Tweet
Re: Crops, 1857-1864
Em, with full respect for what you are saying and all your excellent research, I will have to stand by what I have found. I don't know why your sources are what they are in this case. I am going to save this as a classic example of not taking primary sources too much to heart without thoughtful analysis.
We will really have to look at the cherry issue some more to arrive at an analysis, but I suspect hypothesis #1 is at work here: People (who were mainly pretty new to Texas and unfamiliar with growing conditions) might have liked to think that they could grow cherries in San Antonio, and might have snapped up all 100 of M. Mareschal's cherry starts! Or perhaps they even WERE being grown as shade trees, I don't know. People grow orange trees and bananas here and all sorts of things that they will never get fruit off of! There is some rational explanation for your source. But I would have issues with it when we start reenacting a bunch of 1860 San Antonians sitting around eating cherries (even an authentic mid-19th c. variety!) as a result of someone finding that source! Texas A & M with all its brilliance I don't think has yet been able to breed a variety of cherry that is going to produce anywhere in Texas? If they have, someone let me know what variety and where it is grown. Certainly not in South Texas. Like I said, a few NEW varieties of apples are NOW grown in the hill country and elsewhere, but still cannot produce in south Texas. Yes, I am staying on my limb until further evidence turns up.
The pigs were, I would think, perhaps 'not a product' in the sense that they had already gone feral by that time, and that might account for skewed agricultural records. They are being produced "under the radar." This area where I live is mainly ranch land, only cattle raised as food animals. But the woods are still pretty thick with feral hogs and boars that date from that period. Much of Texas is like that, too. A century and a half of diligent hunting has not eliminated this wild pig population. Yes, they are pretty good eating. We know the staple meat item of the "quintessential Texan diet" during that period was leaning heavily toward pork, though certainly not exclusively. Of course quite a few people still hunted for meat and were eating venison, etc., also chickens and other animals, so I wouldn't want to overstate the pig thing. But cattle ranching was still in its infancy and did not really take off as a major sector of the Texas economy until after the war. Traveler's accounts and diaries seem to be pretty clear: Food is flavored with pork, cooked in lard, etc. over much of Texas. Unfortunately I haven't found a report of someone sitting down to a nice juicy beefsteak yet! Try Olmstead's _Journey Through Texas_ although he does have a way of overstating things like the ubiquitousness of pork.
Originally posted by Emmanuel Dabney
View Post
We will really have to look at the cherry issue some more to arrive at an analysis, but I suspect hypothesis #1 is at work here: People (who were mainly pretty new to Texas and unfamiliar with growing conditions) might have liked to think that they could grow cherries in San Antonio, and might have snapped up all 100 of M. Mareschal's cherry starts! Or perhaps they even WERE being grown as shade trees, I don't know. People grow orange trees and bananas here and all sorts of things that they will never get fruit off of! There is some rational explanation for your source. But I would have issues with it when we start reenacting a bunch of 1860 San Antonians sitting around eating cherries (even an authentic mid-19th c. variety!) as a result of someone finding that source! Texas A & M with all its brilliance I don't think has yet been able to breed a variety of cherry that is going to produce anywhere in Texas? If they have, someone let me know what variety and where it is grown. Certainly not in South Texas. Like I said, a few NEW varieties of apples are NOW grown in the hill country and elsewhere, but still cannot produce in south Texas. Yes, I am staying on my limb until further evidence turns up.
The pigs were, I would think, perhaps 'not a product' in the sense that they had already gone feral by that time, and that might account for skewed agricultural records. They are being produced "under the radar." This area where I live is mainly ranch land, only cattle raised as food animals. But the woods are still pretty thick with feral hogs and boars that date from that period. Much of Texas is like that, too. A century and a half of diligent hunting has not eliminated this wild pig population. Yes, they are pretty good eating. We know the staple meat item of the "quintessential Texan diet" during that period was leaning heavily toward pork, though certainly not exclusively. Of course quite a few people still hunted for meat and were eating venison, etc., also chickens and other animals, so I wouldn't want to overstate the pig thing. But cattle ranching was still in its infancy and did not really take off as a major sector of the Texas economy until after the war. Traveler's accounts and diaries seem to be pretty clear: Food is flavored with pork, cooked in lard, etc. over much of Texas. Unfortunately I haven't found a report of someone sitting down to a nice juicy beefsteak yet! Try Olmstead's _Journey Through Texas_ although he does have a way of overstating things like the ubiquitousness of pork.
Comment