portsmouthhistorynotes

“Gentleman’s Farms” have long been a part of Portsmouth farm history. Greenvale Farm has been in the same family since the 1860s.  John S. Barstow, a China-trade merchant from Boston, created a “gentleman’s farm” on fifty-three acres of land on the shore of the Sakonnet River.  Greenvale was Barstow’s country retreat and he constructed a large main house and stable designed by Boston architect John Sturgis.  Barstow followed a pattern for a gentleman’s farm from the agricultural literature of the day (Country Life by Robert Morris Copeland – published 1859).  This volume is among the “Greenvale Library” collection that was given to Redwood Library by an heir to Barstow.

In his introduction, Copeland wrote: “I shall confine myself to the wants of men with small fortunes, as our country must always be principally inhabited by this class.”  Copeland sees these as men who have retired from active business so they need to have an occupation so to avoid the “evil of mental inactivity.”

Copeland goes on to describe a pattern for such a farm.  He sees the ideal farm as 60 acres of which 20 are farm. three acres are kitchen garden, 11 acres are for orchards of pears, peaches, cherries, plums, quinces, apricots, nectarines, apples and nuts.  Six acres are occupied by barns, stables, greenhouses, a grape house, hotbeds and nurseries as well as a dwelling house.  Land is set aside for a flower garden as well.  The rest is lawn, woods, ponds and roads.

The author organizes the book around an agricultural calendar that somehow starts with September when planning begins for the next growing year.

Gentleman Farms existed in Portsmouth during colonial days when Newport merchants (Metcalf Bowler, Aaron Lopes, etc.) had their country estate.  After Barstow’s day the tradition continued with the Taylor’s Glen Farm and Sandy Point and Oakland Farm with the Vanderbilts. You can visit Greenvale today.  It is located off Wapping Road and descendants of Barstow operate it as a vineyard.

What happened to Portsmouth farms and farmers after the British occupation? A line from town hall meeting records states the post Revolutionary War situation succinctly:

“On Sunday ye 8th Day of December A.D. 1776 about Eight Thousand of British Troops took possession of this island and Remained on until Monday the 25 Day of October A.D. 1779, for which time the inhabitants were greatly oppressed.”

“The inhabitants were greatly oppressed.” Farmers were left without their livestock, without their hunting guns, without their farm tools, without their carts and wagons, without their fencing, and in many cases without their homes. Firewood was scarce since the British had chopped down just about every tree on the island, so the farmers felt the cold winter without fuel for heating or cooking.

Farmers may have had their land, but many had not been able work their land.  During the occupation they had been impressed by the British to labor on fortifications, etc. The occupation had taken its toll and right after the Revolution, Portsmouth farmers needed to focus on their own interests.

To make good their losses, Portsmouth families petitioned the state for compensation for the damages suffered during the War. Among the documents in the collection of the Portsmouth Historical Society is such an inventory of losses dated around 1780. Robert Binney (Benney) and Elizabeth Heffernan were “in laws” who shared a home and a 26-acre farm just north of the Quaker Meeting House.  The household inventory that they prepared can give an idea of what Portsmouth residents lost in the War. Among the items destroyed were five acres of orchards, a mare and 5 hogs. They lost their corn crib, four acres of corn, 12 loads of hay, twelve goats, two cows and one calf, a jackass and a ox cart among other household items.

In 1779, when the town meetings began again, Portsmouth citizens sent a message to the Rhode Island General Assembly asking that their taxes should be lowered because the town was in a “Distressed Situation.” Unfortunately the state still wanted its taxes and in May of 1781 threatened to confiscate the property of those who did not pay even though they had supported the war and suffered from the hardships of occupation. Portsmouth people were so concerned about their local issues, that it was hard for them to sacrifice anything more for the state or national government.  The citizens preferred the more decentralized Articles of Confederation to the new Constitution that was proposed.  Portsmouth Freemen voted twelve to sixty to not adopt the Constitution in a vote held May 24th, 1788.  Portsmouth military leaders Cook Wilcox, David Gifford and Burrington Anthony were among those who voted against adoption of the Constitution.  As an agricultural community, Portsmouth people were concerned about war debt repayment and “paper money” issues as well as waiting for the adoption of the Bill Of Rights.  Portsmouth townspeople began to favor the new constitution when it seemed that the national government would start putting heavy fines on Rhode Island trade with other states.  That would not be in the best interest of the Portsmouth farmers.  Portsmouth voted for the Constitution and Rhode Island finally became the thirteenth state in 1790.

The 1790 census showed a thousand, five hundred and sixty residents – 243 families and 19 slaves. By the early 1800s dairy and grain farms were more important.  Sheep raising became less important than it had been in early years.  The occupation and post war concerns had changed the lot of the Portsmouth farmer.

Resources:  Localism in Portsmouth and Foster during the Revolutionary and Founding Periods  by WILLIAM M. FERRARO.  Rhode Island Historical Society, August 1996.

Hidden among the papers of Sir Henry Clinton, the British Commander during the American Revolutionary War, was the story of a well known Portsmouth farmer and Newport merchant who played the role of spy.  The spy was none other than Metcalfe Bowler whose farm was on Wapping Road.  Metcalf Bowler did an excellent job of hiding his spy activities.  He was an important man in the Rhode Island Colonial government.  When Rhode Island decided to become independent from Great Britain, Bowler was one of the men who signed the document that would be sent to the king.

Bowler’s spying activities might have gone unnoticed, but a librarian who was going through Clinton’s papers in the 1920s noticed letters signed by “Rusticus”.  He had begged Clinton not to disclose his name to anyone. The librarian, Jane Clark, came across another letter in the same handwriting as “Rusticus”, but this one was signed by Metcalf Bowler. Handwriting analysis confirmed that “Rusticus” and Bowler were one.  Among the letters was one dated Dec 12, 1776 from Portsmouth.  Bowler (as Rusticus ) claims that even though he has accepted government positions (such as Chief Judge) in the American side of the war, he is still acting loyally to the British king.  He begs for protection for his home in Portsmouth.  “As the Hessian troops quartered on the island ..having committed many outrages..on many of the inhabitants by entering their Houses and ..even putting them in fear of their lives – as I am situated on the Island, should esteem it a favor ..if your excellency would order a guard to my habitation (house) at Portsmouth that I may be protected from the insults of the Hessians.”  This letter may give a clue to why Bowler would work as a spy.  He wanted his home protected.

Unfortunately Bowler’s farm was damaged just as much as the surrounding farms.  His letter provides a first hand report of the damage done to Portsmouth farms during the occupation by British troops.  There was great fear of the Hessian troops that were camped in Portsmouth.  In a later letter he wants money for the damage to his property.  His home and garden in Newport were used as a British hospital. His Portsmouth farm was damaged, his cow was taken to feed the soldiers, his library books were stolen and his cart and horses were taken away.  They were not able to grow any crops during the time the British held the island.  “I shall not be able to support my self and family on the Island through the approaching dismal winter.”  He asks the British for protection for himself, his family and his black servant.

Bowler suggests in a letter dated September 15, 1778 that he would be willing to leave his home in Portsmouth to British control and move to Providence where he could become a member of the Council of War, a Representative in the General Assembly or even become a delegate to the Congress. Of course, Bowler would like to be paid for his efforts and for the damage done to his property.  Bowler did move to Providence, but he ended up as a shop keeper instead of an important member of government.

In his letters, Bowler as Rusticus, provides some information about what is going on in the Rhode Island Colony. His letters tell of how the French fleet is expected in June.  He lists the American troops in the area – Glover’s Brigade of about 1000, Cornell’s brigade and Varnum’s Brigade which are small, Sherburne’s brigade in Bristol and he even writes about the Black Corps who are stationed at Warwick.  In a letter dated July 13, 1779, Bowler suggests that the colony is very weak and defenseless.  He suggests that this is a good time to battle the Rhode Islanders since the local farmers are at harvest and would not be willing to come to the aid of the American troops.  He asks the British to send him some goods to sell such as black and tailored ribbons, green show findings, black handkerchiefs, colored threads and buckles.  He asks for a lined coat to wear for the Winter season to pick up information. Whether Bowler’s information was helpful is not known, but Bowler himself found himself a poor man after the War for Independence.  Like so many people in Portsmouth, his land and possessions were ruined by the British troops.

Ironically Bowler thought of himself as a expert on farming and even sent the American President – George Washington – a copy of his book on agriculture.  Little did Washington know that he was receiving a book from a spy.  Washington’s copy of the book was found in his library and there is a record of Washington’s response back to Bowler.  Washington wrote that agriculture was very important to establishing the new country’s role in the world.  The book title was:

A treatise on agriculture and practical husbandry. : Designed for the information of landowners and farmers. : With a brief account of the advantages arising from the new method of culture practised in Europe., By Metcalf Bowler, Esq. 

It was published in Providence in 1786.  It was an 80+ page booklet aimed at landowners and farmers.  Bowler stated that he wrote the book to provide farmers with a way to keep their land in a state of constant fertility.  Among the topics were discussions of appropriate fertilizers and descriptions of planting methods.  He has an interesting section on the very American  “Indian Corn” which he believes is “one of the most profitable vegetables that is raised on this continent.”

Metcalf Bowler fancied himself a “gentleman farmer” much in the tradition of others  – such as Barstow of Greenvale and Shepherd Tom Hazard – whose farms would be nearby Bowler’s property.  He thought of himself as a farmer engaged in “experimental philosophy” which would improve agriculture with knowledge of facts.  This reminds me of the cutting edge breeding methods of the Taylor family on Glen Farm.  Bowler really does fit into the Portsmouth gentleman farmer tradition.

(Read another story about Metcalf Bowler in the Myth of the origins of the Rhode Island Greening Apple. )

More information can be found in:

Kidnapping the Enemy: The Special Operations to Capture Generals Charles Lee and Richard Prescott, McBurney

Metcalf Bowler as a British Spy. Rhode Island Historical Society,  Jane Clark, 1930.

During the occupation, many of Portsmouth’s farms were damaged. The occupation was harsh and civilians were killed and injured. Not even children were safe. In 1776 a fourteen-year-old boy, Darius Chase, was killed when the British destroyed his family farm. He made the mistake of trying to save his shotgun. British soldiers were quartered in farmhouses throughout the island. Families were allowed to leave the island with some of their possessions, but many who had property to defend stayed and endured the hardships. Portsmouth lost only about ten percent of its population during this time. The cattle and sheep had been ordered off the island so they couldn’t be taken by the enemy for food.

The Portsmouth landscape was beautiful before the occupation. British officer Frederick Mackenzie was quartered there, and his December 16th journal entry described the beauty of the local area, even in winter.

“There is a hill about 7 miles from Newport, and on the Eastern side of this Island called Quaker Hill, from there being a Quaker meeting-house on it, from whence there is a very fine view of all the N. part of the Island, and the beautiful bays and inlets, with the distant view of towns, farms, and cultivated lands intermixed with woods, together with the many views of the adjacent waters, contribute to make this, even at this bleak season of the year, the finest, most diversified, and extensive prospect I have seen in America.”

This beauty did not last. Wood was the major source of fuel at the time, and it became difficult to provide enough wood from the mainland to supply both the local residents and the occupying troops. The British and Hessians chopped down most of the trees on Aquidneck Island and burned many houses. The fuel shortage was so severe that they regularly sent men in transports to Long Island to cut wood for Rhode Island. Mackenzie records that the citizens were given an opportunity to help feed themselves. They could keep one gun to hunt birds and they could keep a boat for fishing. During most of the occupation the British were particularly careful not to damage the mills on the island that ground corn.  The British ordered all Portsmouth men to work three days a week on the defensive works for the village.

As Portsmouth was celebrating its 375th birthday in 2013, I was working on a booklet of historical locations in town.  I began to notice that everywhere I went to photograph these sites from our history, I found a stone wall.  I know that through the years these walls can be moved or rebuilt, but vintage maps show that many of these walls have been in place for a hundred years or more.  I began to wonder what stories the walls could tell us about the history of the sites if they had a voice.

There was a time when there were no walls here.  Oh the rocks were there, buried deep in the soil.  Ancient glaciers moved across Aquidneck Island and left behind the stones: gray-green slate, shale that breaks apart, puddingstone with pebbles cemented together, white quartz and granite.

The native people who used our island for hunting and planting may have unearthed rocks and pushed them out of the way of planting, but they were not constructing walls.  Early settlers and colonial farmers began to use the stones they dug out while clearing the land in walls that marked boundaries.  Another use was to hold animals in a pen or prevent pests from getting into the plantings.

Portsmouth stone walls are special.  If you notice the walls across the way in Bristol, Tiverton or South County you will see more rounded rocks.  Our walls are flatter and fit into patterns more easily.  Many of us have these walls in our backyards.  Some are rough farmer walls that are loosely stacked, but other walls are remarkable finished walls – capstone and all.  The walls give a special character to our town and should be preserved, protected and rebuilt when possible.

Rebecca Cornell, a 73 year old widow, lived in her 100-acre home in Portsmouth with her son Thomas; his second wife Sarah; their two daughters; his four sons from his first marriage; a male lodger and a male servant. Late afternoon on Feb 8, 1673, Thomas arrived home to find his mother feeling ill. Family members kept her company; Thomas talked with her for ninety minutes, but left at 7:00 p.m. to wind a “Quill of Yarn” before supper. Rebecca didn’t join the family supper because she didn’t want the “salt-mackrill” meal. About 45 minutes later grandson Edward went to her room to ask her if she wanted something else to eat. Seeing flames, he ran out to get a candle. Meanwhile, everyone ran into Rebecca’s room, where she was burned beyond recognition. Two nights later Rebecca’s ghost paid a surprise visit to her brother, John Briggs, a 64-year old grandfather. He reported that on seeing the shape of a woman by his bedside, he “cryed out, in the name of God what art thou…” The apparition replied, “I am your sister Cornell, and Twice sayd, see how I was Burnt with fire.” A later autopsy showed “A Suspitious wound on her in the upper-most part of the Stomake.” Circumstantial evidence was stacked against Thomas. There were bad feelings between mother and son because she’d given him her estate but he had to divide 100 pounds among his siblings and he had to care for his mother. His temper, which Rebecca told people she feared, didn’t help. There was also tension between Rebecca and daughter-in-law Sarah. Thomas had motive to murder. He also had access to a purported murder weapon, “sume instrumen licke or the iron spyndell of a spinning whelle.” And he was the last person to see Rebecca alive. Thomas Cornell, 46, was hung for her “murder” on May 23, 1673. Who were the other suspects, if it was murder? Two doors gave access to Rebecca’s downstairs bedroom. Unrest existed between Europeans settlers and the Indians. An Indian named Wickhopash (a.k.a. Harry) had a motive for the crime. He’d been on “the losing end of criminal action for grand larceny brought by Thomas in June 1671” and had received a punishment. Often Indian revenge was taken out by attacking lone female family members, and arson was their tactic. In 1674 he was tried and acquitted for the killing. In 1675 Thomas’s younger brother, William, presented persuasive evidence that Sarah had a role in Rebecca’s death. She was burdened with “catering to her demanding mother-in-law,” and she had a violent streak. She too was acquitted. The theory of accidental death also remains. Rebecca might have tried making her own fire, caught herself on fire, fallen and dragged herself away from the hearth. She’d also confided in her daughter Rebecca that she’d considered suicide three times. So whodunit? Was it murder? An accident? Or suicide? Sarah birthed Thomas’s last child, a daughter she named Innocent, after his hanging. Sources: Crane, Elaine F. Killed Strangely: The death of Rebeka Cornell. Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Press, 2002