Part 3

During an examination of the 1838 plow it occurred to me that there was no indication of an attachment of a handle on the landside in the same manner as on the furrow side. The position and attachment of the handle in figure 7 is clearly indicated by the remains of a wooden pin in the side of the plow beam near the rear end and by the large iron staple, in the side of the standard, which must have held the tapered lower end of the handle. Figure 8 is a sketch showing this handle in position. The landside view of this plow in figure 9 shows that the pin did not extend through the beam nor are there marks on the standard to indicate the position of a staple like that on the furrow side. The four holes approximately in line on the standard and beam show where a piece of sheet metal had been nailed to hold the beam and standard in about the right position. The outline of the sheet metal can be seen on the side of the beam. This was removed at the time this examination was made.

How was the landside handle attached? W. E. Bridges of the National Museum suggests that it might have been attached to the lower side of the standard and the rear end of the plow beam. This seems, beyond doubt, to be correct. The wood has deteriorated considerably over the years and the joints are loose, but, within the limits of the existing structure, the plow beam can easily be set in such a position that its sloping rear end lines up with the slope of the underside of the standard. Furthermore, a long bolt runs from the upper part of the moldboard through the standard and projects quite far beyond its lower surface, as can be seen in figure 7. The end of the bolt is threaded only part way and it has been necessary to put a cylindrical metal spacer on it in order to draw up the nut snugly. This long bolt must originally have passed through the lower end of the handle, which, in turn, was fastened to the end of the plow beam by a tenon on the end of the beam, now broken off, passing through a mortise in the handle. This was the common method of fastening the handle to the beam. The square hole in the plow's iron landside (fig. 7), which at first might seem meant for another bolt passing through the lower end of the handle at right angles to the long bolt, seems too close to the other bolt and to the edges of the handle. It may simply be a first try for the bolt through the bottom of the standard. In this manner the handle would have been strongly attached to the plow frame and, at the same time, would have materially helped to make it rigid by forming one side of a triangular structure. Figures 8 and 10 show what I believe to be the correct reconstruction of the 1838 Deere plow along the lines just described and, therefore, the probable appearance of the 1837 plow.

It should also be noted that it was general practice in making fixed moldboard plows to have the plow beam, standard, handle, and landside (or sharebeam, on the old plows) in the same plane. Symmetrical handles branching from both sides of the beam are found on cultivators, shovel plows, middle busters, and sidehill plows where the moldboard is turned alternately to each side.

IN SUMMARY--

The existing evidence, I believe, indicates that:

1. The successful prairie plow with a smooth one-piece moldboard and steel share was basically Deere's idea.

2. The moldboards of practically all of his plows, from 1837 and for about 15 years, were made of wrought iron rather than steel.

3. The success of his plows in the prairie soils depended on a steel share which held a sharp edge and a highly polished moldboard to which the sticky soils could not cling.

4. The importance attached to the steel share led to the plows being identified as steel plows.

5. The correct reconstruction of the 1838 plow, and, by inference, the 1837 plow, is shown in figures 8 and 10, previous reconstructions being wrong primarily in the position and attachment of the handles.

6. The Museum's John Deere plow (Cat. No. F1111), shown in figures 7 and 9, is a very early specimen, on the basis of a comparison of it with Deere moldboards of 1847 and 1855 and its conformity to Deere's description of his plows in an 1843 advertisement; and the 1838 date associated with it is plausible.

FOOTNOTES:

John Muir (1838-1914), The story of my boyhood and youth, Boston, 1913, pp. 227, 228.

R. L. Ardrey, American agricultural implements, Chicago, 1894, p. 14.

Ibid., p. 16.

J. B. Davidson, "Tillage machinery," in L. H. Bailey's Cyclopedia of American agriculture, New York, 1907, vol. 1, p. 389.

Leo Rogin, The introduction of farm machinery in its relation to the productivity of labor in the agriculture of the United States during the nineteenth century, Berkeley, 1931, p. 33.

U. S. National Museum records under accession 148904.

Neil M. Clark, John Deere, Moline, 1937, pp. 34, 35.

Stewart H. Holbrook, Machines of plenty, New York, 1955, pp. 178, 179. To an inquiry by this author, Mr. Holbrook replied that most if not all of the material about Andrus came from the files of the J. I. Case Company.

Photographic copies of partnership agreements between Andrus, Deere, and others are in U. S. National Museum records under accession 148904.

Ibid.

Ibid.

Letter from Burton F. Peek to M. L. Putnam, December 18, 1957, in U. S. National Museum records under accession 148904.

Clark, op. cit. (footnote 7), p. 34.

E. H. Knight, American mechanical dictionary, Boston, 1884, vol. 3, p. 2033.

Henry Disston & Sons, Price list, Philadelphia, 1897, p. 28.

Ardrey, op. cit. (footnote 2), p. 166.