to about two-thirds of Gallego's slave crew. Rutherfoord added a second mill in i 8i0, raising the taxable rent to ?i,ooo and the valuation to $6o,ooo - the latter increased to $75,000 in the following year.3 Then the mill was sold to Edward Cunningham, who had presumably retired from the association with Gallego mentioned above.

Cunningham's operation proceeded at a fairly high level from I8I2 to

18i8. He continued to report around 25 slaves; and the rent of the mills was assessed at $6,ooo in i 8 I 3 - almost double the i 8 I 0 figure - whereas

84Some early tax books specified the location one mile West of the county courthouse. Others gave two miles, which seems more nearly accurate. The Richmond Map of 1848 by Charles S. Morgan shows two mills at the same bend of the river, near the southern bank of the canal. The smaller is to the East of the larger, and the key states: "Flooring (!) mill, on the Canal, i? miles from the Basin. These Mills belong to Barksdale and Warwick."

35 Rutherfoord advertised he was ready to take wheat in trade at his Richmond store as far back as 1791 (Virginia Gazette and General Advertiser, October 4, 1791). Like Ross, he was listed for county tax three years after the annexation by the city in i8i0.



Valentine Museum, Richmond, Virginia

Gallego Flour Mills about z1890

~~~~~~~~~~~* *

Valentine Museum, Richmond, Virginia

Haxall Flour Mills about 1865



Valentine Museum Valextixe Museum

Peter Joseph Chevalli, Abram Warwick

Valentixe Museum Vdentixe Museum

Jean August Marie Chevallite' Philip Haxall




the valuation mounted to $8o,ooo in i 817 and i 8I8. One suspects that inflation was involved here as much as changes in real capacity and output.

As already mentioned, the Haxalls joined the Richmond milling frater- nity in I809 by purchasing the Overton-Ross property between gth and I4th Streets, extended, from John Granbery. The transaction had two con- siderations: (I) the annual corn rent to Overton, and (z) a payment of $30,ooo to Granbery in six bi-monthly installments. The deed was drawn to William and Philip Haxall of Petersburg, but a memorandum provided that, although the property was acquired for the benefit of Philip Haxall and Company, two other merchant partnerships each held a quarter share.36 In I8I0 Henrico County first assessed "Haxhalls & Company" for a mill seat carrying a rent of Fb00; and the city of Richmond (it was a year of annexation) also listed Philip Haxall & Company for seven acres and the "Columbian Mills," valued at $40,000 in all. Moreover, the city commenced taxing Overton for an $i8,ooo interest in the property arising from the ground rent, then stated at 40o barrels of corn.37

Thus, one finds three sizable Richmond flour producers between i 8o9 and I 8 I 8: Gallego upstream on the canal, Rutherfoord (later, Cunning- ham) below Gamble's Hill, and the Haxalls at the foot of I 2th Street. One conjectures that they jointly produced from 75,000 to I25,000 barrels per annum, divided more or less equally. The taxable rent of the Haxalls, at first set at U8oo (or $2,666.67) rose in 18I3-i8i8 to $6,ooo, or the same amount imputed to Cunningham's mills. The Haxall share of the property valuation rose by degrees to $ioo,ooo in I817, then declined to $8o,ooo the following year - also the same valuation the city used for Cunningham.38 As for slave labor, the Haxalls reported from 24 to 29 persons in the years for which data are available, only slightly below Gallego's complement at that time. Some of these were probably employed in other ventures developed by the Haxalls, such as the nail factory.

36 The two partnerships were John and William Bell (related to the Haxalls by marriage) and Conway and Fortescue Whittle. William and Philip Haxall each held a quarter share (Henrico County Deed Book 8, pp. 563-566; Julian Hastings Granbery, John Granbery, Virginia [New York, I964], p. 32). The group sold a piece of the property to the James River Company in I8xo; and in i8xi the Whittles conveyed their quarter share to the Haxalls (Richmond Hustings Court Deed Book 5, p. 355; and Deed Book i9, p. I68).

37The Overton interest was subject to tax until I82zI. Its valuation (to the estate after I81I) approached one-fourth that assigned to the Haxalls. In 1887 Isaac Cardozo paid $iI,750 to Mary Jane (Overton) Howard and Fanny E. Overton for the annual com rent, then subject to five liens. The Virginia Electrical and Development Company and Henry Lee Valentine extinguished the claim in x899 by paying Cardozo $I6,ooo (Richmond Chancery Court Deed Book 134C, pp. I69-171; Release Deed Book xoA, p. 289).

38Including Overton's interest, the corresponding figures are $125,000 and $Ioo,ooo. The listing uniformly specified seven acres and "Columbian Mills" (in the plural).




Since the Richmond industry had grown to depend upon the world market, it was hurt substantially by measures taken in the Jefferson adminis- tration restricting foreign trade. Shipments were reduced drastically in i8o8-i809. The situation became even worse during the War of I812.3

According to Dr. Thomas Massie, flour was practically unsalable locally for months on end in i 8 I 3-18 I4. It brought only around $5 a barrel - a truly low figure considering the widespread inflation of the epoch.YO The smart postwar recovery was shortlived because the nation soon faced demands in many quarters for a return to hard money, or at least harder money. To illustrate, the relatively sound and conservative Bank of Virginia (of which, incidentally, Joseph Gallego was a director) was closed at least temporarily by a depositor's suit for payment in coin.41 In the following year (i817) the plethora of depreciated bank paper in frontier states prompted Congress to pass the Webster Resolution, directing public land offices to refuse the paper of banks failing to redeem their notes.

A year of nervous speculation gave way to a prolonged period of recurring pressure, leaving the economic structure in a state of collapse by I82I.

European centers suffered one crisis after another, the migration of people across the Atlantic was suspended, and capital was repatriated. Even Nature appeared to be conspiring with the destructive forces, beginning with a disastrous drouth in I8I9 throughout North America. The young Bank of the United States, despairing of riding the storm, finally ran for cover. This action expedited an extremely painful liquidation, the memory of which served later as an effective obstacle to the rational development of an Ameri- can financial system.

The third period (I8I9-I848), then, began with a major economic depression. Although the epoch witnessed an extension of the James River Canal towards the West, and the inauguration of rail service in several directions from Richmond, the total flour inspections (including the country variety) developed at a comparatively modest rate. According to five-year averages, they increased only about fifty percent over a quarter of a century. To be sure, the output of the city mills most probably increased at a rather

39The severity of the interruptions may be judged from figurcs on Virginia's entire export

trade. Tle annual totals are $4.8, o.s, and 2.9 millions for I807-1809, respectively. Corresponding data for I8I2-i8i5 are $3.0, I.8, 0.02, and 6.7 millions, respectively (J. D. B. DeBow, Statistical View of the United States [Washington, I854], p. I87).

40"Richmond during the War of I8i2-Letters of Dr. Thomas Massie," Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, VII (I900), 406-418. In New York City, the price of superfine flour ranged between $7.13 and $I2.25 at that time (Arthur H. Cole, Wholesale Commodity Prices in the United States, 1700-186I, Supplement [Cambridge, 1938], pp. I64, I68).

41W. Asbury Christian, Richmond, Her Past and Present (Richmond, I9I2), p. 92.



The Rise of Flour Milling in Richmond 40I

higher rate, though production data are not available, and this surmise is based on the assumption that the city share of the total grew from about one-third to one-half of the total. Even so, the period from I8I9 to I848 saw a lower rate of growth in Richmond production than the intervals pre- ceding and following it.42

Gallego had been much concerned towards the end (i 8I8) with events in Spain and America, judging by some of the numerous codicils he added to his will. Warning John Richard and Peter Joseph Chevallie, his executors and residuary legatees, against hurrying the sale of real property, he added a bond requirement of $500,000 each.43 Evidently his fears were rather fully realized in I8I9-I823. Richmond flour suffered a serious decline both in price and volume of output. Total inspections dropped almost forty percent from i8I9 to I822, and persisted at very low figures until I825.44 Apparently both city and country production was laid low, and this could hardly have been an "era of good feelings" from the producer's point of view.45 The price of wheat went from $2.50 a bushel in I817 to 62? cents late in I820, and showed no recovery during the following year."' Flour, which had reached $I5, was quoted at $I2.25 in May, I8I7, $6.oo to $6.25 in May, I8I9, and finally touched bottom at $3.38 in January, I82I - even though receipts were far below normal.47 Economic events of such magnitude were bound to be reflected in the tax books. For example, the Cunningham and Haxall realty assessments each slipped from $8o,ooo in 1818 to $40,000 in I 819, and $20,000 the following year, recovering to $37,000 in I 822. The tax value of the Overton interest in the Columbia mills descended from $25,000 to $s,ooo.

42 The annual inspections in I8I9-I831 show much variation from year to year; and there is evidence that individual producers, both city and country, sought to avoid Richmond (Document No. 31, p. 17). Annual averages to I848 were as follows (in thousands of barrels): i8i9-i823, 133; I824-X828, 1z26; I829-I833, 2715; I834-I838, I66; I839-1843, I92; I844-I848, 200 (Charles B. Kuhlmann, The Development of the Flour-nilling Industry in the United States [Boston, 1929], p. 52, note 4, citing Hunt's Merchants Magazine, XIX, 546 and XXIX, 632).

43The holographic document was filed May I3, I8I8 (Richmond Hustings Court Will Book 2, pp. 273-294). The obituary appeared in the Richmond Enquirer, July 3, i8I8.

44In thousands of barrels, the annual total went from i6o in I8I9 down to 102 in 1822, and recovered to 183 by 1825. A comparatively low level throughout the 'twenties was attributed by Inspector Edmund Walls to the diversion of country flour to other shipping points (Virginia Document No. 31, p. 17). Regardless of this, Virginia's dollar exports as a whole failed to show as much growth in that decade as the Ohio Valley region (DeBow, Statistical View of the United States, p. 187; Berry, Western Prices before 186i [Cambridge, I943], pp. I64, I69,

580-58I). 45The West was suffering a profound agricultural depression (Berry, Western Prices, pp.

195, 409). 46 Richmond Enquirer, passim.; Peterson, Historical Study of Prices, p. 72. 47 Country flour went as low as $3.25 in Richmond-still about twice as high as the trough

experienced in Cincinnati that year. The I8I9 drouth had adverse effects upon the wheat crop, carriage to and from the mills, and the milling itself. Several persons traversed the James River at Richmond on foot (Richmond Enquirer, July 23 and September 2I, 18I9 et passim).




The Gallego Mills were evidently out of operation for some time during the worst of the depression, perhaps because they were tied up in probate, or the wheat they specified was not forthcoming, or perhaps on account of another fire loss. In I820 the Henrico assessor dropped one of the two mill seats he had carried for several years. Furthermore, the valuation of $25,000

for building and improvements in I8I9-I820 was revised to $4,000 in I821,

leaving a blank space opposite these items. There is a strong implication of fire destruction, though no report of such a calamity has been noted in the current newspaper files. Another item pointing in the same direction is the absence of a report of slave property in I82I-I822. In I823 buildings were restored to the tax list at $6,ooo, and the assessment was made to P. J. Chevallie (rather than the Gallego estate). The total valuation soon became $I 0,000, where it remained until I 832.

In spite of other crises after i 82I, including changes in ownership, fires, and depressions, the Gallego firm eventually resumed its commanding position in the industry. John Richard, whom Gallego had esteemed as a partner, died not very long after the settlement of the estate. The younger Chevallie undoubtedly made considerable progress during the latter i 820'S,

though he usually reported only around fifteen slaves - about half the number listed by the Haxalls. By I831 P. J. Chevallie and Company reached an annual production rate of some 46,ooo barrels, most of which were shipped to markets in South America. This was more than all the other local mills combined."' Facilities were enlarged in i 832 and again in I833,

with a second mill on the canal and a three-story lumber house in town at Canal and I 2th Streets. In I834, however, the Henrico valuation sank from $16,000 to $5,700 with the terse comment: "Mills burnt."

Chevallie next built a large mill on Lot 36I in the city, between the eastern end of the larger canal turning-basin and I 2th Street, and also between Cary and Canal Streets. Already in possession of several parcels in that vicinity, he presumably acquired more by exchange or lease from the James River Company. In I835 the city taxed the company for two new structures, one of four stories and one of three. The realty assessment rose to $I38,500; and the number of blacks employed rose to around 25, counting Chevallie's personal holdings and those listed by the company.

Peter Joseph passed away in i837 (his father survived him a year). As 48 Total output was placed at about 8o,ooo barrels, including about 5,ooo by Francis B.

Deane, Jr., I8,ooo by William B. Clarke in Manchester, and 7,000 from Edward Simms's "Vir- ginia Mills" in Buckingham. The Haxall plant was in ruins; and the Cunningham mill had been shut down for several years in return for a rent paid by the other millers (Document No. 31,

pp. I, 9, i6, i9, 2I).




in the case of Joseph Gallego, the death occurred at the approach of a period of widespread economic stress which may or may not have been foreseen. Though the younger Chevallie appears to have been somewhat less prominent in the community than Gallego (or Abraham Warwick) competitors gave him an extremely high character at the inquiry of i832.6

His flour, and the Gallego brand, were hailed as unsurpassed; and Chevallie's ability to furnish a full cargo was cited to his credit. Not long before he died the city tax assessment was cut to $78,000, which placed it on a par with Columbia Mills. A notation in the tax book mentions a "resolution of C. Hall," that is, the Common Hall or city council.

Abraham Warwick, already a prominent business leader, seems to have assumed command of Gallego Mills after Chevallie's untimely death. The establishment showed signs of picking up momentum, even during the disastrous depression of I840-I843. Its property valuation mounted to $120,000 in I840 and $I50,000 in I842. The realty was transferred in I845 to the partnership of Warwick and. Barksdale, which had also acquired the canal mill seat from the James River and Kanawha Canal Company.:0

Warwick enjoyed a career similar to Gallego's. Interested in several other enterprises and large holdings of real and personal property, he later served as president of the strongest bank in the Commonwealth. His experience and acumen, added to those of William J. Barksdale, augured well for the operation and financing of the Mills. The firm apparently entered the shipping business when necessary to solve marketing problems. It also enlarged production facilities in the mid-'forties, with $9,900 in construction beside the canal (county tax valuation) and two large lumber houses at the city location (two-story stone and four-story brick). The labor force increased steadily. Whereas Chevallie had never reported more than i9 slaves for company taxes in I835-I836, Warwick and Barksdale listed 32 in I843.

Four years later they were charged for 45. In I 848, when the sailing could have been expected to be smoother than

ever, Gallego Mills were gutted once more by fire. The city assessment (lot and mill) dropped from $I 50,000 tO $13,000.51 As before, plans got under way for reconstruction, this time taking the form of a five-story masonry mill

49Document No. 31, P. 14. 50 Ile Richmond realty tax books listed the mill and Lot 36I (C and i2th Streets) to P. J.

Chevalli6 and Company from 1835 to I844. In I845 the assessment was assigned to Warwick and Barksdale with the notation: "transferred from G. A. Myers and Co., Trustees." This im- plies it was not a simple conveyance from the Chevalli concern to the Warwick firm.

tlTeined the worst city fire up to that time, it involved a loss of around $400,000 to the Shockoe warehouse and numerous stores, factories, and lumber houses (Christian, Richmond, p. I59).




and lumber house, entered in the I849 tax list at $113,000. Without real- izing it, the concern was preparing to handle record-sized orders from a little-known region called California. Over the I835-I848 interval Gallego Mills very probably accounted for 50 to 65 percent of the flour made in the Richmond vicinity.

Cunningham's Mills had remained in the forefront from I 8 i 8 until 1825, with perhaps 25 to 40 percent of Richmond's total output, then began to recede in importance. The father and two sons, Richard and young Edward, were eventually diverted into other types of manufacturing. The mills, four acres and buildings, appeared on tax books at $37,000 until i828, when the lion's share of the property was assigned to son Richard for the construction of a 41/2-story brick cotton factory in partnership with Richard Anderson.52 While the flour mill was contracted out of operation around I83I, its assessment was reduced to $9,ooo. This recovered to $Is,ooo in i 834-I 836,

only to be succeeded by a $20,coo assessment to Deane and Cunningham for a "mill, rolling mill, and lot on canal." The parcel and valuation were both transferred to the "Tredgar Iron Co." two years later (I839). It appears possible, then, that some flour was made at this location during the mid- 'thirties if not in the 'forties, when the property was converted to the production of cotton and iron goods.

The Columbia Mills of the Haxalls continued to maintain about the same stature as Gallego Mills. They had done comparatively well during the depression of the early 'twenties, judging from the magnitude of the labor force reported for taxes (another circumstance tending to substantiate the idea that the Gallego plant was temporarily out of operation). The Haxall realty assessment remained at $37,000 from I 822 to I 829, when it dropped to $30,000. Then the mills suffered destruction by fire, and made no flour for about a year. This was by no means the last such occasion - the plant was exposed to extensive fire damage again in i 853.53 The remarkable thing is that the Gallego and Haxall interests repeatedly managed somehow or other to resume production.

The Haxall property account improved steadily after the fire in i 830, as the new mill raised the tax valuation to $ss,ooo in 1832, and another (four-story brick) brought it to $75,000 in I834. A smaller addition in I836, and a two-story brick factory in I842, raised the appraisal to

52Beginning in 1832 slaves were listed to the Richmond Manufacturing Company rather than Cunningham and Anderson. ITe number increased from 5 to 127 in 1830-I833 (Richmond Personal Property Tax Books).

53The loss of the Virginia Woolen Mills brought total damage to $I8o,ooo. According to Christian (p. I179) this fire touched off a notable improvement in the city's fire-fighting equipment.




$200,000. It then rose and fell for twenty years, oscillating between $115,000 (185I-I855) and $i6o,ooo (I857-I860). This realty was assessed to Philip Haxall & Company until I849, to the Philip & William Haxall estate in I85I-I859, and to R. B. Haxall and L. D. Crenshaw beginning in i86o. As for personal property, the tax books indicate that the partnership agreement was amended on several occasions. Thus, the listings appeared as Philip Haxall and Company (I8X0-I832); R. B. Haxall & Company (I833-I84I and I849); Haxall Brothers and Company (I843- I848 and i850o); Haxall and Brother (I85I-I853); Haxall & Company (I854-I 858); and Haxall, Crenshaw and Company (beginning in I859).

IV As already suggested, the fourth period (I849-I86I) witnessed a tremen-

dous expansion in Richmond production, associated with deliveries to the California market. Average annual inspections increased more than I50

percent within a decade, and topped half a million barrels for the first time.54 Richmond's wheat-shed expanded considerably, thanks in good part to the railroads. Towards the end of the interval she was drawing grain from eastern Tennessee, western North Carolina, and northern Georgia, as well as the Virginia area.55 Incomplete trade figures show that the canal brought about 20,000 barrels of flour and 76,ooo bushels of wheat per quarter in I846-I848. Flour receipts tended to be fairly steady, but wheat went from 2,000 bushels in the second quarter to 2I5,000 in the third quarter of the year.56 Late in I855, on the other hand, Richmond reported incoming shipments of about 55,ooo barrels of flour and 631,000 bushels of wheat per quarter. Though the canal brought three-quarters of the flour, the railroads (Central, Danville, Petersburg, and Fredericksburg) accounted for 55 percent of the wheat. Only 25 percent of the latter then came in by canal, compared with 20 percent by other means ("landed in the dock").57

During the 'fifties the Gallego and Haxall firms assumed a position at or near the top rank of American flour producers. Gallego seems to have had a slight edge in total production; yet the two organizations probably lost the lead to each other from time to time. Both had long been interested in the southern hemisphere, particularly the Rio de Janeiro market. The

54In thousands of barrels, average annual inspections went from 200 in I844-I848 to 353 in i849-53 and 504 in 1854-i858 (Kuhlmann, Flour-milling Industry, p. 52).

55 Ibid., p. 72.

5G Richmond Daily Dispcrtch, January i, I847-October 5, I849. .5 Wheat traffic was heavy on the canal for a few weeks, then suddenly dropped practically to

zero (ibid., November 3-December 8, i855).




California gold discovery opened a new territory which was, in some respects, a logical extension of the old. Both establishments evidently made handsome profits, judging from the fact they continued to enlarge capacity as time went on.

The increase in capacity was in the general neighborhood of I00 percent, judging from a variety of information at hand. In the early 'fifties the realty of Columbia Mills rated above Gallego Mills. However, in I86o the latter was entered on the tax books at $I75,000, or $I5,000 more than the Haxall property. Of the two, Gallego Mills commonly reported many more slaves for taxes. Both showed a heavy increase in this department: taking them together, there were 78 working blacks in I85o and I36 ten years later. The combined total of horses and mules grew even more, going from thirteen in I846 to 40 in I850, and I I7 in I859. Such expansion - ninefold within thirteen years - poses the question how quadrupeds were employed in such numbers in the milling and cooperage operations.

The mill built by Warwick and Barksdale after the I848 fire was described in superlatives - the largest structure on the eastern seaboard, or the largest brick building in the United States. It was 94 by I64 feet in ground dimensions and stood I27 feet high, measured from the bottom of the wheels. It had 23 run of burrs, employed 8o persons, and could grind 5,500 bushels a day. The annual output was placed at I I0,000 to I40,000

barrels shortly after its completion.58 Nevertheless, the plant built in i 86o represented considerably further enlargement, twelve stories high, and containing 31 pairs of stones propelled by six huge wheels designed to use water twice over. The annual capacity was rated at i90,000 barrels.59

In I850 the Columbia Mills were somewhat smaller than Gallego, having 22 run of burrs, 65 employees, and an estimated annual output of some I00,000 barrels. Richard Barton Haxall and Bolling Walker Haxall were managing the firm at that time.'? Ten years later, the number of burrs was reported as the same, but the annual output was placed at I6o,ooo barrels, again somewhat below the figure assigned to Gallego Mills.61 The Haxall mill drew water from a wing dam. As suggested above, there were several

58One infers that the ratio of white to black workers was about three to five. In 1850 the firm was listed as Warwick and Barksdales, including R. J. Barksdale (Montague's Richmond Directory for 1850-51, p. I3).

5OMordecai, Virginia, Especially Richmond, in By-gone Days, pp. 328-330. See also Samuel M. Janney's description of Richmond, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Annual Report (I864), pp. I8-I9.

60 Montague's Richmond Directory, p. I3.

6lMordecai, Virginia, Especially Richmond, in By-gone Days, PP. 328-330. Janney, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Annual Report (I864), PP. I8-I 9.




changes in personnel. William H. Haxall was admitted to the firm in I855, and Lewis D. Crenshaw became a partner in I859. A younger Philip Haxall also joined the firm, at a later date.

The California boom of the i850's was undoubtedly a factor helping to promote the expansion of the larger operations recited above. The general prosperity of that decade was also accompanied by activity among smaller establishments. Mordecai reported four of the latter, two of which were at or near the original Rutherfoord-Cunningham location. These were Crenshaw's mill at Tredegar, slightly above the state armory, and a small mill fashioned from the boring mill in the armory itself. In addition, Taliaferro's and Bragg's mills had sprung up on the Manchester side of the river.6' The production potential of these concerns is not known with any degree of precision. However, it was probably in the neighborhood of 20 per cent of the total.

V The Gallego and Haxall firms both survived long after the cessation of

the California trade (I86o), continuing to favor markets in the southern hemisphere. The Civil War naturally presented difficult times. The Haxall- Crenshaw Company ceased construction on a large new mill near the eastern end of the property, the sturdy foundations of which are still very much in evidence. It carried on through the 'seventies and 'eighties but finally came to grief around I894, during an epoch comparable with the depressions of the early i820'S and i840's.63 The Gallego firm, evidently incorporated after the War, remained under the management of the Warwicks and Barksdales for many years. Destroyed in the evacuation fire of April 2/3, I865, the mills were rebuilt not long thereafter.64 They were

69 Mordecai, Virginia, Especilly Richmond, is By-gone Days, pp. 330-33I. Manchester did not become a serious rival until the 88o's. Mayo lad pioneered milling (and manufacturing) there earlier in the century, and water was channeled to and from the river by a long canal. For several years in the I840's the canal and mill sites were under town ownership and management. See, for instance, Charles S. Morgan's Richmond Map of I 848.

63A booklet in the library of the Virginia Historical Society advertised the Haxall-Crenshaw property for sale in I895 under the title: Something about Richmond, Va. It contains information about Richmond water power and reproduces a detailed land survey by E. T. D. Myers, Jr. From west to east, the bulk of the land then extended from the eastern side of I Ith Street to the same side of Virginia Street (Southern Railway Passenger Station). The northern boundary flanked Byrd Street and the old James River and Kanawha Canal (to the east of i2th Street); and the southem boundary was the river.

''4After a "court charter" of incorporation on March I3, i868, the Gallego Mills Manufacturing Company assumed the main properties of Warwick and Barksdale, then assessed at $2I3,000

(State Corporation Commission records; Richmond realty tax book, I869). The plant suffered heavy damage by fire again in 1903 (Christian, Richmond, p. 491).

Tle Haxall & Crenshaw assessment came to $I96,000 in I870. The mill was destroyed by fire in April 1874 (Richmond realty tax book; Richmond Whig, April 22, I874). It became the Haxall-Crenshaw Company by a court charter of April 6, 1876 (State Corporation Commission records).




owned by Warner, Moore and Company at the time they ceased production in I930. It appears that the firm lost its water rights in a legal battle with the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company.

The main building employed by Gallego Mills in their latter days now faces a small freight yard instead of a canal basin. One fancies that many of the bricks near the bottom of the walls have been in place over a century. The structure appears to have been used for grain storage, and is apparently vacant at the present time. As for the Columbia Mills, much of their acreage has been used for the manufacture of electric power since the foreclosure in the late nineteenth century. Of the two Virginia Electric and Power Company plants now on the site, one has recently been dismantled, and the other is used as a stand-by facility. The canal water still flows, but is used primarily for cooling rather than power. The office building and warehouse of the i 88o's still stands at the southeast corner of Byrd and i2th Streets, facing parking lots rather than the middle canal of the network installed early in the nineteenth century. The heavy stone foundations mentioned above are in place, and the whole tract is protected by a very solid stone river wall. One suspects that this wall follows a line not far from that originally chosen by David Ross in I789.

The Corporation Commission records also indicate that neither corporation named above was active in Io902. At least, both failed to respond to inquiries circulated by the Commission at the time of its formation.



Documents

The Rise of Flour Milling in Richmond Author(s): Thomas S. Berry …bordergroves.com/canal_lives/omeka/files/original/... · 2015-03-23 · The Rise of Flour Milling in Richmond 389