Hog Meat and Hoecake: Food Supply in the Old South, 1840-1860

7. The occasional diversion

7 The occasional diversion The traditional interpretation of the American farmstead is not unlike the theme of the children's song, "Old MacDonald's Farm." With "quacks," "gobbles," and "moos" everywhere, it supposedly contained animals sufficient to provide a variety of food for the needs of the farm family. Accordingly, diet in rural America has reflected this proliferation. From this menagerie a host of products have emerged to give us a number of succulent meat dishes. Thus, we have turkey for Thanksgiving, goosefor Christmas and, of course, chicken on Sunday. The typical antebellum southern operation may not have lived up to the "self-sufficient" ideal, but most kept a variety of fowls for eggs and meat and many also raised sheep and goats for their flesh. The importance of such animals to the overall southern meat diet is open to question. Onereason for this blank in our economic and alimentary picture of southern life is the overwhelming importance of pork which obscures the role of other meats. Another is the lack of data on the production of the minor animals. The agricultural censuses reported only sheep, leaving to us the task of speculating on the importance of the other animals such as goats and poultry. The South was by no means committed to growing sheep on a large scale or, for that matter, was any part of the nation. There was a substantial need for wool, and sheep were keptfor that purpose , but few American farmers ever looked upon sheep as a major food animal. On the other hand, they were by no means absent . Manyfarmers encouraged sheep husbandry and, during the colonial period, they were kept on many American farms. Of course, wool production was the major object of sheep growing during the early period and, after the mechanization of wool spinning and weaving, a sizable commercial market developed. After 141 HOG MEAT AND HOECAKE that, considerable attention was devoted to sheep husbandry and improvement, and some areas underwent a "sheep craze," as the industry was seen as an important agricultural activity to replace traditional crop agriculture. While this increased interest in wool growing and sheep improvement is worth tracing in itself, the primary emphasis for the moment is the use of sheep for food. Neither mutton nor lamb ever became a dietary mainstay of any large group of Americans prior to the Civil War, and southerners were no exception. However , the preference for pork and beef throughout the country and the particular emphasis placed upon pork in the South has tended to emphasize American preferences to the point where mutton and lamb have been overlooked as minor foods. Moreover, this preference for pork and beef probably stemmed from the greater availability of swine and cattle rather than any dislike of mutton. Knowing the propensity of the Englishman for sheep flesh, one wonders why (or if) English colonists lost their tastes for lamb and mutton so quickly.1 Sheep growing was primarily a northern occupation, the leading areas being New England, New York, and Ohio. Tennessee , Virginia, and Kentucky were the most significant producers among the southern states; the Deep South states relatively unimportant . The warm southern climate lessened the need for heavy clothing and this fact, along with the competition for land and labor from cotton, tended to retard the development of sheep husbandry . Many farmers and planters kept sheep, and there was a substantial production of wool. Yet, the output was intended for home use with comparatively little going into the commercial market. Even though the area was unimpressive in its sheep production during the antebellum period, it was not the poorest area in the country. The area showed 3,220,033 sheep in 1840 and 4,111 ,977m 1860. This amounted to about .64 animals per capita in 1840 and .84 in 1860 or approximately 58 sheep for every 100 head of cattle in 1840 and 64 per 100 head in 1860. Swine outnumbered sheep about 4 to i in both 1840 and 1860. The per capita figures compare quite well with the southern New England states but are well below those of the sheep-growing states such as Ohio and New York. Sheep were quite numerous in some areas, especially in Kentucky and Tennessee, and a large proportion of the farmers and planters kept them (figs. 20 and 21 ).2 142 The occasional diversion J43 20. SHEEP, 1840. Sheep husbandly differed little from...