This is a modern-English version of John Deere's Steel Plow, originally written by Kendall, Edward C..
It has been thoroughly updated, including changes to sentence structure, words, spelling,
and grammar—to ensure clarity for contemporary readers, while preserving the original spirit and nuance. If
you click on a paragraph, you will see the original text that we modified, and you can toggle between the two versions.
Scroll to the bottom of this page and you will find a free ePUB download link for this book.
Support from
The Museum of History and Technology:
Paper 2
John Deere's Steel Plow
Edward C. Kendall
Edward C. Kendall
DEERE AND ANDRUS 17
THE FIRST PLOW 19
STEEL OR IRON 21
WHY A STEEL PLOW 23
RECONSTRUCTIONS 24
IN SUMMARY— 25
DEERE AND ANDRUS __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__
THE FIRST PLOW __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__
Steel or Iron __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__
WHY A STEEL PLOW __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__
RECONSTRUCTIONS __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__
IN SUMMARY— __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__
JOHN DEERE'S STEEL PLOW
John Deere in 1837 invented a plow that could be used successfully in the sticky, root-filled soil of the prairie. It was called a steel plow. Actually, it appears that only the cutting edge, the share, on the first Deere plows was steel. The moldboard was smoothly ground wrought iron.
In 1837, John Deere invented a plow that was effective in the sticky, root-filled soil of the prairie. It was known as a steel plow. In fact, it seems that only the cutting edge, or share, of the first Deere plows was made of steel. The moldboard was made of smoothly ground wrought iron.
Deere's invention succeeded because, as the durable steel share of the plow cut through the heavy earth, the sticky soil could find no place to cling on its polished surfaces.
Deere's invention worked well because, as the durable steel blade of the plow sliced through the tough soil, the sticky dirt had no way to stick to its smooth surfaces.
Americans moving westward in the beginning of the 19th century soon encountered the prairie lands of what we now call the Middle West. The dark fertile soils promised great rewards to the farmers settling in these regions, but also posed certain problems. First was the breaking of the tough prairie sod. The naturalist John Muir describes the conditions facing prairie farmers when he was a boy in the early 1850's as he tells of the use of the big prairie-breaking plows in the following words:[1]
Americans migrating west in the early 19th century soon came across the prairies of what we now know as the Midwest. The dark, fertile soil promised great rewards for the farmers settling in these areas, but it also brought certain challenges. The first was breaking the tough prairie sod. The naturalist John Muir describes the conditions prairie farmers faced when he was a boy in the early 1850s, recounting the use of large prairie-breaking plows with these words:[1]
They were used only for the first ploughing, in breaking up the wild sod woven into a tough mass, chiefly by the cord-like roots of perennial grasses, reinforced by the tap roots of oak and hickory bushes, called "grubs," some of which were more than a century old and four or five inches in diameter.... If in good trim, the plough cut through and turned over these grubs as if the century-old wood were soft like the flesh of carrots and turnips; but if not in good trim the grubs promptly tossed the plough out of the ground.
They were only used for the initial plowing, breaking up the hard-packed wild soil that was largely held together by the fibrous roots of perennial grasses, supported by the deep roots of oak and hickory bushes, known as "grubs," some of which were over a hundred years old and four or five inches in diameter.... If everything was working well, the plow cut through and turned these grubs as if the centuries-old wood were soft like carrots and turnips; but if it wasn't working well, the grubs quickly knocked the plow out of the ground.
The second and greater problem was that the richer lands of the prairie bottoms, after a few years of continuous cultivation, became so sticky that they clogged the moldboards of the plows. Clogging was such a factor in prairie plowing that farmers in these regions carried a wooden paddle solely for cleaning off the moldboard, a task which had to be repeated so frequently that it seriously interfered with plowing efficiency. It seems probable that by the 1830's blacksmiths in the prairie country were beginning to solve the problem of continuous cultivation of sticky prairie soil by nailing strips of saw steel to the face of wooden moldboard of the traditional plows. Figure 1 is a photograph of an 18th century New England plow in the collection of the U. S. National Museum. This is one type of plow which was brought west by the settlers. It contributed to the development of the prairie breaker shown in figure 2. The first plow on record with strips of steel on the moldboard is attributed to John Lane in Chicago in 1833.[2] Steel presented a smoother surface which shed the sticky loam better than the conventional wooden moldboards covered with wrought iron, or the cast iron moldboards of the newer factory-made plows then coming into use.
The second and bigger problem was that the richer soil of the prairie bottoms, after a few years of constant farming, became so sticky that it clogged the moldboards of the plows. Clogging was such a significant issue in prairie farming that farmers in these areas carried a wooden paddle just for cleaning off the moldboard, a task that had to be done so often that it seriously disrupted plowing efficiency. By the 1830s, it seems likely that blacksmiths in the prairie region were starting to tackle the problem of continuously farming sticky prairie soil by nailing strips of saw steel to the face of the wooden moldboards of the traditional plows. Figure 1 is a photograph of an 18th-century New England plow in the collection of the U.S. National Museum. This is one type of plow that was brought west by the settlers. It helped lead to the development of the prairie breaker shown in figure 2. The first documented plow with steel strips on the moldboard is credited to John Lane in Chicago in 1833.[2] Steel provided a smoother surface that released the sticky loam more effectively than the traditional wooden moldboards covered with wrought iron or the cast iron moldboards of the newer factory-made plows that were starting to be used.
It is generally accepted as historical fact that John Deere made his first steel plow in 1837 at Grand Detour, Illinois. The details of the construction of[Pg 17] this plow have been variously given by different writers. Ardrey[3] and Davidson[4] describe Deere's original plow as having a wooden moldboard covered with strips of steel cut from a saw, in the manner of the John Lane plow.
It’s widely recognized that John Deere created his first steel plow in 1837 in Grand Detour, Illinois. Different writers have provided varying details about how this plow was made. Ardrey[3] and Davidson[4] describe Deere's original plow as featuring a wooden moldboard that was covered with strips of steel cut from a saw, similar to the design of the John Lane plow.
In recent years the 1837 Deere plow has been pictured quite differently. This has apparently come about as the result of the discovery of an old plow identified as one made by John Deere at Grand Detour in 1838 and sold to Joseph Brierton from whose farm it was obtained in 1901 by the maker's son, Charles H. Deere. He brought it to the office of Deere & Company at Moline, Illinois, for preservation and display. This plow is shown in figures 7 and 9. In 1938 Deere & Company presented it to the U. S. National Museum, where it is on display. It can be seen that the moldboard is made of one curved diamond-shaped metal slab. This plow bottom conforms to the description of the "diamond" plows manufactured by Deere in the 1840's.[5] The Company states that according to its records, this was one of three plows made by Deere in 1838 and that it was probably substantially identical with the first one made in 1837.[6] It may be difficult to prove that the Museum's specimen was made in 1838, but a comparison of this plow (fig. 7) with the 1847 moldboard (fig. 5) and the 1855 plow (fig. 6) suggests that the Museum's plow is the earliest of the three, since there is particularly evident an evolution of the shape of the moldboard from a simple, almost crude form to a more sophisticated shape.
In recent years, the 1837 Deere plow has been portrayed quite differently. This change appears to have resulted from the discovery of an old plow identified as one made by John Deere in Grand Detour in 1838, which was sold to Joseph Brierton. This plow was obtained from Brierton's farm in 1901 by the maker's son, Charles H. Deere, who brought it to the Deere & Company office in Moline, Illinois, for preservation and display. This plow is shown in figures 7 and 9. In 1938, Deere & Company presented it to the U.S. National Museum, where it is currently on display. It can be seen that the moldboard is made from one curved, diamond-shaped metal slab. This plow bottom matches the description of the "diamond" plows produced by Deere in the 1840s.[5] The Company states that, according to its records, this was one of three plows made by Deere in 1838, and it was likely very similar to the first one made in 1837.[6] It might be challenging to prove that the Museum's plow was made in 1838, but comparing this plow (fig. 7) with the 1847 moldboard (fig. 5) and the 1855 plow (fig. 6) suggests that the Museum's plow is the earliest of the three, as there is a clear evolution in the shape of the moldboard from a simple, almost crude form to a more refined shape.
Figure 1.—New England Strong Plow, Mid-18th Century. Colter locked into heavy, broad share; wooden moldboard covered with iron strips. (Cat. no. F1091; Smithsonian photo 13214.)
Figure 1.—New England Strong Plow, Mid-1700s. The colter is secured to a heavy, wide share; the wooden moldboard is reinforced with iron strips. (Cat. no. F1091; Smithsonian photo 13214.)
DEERE AND ANDRUS
Writers of the 20th century describing the making of the first John Deere steel plow have in mind the 1838 plow. One[7] has John Deere pondering the local plowing problem and getting an idea from the polished surface of a broken steel mill saw. Another[8] claims that Leonard Andrus, the founder and leading figure of Grand Detour and part owner of the sawmill,[Pg 18] conceived the design of the plow and employed Deere, the blacksmith newly arrived from Vermont, to build it. This idea may have originated with and was certainly promoted by the late Fred A. Wirt, as advertising manager of the J. I. Case Company. It is difficult, at this distance, to determine the parts played at the beginning by Deere and Andrus.
Writers from the 20th century discussing the creation of the first John Deere steel plow are referring to the plow made in 1838. One[7] describes John Deere thinking about the local plowing issues and getting inspiration from the smooth surface of a broken steel mill saw. Another[8] asserts that Leonard Andrus, the founder and key figure of Grand Detour and a part owner of the sawmill,[Pg 18] came up with the plow's design and hired Deere, a blacksmith who had just arrived from Vermont, to build it. This notion may have started with, and was definitely promoted by, the late Fred A. Wirt, who was the advertising manager for the J. I. Case Company. It’s tough, from this distance, to figure out the roles that Deere and Andrus played at the start.
Figure 2.—Large Prairie-Breaking Plow, Mid-19th Century. Wheels underneath the beam regulate the depth of plowing; large wheel runs in the furrow, small wheel on the land. The colter is braced at the bottom as well as at the top. The share cuts a broad, shallow strip of sod which the long, gently curving moldboard turns over unbroken.
Figure 2.—Big Prairie-Breaking Plow, Mid-1800s. Wheels under the beam adjust the plowing depth; the large wheel moves in the furrow, while the small wheel is on the land side. The colter is supported at both the bottom and the top. The share cuts a wide, shallow strip of sod, which the long, gently curved moldboard flips over intact.
The earliest existing partnership agreement involving Andrus and Deere is dated March 20, 1843.[9] The existing copy is unsigned, but its conditions are the same as those in the agreements executed during the next few years. It began by stating that Deere and Andrus had agreed "to become copartners together in the art and trade of Blacksmithing, ploughmaking and all things thereto belonging at the said Grand Detour, and all other business that the said parties may hereafter deem necessary for their mutual interest and benefit ..." One of the terms was that the copartnership should continue from the date of the agreement "under the name and firm of Leonard Andrus."
The earliest existing partnership agreement involving Andrus and Deere is dated March 20, 1843.[9] The existing copy isn't signed, but its terms match those in the agreements made in the following years. It started by stating that Deere and Andrus had agreed "to become partners in the art and trade of blacksmithing, plow-making, and everything related to it at the said Grand Detour, and any other business that the parties may later consider necessary for their mutual interest and benefit ..." One of the terms was that the partnership would continue from the date of the agreement "under the name and firm of Leonard Andrus."
A second agreement dated October 26, 1844,[10] which brought in a third partner, Horace Paine, described the business as "the art and trade of Blacksmithing Plough Making Iron Castings and all things thereto belonging ..." and stated that the copartnership should be conducted "under the name and firm of L. Andrus and Co." The third agreement, dated October 20, 1846, in which another man appeared in place of Paine, gave the name of the firm as Andrus, Deere, and Lathrop.[11] This carried an addendum dated June 22, 1847, in which Andrus and Deere bought out Lathrop's interest in the business and agreed to continue under the name of Andrus and Deere. This is the only mention of the firm of Andrus and Deere. It could only have lasted a few months because it was in 1847 that Deere moved to Moline and established his plow factory there.
A second agreement dated October 26, 1844,[10] which added a third partner, Horace Paine, described the business as "the art and trade of blacksmithing, plow making, iron castings, and everything related..." and stated that the partnership would operate "under the name and firm of L. Andrus and Co." The third agreement, dated October 20, 1846, which included another person instead of Paine, named the firm Andrus, Deere, and Lathrop.[11] This was followed by an addendum dated June 22, 1847, in which Andrus and Deere bought out Lathrop's share in the business and agreed to continue under the name of Andrus and Deere. This is the only mention of the firm Andrus and Deere. It could have only lasted a few months because in 1847, Deere moved to Moline and set up his plow factory there.
Figure 3.—Reconstructions of John Deere's 1837 Plow. For a discussion of the position and attachment of the handles see p. 24. (Deere & Company photo.)
Figure 3.—Recreations of John Deere's 1837 Plow. For a discussion on the placement and attachment of the handles, see p. 24. (Deere & Company photo.)
These agreements suggest that Leonard Andrus was the capitalist of the young community of Grand Detour, as well as its founder. The dominance of the name Andrus tends to back up the opinion which holds that Andrus was the leading figure in the development of the successful prairie plow. On the other hand, the general tone of the agreements suggests that two or more people were participating in an enterprise in which each contributed to the business and shared in the results. Deere contributed his plow and his blacksmith shop, tools, and outbuildings;[Pg 19] Andrus contributed money and business experience. There is no indication that they were formally associated prior to the agreement of March 20, 1843. An advertisement (it is quoted later) dated February 3, 1843, and appearing in the March 10, 1843, issue of the Rock River Register, carries an announcement by John Deere that he is ready to fill orders for plows, which he then describes. There is no mention of Andrus or of an Andrus and Deere firm. I am inclined by the evidence to the view that Deere worked out his plow by himself, began to manufacture it in small numbers, needed money to enlarge and expand his operations, and went to the logical source of capital in the community, Leonard Andrus.
These agreements suggest that Leonard Andrus was the capitalist of the young community of Grand Detour and its founder. The prominence of the name Andrus supports the view that he was the key figure in the development of the successful prairie plow. However, the overall tone of the agreements indicates that two or more people were involved in a venture where each contributed to the business and shared in the results. Deere provided his plow along with his blacksmith shop, tools, and outbuildings;[Pg 19] Andrus brought in money and business experience. There’s no indication that they had a formal partnership before the agreement of March 20, 1843. An advertisement (quoted later) dated February 3, 1843, appearing in the March 10, 1843 issue of the Rock River Register, features an announcement by John Deere stating that he's ready to fill orders for plows, which he then describes. There’s no mention of Andrus or a partnership between Andrus and Deere. Based on the evidence, I believe that Deere developed his plow independently, began manufacturing it in small quantities, needed funds to grow his operations, and approached the logical source of capital in the community, Leonard Andrus.
In support of this view I quote a statement by Mr. Burton F. Peek[12] who has spent most of his life in Deere & Company and who may now be the only person living who knew John Deere:
In support of this view, I quote a statement from Mr. Burton F. Peek[12] who has spent most of his life at Deere & Company and who may now be the only person alive who knew John Deere:
Andrus removed to Grand de Tour from some place in New York [Rochester, though originally from Vermont]. Some years later John Deere came along from Rutland, Vermont leaving his family behind him. Whether Deere ever heard of Andrus or Andrus of Deere no one knows.
Andrus moved to Grand de Tour from somewhere in New York [Rochester, but originally from Vermont]. A few years later, John Deere came from Rutland, Vermont, leaving his family behind. It’s unclear if Deere ever knew about Andrus or if Andrus was aware of Deere.
Having decided to remain in Grand de Tour, Deere sent for his family asking my paternal grandfather, William Peek, to bring them and also the Peek family out to Grand de Tour. This was done via covered wagon the journey occupying some six weeks. My father, Henry C. Peek, was then an infant age six weeks and Charles Deere, the son of John, an infant of about the same age. Of course these infants came along sleeping in the feed box of the wagon. My grandfather "took up land" adjacent to Grand de Tour and John Deere continued in the manufacturing business.
Having decided to settle in Grand de Tour, Deere asked my paternal grandfather, William Peek, to bring his family and the Peek family to Grand de Tour. They traveled in a covered wagon, which took about six weeks. My father, Henry C. Peek, was just six weeks old at the time, and Charles Deere, John’s son, was around the same age. Naturally, these infants traveled sleeping in the feed box of the wagon. My grandfather "took up land" next to Grand de Tour, while John Deere continued with his manufacturing business.
Incidentally, John Deere and William Peek were brothers-in-law having married sisters and what I have said, and much more that I might say to you, is based upon what I have been told by my grandfather, by John Deere and by others who had a part in the early history of the company. So far as I know, I am the only living person who ever knew or saw John Deere....
Incidentally, John Deere and William Peek were brothers-in-law, having married sisters. What I’ve shared and much more that I could tell you is based on what I've heard from my grandfather, John Deere, and others involved in the early history of the company. As far as I know, I am the only living person who has ever known or seen John Deere.
... I joined the Deere Company on October 1, 1888, at the age of 16 and retired on the 28th of April, 1956—nearly 68 years. C. H. Deere was my great friend and benefactor. I was educated at his expense as a lawyer and practiced for thirteen years. During this time I was his personal attorney, I drew his will, was made trustee thereunder, and probably was more intimate with him than any living person. I have seen and read the manuscript of an early history of the company which he wrote, but never published and there was nothing in it to indicate that Andrus had any part in the manufacture of the first successful steel plow and it is my firm belief that he had no part other than perhaps a friendly interest in it.
... I joined the Deere Company on October 1, 1888, at the age of 16 and retired on April 28, 1956—almost 68 years. C. H. Deere was my close friend and mentor. He paid for my education to become a lawyer, and I practiced for thirteen years. During that time, I was his personal lawyer, wrote up his will, was made trustee under it, and I was probably closer to him than anyone else alive. I’ve seen and read the manuscript of an early history of the company that he wrote but never published, and there was nothing in it to suggest that Andrus had any involvement in creating the first successful steel plow. I truly believe he had no role other than maybe a casual interest in it.
THE FIRST PLOW
Most writers describe Deere cutting a diamond-shaped piece out of a broken steel mill saw. There is usually no further identification of the type of saw beyond the statement that it came from the Andrus sawmill. Neil Clark, author of a brief biography of John Deere, states that the diamond-shaped piece was cut out of a circular saw.[13] There is no evidence given to support this. There are some powerful arguments against it. The circular saw, especially of the larger size, was probably not very common in America in the 1830's. Although an English patent for a circular saw was issued in 1777 the first circular saw in America is attributed to Benjamin Cummins of Bentonsville, New York, about 1814.[14]
Most writers say that Deere cut a diamond-shaped piece from a broken steel mill saw. There's usually no further detail about the type of saw, other than mentioning that it came from the Andrus sawmill. Neil Clark, who wrote a short biography of John Deere, claims that the diamond-shaped piece was taken from a circular saw.[13] However, there's no evidence to support this. There are some strong arguments against it. The circular saw, especially in larger sizes, likely wasn't very common in America in the 1830s. Even though an English patent for a circular saw was issued in 1777, the first circular saw in America is credited to Benjamin Cummins of Bentonsville, New York, around 1814.[14]
Figure 4.—How Deere Probably Cut and Bent the Flat Plate of his 1838 plow to form the moldboard and landside. Because of the shape of the moldboard it became known as the diamond plow.
Figure 4.—How Deere Likely Cut and Bent the Flat Plate of his 1838 plow to create the moldboard and landside. Due to the design of the moldboard, it was referred to as the diamond plow.
Figure 5.—Moldboard of 1847 John Deere Plow, showing how the diamond shape of the original design has been slightly modified. (Deere & Company photo 57192-D.)
Figure 5.—Moldboard of the 1847 John Deere Plow, showing how the diamond shape of the original design has been slightly modified. (Deere & Company photo 57192-D.)
In a small, new, pioneering community it seems unlikely that the local sawmill would have been equipped with the newer circular saw rather than the familiar up and down saw which remained in use[Pg 20] throughout the 19th century and, in places, well into the 20th century. The up and down saw was a broad strip of iron or steel with large teeth in one edge. Driven by water power it slowly cut large logs into boards. It is doubtful that the circular saws of that period were large enough for this kind of mill work. The second argument is the shape of the moldboard itself. The photograph of the 1838 plow in figure 7 shows that the shape of the moldboard is unconventional. It is essentially a parallelogram curved to present a concave surface to the furrow slice and thus to make a simple, small but workable plow. A parallelogram or diamond would be an easy shape to cut out of a mill saw with the teeth removed. The moldboard on the 1838 plow is from .228 to .238 inches thick and its width is 12 inches. These dimensions approximate those given in an 1897 Disston catalog[15] which describes mulay saws, a type of mill saw, from 10 to 12 inches wide and from 4 to 9 gauge. Gauge number 4 is the thickest and is .238 inches.
In a small, new, pioneering community, it's unlikely that the local sawmill would have been equipped with the newer circular saw instead of the familiar up-and-down saw, which continued to be used[Pg 20] throughout the 19th century and, in some places, well into the 20th century. The up-and-down saw was a broad strip of iron or steel with large teeth on one edge. Driven by water power, it slowly cut large logs into boards. It’s questionable whether the circular saws of that time were big enough for this type of mill work. The second point is the shape of the moldboard itself. The photograph of the 1838 plow in figure 7 shows that the shape of the moldboard is unconventional. It's basically a parallelogram curved to provide a concave surface to the furrow slice, making it a simple yet functional plow. A parallelogram or diamond would be an easy shape to cut out of a mill saw with the teeth removed. The moldboard on the 1838 plow is between .228 and .238 inches thick and is 12 inches wide. These dimensions are close to those found in an 1897 Disston catalog[15] which describes mulay saws, a type of mill saw, ranging from 10 to 12 inches wide and from 4 to 9 gauge. Gauge number 4 is the thickest at .238 inches.
Examination of the 1838 plow suggests that Deere cut the moldboard and landside as one piece, which was then heated and bent to the desired form. The pattern of this piece is shown in figure 4. Some additional metal appears to be forged into the sharp bend at the junction of the moldboard and the landside apparently to strengthen this part, which may have begun to open during the bending. If, however, Deere had used a large circular saw with plenty of room for cutting out a moldboard of the usual shape and size, it seems likely that he would have made a plow of more conventional appearance. In any event his moldboard of one jointless piece of polished metal would scour better than one of wood covered with strips of steel since the nailheads and the joints between the strips would provide places for the earth to stick.[Pg 21]
Examining the 1838 plow indicates that Deere shaped the moldboard and landside as a single piece, which was then heated and bent into the desired shape. The pattern of this piece is shown in figure 4. Some extra metal seems to be forged into the sharp bend where the moldboard meets the landside, likely to strengthen this area, which may have started to open during the bending process. If Deere had used a large circular saw with enough space to cut out a moldboard of the typical shape and size, it’s likely that he would have created a more conventional-looking plow. Regardless, his moldboard, made as one seamless piece of polished metal, would perform better than one made of wood with strips of steel, since the nail heads and joints between the strips would create spots for the soil to cling to.[Pg 21]
Figure 6.—The Shape of the Moldboard continued to evolve, as illustrated by this 1855 John Deere plow. (Deere & Company photo 57192-A.)
Figure 6.—The Shape of the Plow continued to evolve, as shown by this 1855 John Deere plow. (Deere & Company photo 57192-A.)
A very great majority of writers describing John Deere and his plow attribute his fame to his development of a successful steel plow which made cultivation of rich prairie soil practical. The emphasis is always on the development of a steel moldboard and the assumption is that from the 1837 plow onward stretched an unbroken line of steel moldboard plows. An advertisement for John Deere plows in the March 10, 1843, issue of the Rock River Register, published weekly in Grand Detour, Illinois, gives a detailed description, here presented in full:
A large majority of writers discussing John Deere and his plow credit his fame to his creation of an effective steel plow that made farming the fertile prairie soil viable. The focus is consistently on the development of a steel moldboard, and it's generally assumed that from the plow of 1837 onward, there was a continuous line of steel moldboard plows. An advertisement for John Deere plows in the March 10, 1843, issue of the Rock River Register, a weekly published in Grand Detour, Illinois, provides a detailed description, which is presented here in full:
John Deere respectfully informs his friends and customers, the agricultural community, of this and adjoining counties, and dealers in Ploughs, that he is now prepared to fill orders for the same on presentation.
John Deere is pleased to inform his friends and customers in the agricultural community of this and nearby counties, as well as plow dealers, that he is now ready to take orders upon request.
The Moldboard of this well, and so favorably known PLOUGH, is made of wrought iron, and the share of steel, 5/16 of an inch thick, which carries a fine sharp edge. The whole face of the moldboard and share is ground smooth, so that it scours perfectly bright in any soil, and will not choke in the foulest of ground. It will do more work in a day, and do it much better and with less labor, to both team and holder, than the ordinary ploughs that do not scour, and in consequence of the ground being better prepared, the agriculturalist obtains a much heavier crop.
The moldboard of this well-known plow is made of wrought iron, with a 5/16-inch thick steel share that gives it a sharp edge. The entire surface of the moldboard and share is polished smooth, ensuring it stays bright in any soil and won't clog, even in the toughest conditions. It can accomplish more work in a day and do it more efficiently and with less effort for both the team and the operator compared to regular plows that don’t scour. With better-prepared soil, farmers can achieve much larger crop yields.
The price of Ploughs, in consequence of hard times, will be reduced from last year's prices. Grand Detour, Feb. 3, 1843.
Due to tough times, the price of plows will be reduced from last year's prices. Grand Detour, Feb. 3, 1843.
This raised two questions: Why, and for how long, was wrought iron used for the moldboards of the Deere plows? Of what material is the moldboard of the 1838 plow made? During the first few years, when production was very small, there were probably enough worn out mill saws available for the relatively few plows made. As production increased this source must have become inadequate. Ardrey gives the following figures for the production of plows by Deere and Andrus:[16] 1839, 10 plows; 1840, 40 plows; 1841, 75 plows; 1842, 100 plows; 1843, 400 plows. Ardrey states further that "by this time the difficulty of obtaining steel in the quantity and quality needed had become a serious obstacle in the way of further development." The statement, quoted above, that the moldboard was of wrought iron and the statistics on production of plows during the 1840's and 1850's belie Ardrey's claim that it was a serious obstacle, nor is there any suggestion in the advertisement that wrought iron was being substituted for steel.
This raised two questions: Why and how long was wrought iron used for the moldboards of the Deere plows? What material is the moldboard of the 1838 plow made from? During the first few years, when production was very small, there were probably enough worn-out mill saws available for the relatively few plows made. As production increased, this source must have become insufficient. Ardrey provides the following figures for the production of plows by Deere and Andrus:[16] 1839, 10 plows; 1840, 40 plows; 1841, 75 plows; 1842, 100 plows; 1843, 400 plows. Ardrey further states that "by this time the difficulty of obtaining steel in the quantity and quality needed had become a serious obstacle in the way of further development." The statement quoted above, that the moldboard was made of wrought iron, along with the statistics on production of plows during the 1840s and 1850s, contradict Ardrey's claim that it was a serious obstacle, nor is there any indication in the advertisement that wrought iron was being used as a substitute for steel.
In 1847 John Deere amicably severed relations with the firm of Andrus & Deere and moved to Moline, Illinois, to continue plow manufacturing in a site that had better transportation facilities than Grand Detour. The new firm produced 700 plows in the first year, 1600 in 1850, and 10,000 in 1857.[17] Swank[18] states that the first slab of cast plow steel ever rolled in the United States was in 1846 and that it was shipped to John Deere of Moline, Illinois. A little later he says that it was not until the early 1860's in this country that several firms succeeded in making high grade crucible cast steel of uniform quality as a regular product.[Pg 22]
In 1847, John Deere ended his partnership with the firm of Andrus & Deere and moved to Moline, Illinois, to keep manufacturing plows in a location with better transportation options than Grand Detour. The new company produced 700 plows in the first year, 1,600 in 1850, and 10,000 in 1857.[17] Swank[18] mentions that the first slab of cast plow steel ever rolled in the United States was produced in 1846 and sent to John Deere in Moline, Illinois. Later, he notes that it wasn't until the early 1860s that several companies in this country successfully started making high-grade crucible cast steel with consistent quality as a standard product.[Pg 22]
Figure 7.—John Deere's 1838 Plow, Right Side, showing large iron staple used to fasten end of right handle to the standard. Note remains of wooden pin near rear end of plow beam. (Cat. no. F1111; Smithsonian photo 42639-A.)
Figure 7.—John Deere's 1838 Plow, Right Side, showing the large iron staple used to secure the end of the right handle to the standard. Note the remnants of the wooden pin near the back end of the plow beam. (Cat. no. F1111; Smithsonian photo 42639-A.)
Based on a visit to Deere's factory in 1857 the Country Gentleman[19] gave the yearly output as 13,400 plows. It pictured four of seven models and stated, "these are all made of cast steel, and perfectly polished before they are sent out, and are kept bright by use, so that no soil adheres to them." The article then gives the tonnages of iron and steel used by the Deere factory in a year. They are as follows: 50 tons cast steel, 40 tons German steel, 100 tons Pittsburgh steel, 75 tons castings, 200 tons wrought iron, 8 tons malleable castings in clevises, etc. In addition 100,000 plow bolts and 200,000 feet of oak plank were used.
Based on a visit to Deere's factory in 1857, the Country Gentleman[19] reported the annual output as 13,400 plows. It showcased four out of seven models and mentioned, "all of these are made from cast steel and are perfectly polished before they are shipped out, and they stay shiny through use, so that no dirt sticks to them." The article then lists the amounts of iron and steel that the Deere factory used in a year. They are as follows: 50 tons of cast steel, 40 tons of German steel, 100 tons of Pittsburgh steel, 75 tons of castings, 200 tons of wrought iron, and 8 tons of malleable castings in clevises, etc. Additionally, 100,000 plow bolts and 200,000 feet of oak planks were used.
These figures do not indicate what the different parts of the plows were made of but, if approximately correct, they do show that more than half the metal used was iron rather than steel. Steel accounts for 190 tons; wrought iron for 200. Although it is conceivable, under this weight distribution, that the shares and moldboards were made of steel while the landsides and standards were made of wrought iron, other distributions are also possible, and it is quite conceivable that at this period some of the plows had steel moldboards while others had wrought-iron ones. An analysis of the metal in different parts of an 1855 John Deere plow, now at the factory in Moline, may shed some light on this, but from these figures and dates it seems likely that most of John Deere's plows during the 1840's and 1850's had wrought-iron moldboards with steel shares. (It should be borne in mind that the poorer grades of steel available at this time were probably no more satisfactory than cast iron as far as scouring clean in sticky soil was concerned.)
These figures don’t specify what the different parts of the plows were made of, but if they’re roughly accurate, they show that more than half of the metal used was iron instead of steel. Steel makes up 190 tons; wrought iron accounts for 200. While it’s possible that the shares and moldboards were made from steel and the landsides and standards were made from wrought iron, other combinations could also be true. It’s quite possible that during this time, some plows had steel moldboards while others had wrought-iron ones. An analysis of the metal in various parts of an 1855 John Deere plow, currently at the factory in Moline, might provide some insight, but based on these figures and dates, it seems likely that most of John Deere's plows in the 1840s and 1850s featured wrought-iron moldboards with steel shares. (Keep in mind that the lower grades of steel available at this time were likely no better than cast iron in terms of cleaning effectively in sticky soil.)
Figure 8.—Reconstruction of Deere's 1838 Plow, right side, with handles shown in what is believed to be their original position. (Smithsonian photo 42647.)
Figure 8.—Rebuilding Deere's 1838 Plow, right side, with handles shown in what is thought to be their original position. (Smithsonian photo 42647.)
The question of the material in the moldboard of the 1838 plow was answered when a spark-test analysis was made of the metal in the moldboard and share. In this test the color, shape, and pattern of the spark bursts produced by a high-speed grinding wheel indicate the type of iron or steel. Several spots along the edges and back surface of the moldboard were tested. [Pg 23]No carbon bursts were seen in the spark patterns, indicating that the material was wrought iron. The share consists of a piece, wedge shaped in cross section, welded on to the lower, or front, edge of the moldboard. This was tested at several spots along its sharp edge, all of which gave a pattern and color indicating that the material was medium high carbon steel. This test was corroborated by a chemical analysis of filings from the moldboard and share in a metallurgical laboratory. A small trace of carbon was found in the moldboard. It may be present as the result of contamination from several sources, a likely one being the charcoal fire in the forge when it was heated for bending and shaping.[20]
The question about the material used in the moldboard of the 1838 plow was answered through a spark-test analysis of the metal in the moldboard and share. This test shows that the color, shape, and pattern of the sparks produced by a high-speed grinding wheel indicate what type of iron or steel it is. Several areas along the edges and back surface of the moldboard were tested. [Pg 23]No carbon sparks appeared in the patterns, which means the material was wrought iron. The share consists of a wedge-shaped piece that is welded onto the lower front edge of the moldboard. This was tested in several spots along its sharp edge, all revealing a pattern and color that indicated it was made of medium high carbon steel. This finding was confirmed by a chemical analysis of filings from the moldboard and share in a metallurgical lab. A small trace of carbon was found in the moldboard, likely due to contamination from various sources, such as the charcoal fire in the forge used for heating and shaping. [20]
These tests agree perfectly with the description in the 1843 advertisement. It seems, therefore, that Deere's success in making plows that worked well in prairie bottom lands depended as much on the smooth surface he produced by grinding and polishing as on the material used.
These tests match exactly with the description in the 1843 advertisement. It seems, then, that Deere's success in creating plows that worked effectively in prairie bottom lands relied as much on the smooth surface achieved through grinding and polishing as on the materials used.
The filing of the edge of the moldboard for the metallurgical test disclosed that the wrought-iron slab consisted of five thin laminations apparently forged together but with separations visible. The length and regularity of the lines of separation seem to preclude their being striations resulting from the fibrous structure of wrought iron. This calls into question the theory that the moldboard and landside were cut from a mill saw, since it hardly seems likely that a saw would be made of laminated material. The possibility exists that the body of the mill saw might have been made this way, with a tooth-bearing steel edge welded on, but there seems little reason for making a saw out of thin laminations. It is also possible that this laminated iron originally had been intended for some other purpose, such as boiler plate, and may have been available in rectangular pieces. In making the 1838 plow Deere followed a pattern (fig. 4), which suggests that he cut it out of such a piece.
The filing on the edge of the moldboard for the metallurgical test revealed that the wrought-iron slab was made up of five thin layers that were seemingly forged together, but separations were visible. The length and consistency of the lines of separation suggest that they aren’t just striations from the fibrous structure of wrought iron. This raises doubts about the theory that the moldboard and landside were cut from a mill saw, as it seems unlikely that a saw would be made from laminated material. It's possible that the body of the mill saw was made this way, with a tooth-bearing steel edge welded on, but there doesn’t seem to be much reason for constructing a saw from thin layers. It’s also possible that this laminated iron was originally intended for another use, like boiler plate, and might have come in rectangular pieces. When making the 1838 plow, Deere followed a pattern (fig. 4), which indicates that he cut it from such a piece.
Figure 9.—John Deere's 1838 Plow, Left Side, showing details of construction and relationship of landside to moldboard. (Cat. no. F1111; Smithsonian photo 42639.)
Figure 9.—John Deere's 1838 Plow, Left Side, showing details of construction and how the landside relates to the moldboard. (Cat. no. F1111; Smithsonian photo 42639.)
Since the moldboard of the 1838 plow is of wrought iron, and since this plow is thought to be essentially identical with the first one Deere made in 1837, it is highly probable that the 1837 plow also had a wrought-iron moldboard, a condition which appears to have been the basic pattern for John Deere plows until the middle 1850's.
Since the moldboard of the 1838 plow is made of wrought iron, and since this plow is believed to be basically the same as the first one Deere created in 1837, it's likely that the 1837 plow also had a wrought-iron moldboard, which seems to have been the standard design for John Deere plows until the mid-1850s.
WHY A "STEEL" PLOW
In view of the facts and the probabilities based on them, how is the legend of the John Deere steel plow to be explained? There are several likely reasons. It is possible that the first plow, in 1837, was made from a broken steel mill saw. It is also possible that within a few years puddled iron came to be used for the moldboards because of the scarcity of suitable steel, either in the form of broken mill saws or as plates ordered from foundries in America (the high price of steel imported from England made this an impractical source). However, it seems more likely that it became known as a steel plow owing to the importance Deere attached to his plows having steel shares, as shown in his advertisement in 1843. A steel share, tougher than cast iron, would hold an edge much better than wrought iron, and John Muir's description of prairie plowing, quoted earlier, substantiates the importance of a tough, sharp share.
Considering the facts and the probabilities surrounding them, how can we explain the legend of the John Deere steel plow? Several plausible reasons come to mind. It's possible that the first plow, created in 1837, was made from a broken steel mill saw. It's also likely that, after a few years, puddled iron was used for the moldboards because suitable steel was hard to find, whether it was from broken mill saws or plates ordered from American foundries (the high cost of importing steel from England made that option impractical). However, it seems more probable that it became known as a steel plow because of the emphasis Deere placed on his plows featuring steel shares, as illustrated in his advertisement from 1843. A steel share, which is tougher than cast iron, would maintain an edge much better than wrought iron, and John Muir's earlier description of prairie plowing supports the significance of having a durable, sharp share.
Deere's plows, probably distinctive by reason of their steel shares, may have been called "steel"[Pg 24] plows, in the regions where they were used, to distinguish them from the standard wooden plows and from the newer cast-iron implements. The term "wooden plow" has a similar history. For well over 2000 years in Europe some plows have been made with iron shares and the rest of the structure wood. Plows in 18th-century America were made principally of wood with iron shares, colters, and clevises, and with strips of iron frequently covering the wooden moldboard. These implements were called, simply, plows of various regional types. Not until the development and spread of the factory-made plows with cast-iron moldboards, landsides, and standards did the term "wooden plow" come into use to differentiate all these plows from the newer ones. Subsequently writers have been led to assume that "wooden plow" meant a plow with no iron parts and consequently to make unwarranted statements about the primitiveness of the 18th-century implements.
Deere's plows, likely recognized for their steel shares, may have been referred to as "steel" [Pg 24] plows in areas where they were used, to set them apart from standard wooden plows and newer cast-iron tools. The term "wooden plow" has a similar background. For more than 2000 years in Europe, some plows were made with iron shares while the rest of the structure was wooden. In 18th-century America, plows were primarily made of wood with iron shares, colters, and clevises, often featuring strips of iron covering the wooden moldboard. These tools were just called plows of various regional types. It wasn't until factory-made plows with cast-iron moldboards, landsides, and standards became popular that the term "wooden plow" was used to differentiate all these plows from the newer ones. Later writers assumed that "wooden plow" meant a plow without iron parts, leading to incorrect statements about the primitiveness of the 18th-century tools.
A second reason for use of the term "steel plow" may have developed from the supposition that the moldboards of the first John Deere plows were made of diamond-shaped sections cut from old mill saws, which later writers seem to have assumed were made of steel. (It is probable that from the late 1850's on Deere plows had steel moldboards.) However, mill saws of the early 19th century were not necessarily made of steel, which was then relatively expensive. I have been told of an old mill saw made of wrought iron on which was welded a steel edge that carried the teeth.[21] Rees' Cyclopaedia[22] describes saws as being made of either wrought iron or steel, the latter being preferable. Therefore, it seems most likely that Deere's plows, from his first until the middle 1850's were made with highly polished wrought-iron moldboards and steel shares.
A second reason for using the term "steel plow" may have come from the belief that the moldboards of the first John Deere plows were made from diamond-shaped pieces cut from old mill saws, which later writers assumed were made of steel. (It’s likely that from the late 1850s onward, Deere plows had steel moldboards.) However, mill saws from the early 19th century weren’t necessarily made of steel, which was relatively costly at the time. I’ve heard about an old mill saw made of wrought iron with a welded steel edge that held the teeth.[21] Rees' Cyclopaedia[22] describes saws as being made of either wrought iron or steel, with steel being the preferred material. Therefore, it seems most likely that Deere's plows, from his first models until the mid-1850s, were made with highly polished wrought-iron moldboards and steel shares.
RECONSTRUCTIONS
The remains of the 1838 plow are shown in figures 7 and 9. One's curiosity is aroused as to what the plow looked like in its original state, complete with handles. Several full-scale 3-dimensional reconstructions and a number of sketches of the 1837 plow have been made. The reconstructions all must have been based on the remains of the 1838 plow, since they resemble it closely and it is the only surviving plow of this type known.
The remains of the 1838 plow are shown in figures 7 and 9. You can't help but wonder what the plow looked like when it was new, complete with handles. Several full-scale 3D reconstructions and a number of sketches of the 1837 plow have been created. All the reconstructions must have been based on the remains of the 1838 plow, since they closely resemble it, and it's the only surviving plow of this type known.
Recently I received a photograph (fig. 3, right) of a plow which has been boxed and in storage for many years at Deere & Company which may be an early Deere plow. As it appears in the photograph, the plow looks unconvincing. The handles are fastened by bolts and nuts, a manner uncommon in American plow making in the early 19th century. The shape of the handles is that of stock handles available for small plows and cultivators in such a catalog as Belknap's. The plow seems very high and weakly braced. There is no logical reason for curving the end of the beam down and cutting it off at a slant if the handles are attached in the manner shown. The edges of the tenon on the upper end of the standard where it goes through the mortise in the beam have been neatly beveled in a manner I have never seen before on any other plow. All of this leads me to think that this is an early reconstruction based on the remains of the 1838 plow which it only roughly approximates in proportion and design.
Recently, I received a photograph (fig. 3, right) of a plow that has been boxed and stored for many years at Deere & Company, which might be an early Deere plow. From the photograph, the plow looks unconvincing. The handles are secured with bolts and nuts, which is uncommon in American plow making from the early 19th century. The shape of the handles resembles stock handles found for small plows and cultivators in catalogs like Belknap's. The plow appears very tall and is weakly braced. There's no clear reason to curve the end of the beam down and cut it off at an angle if the handles are attached as shown. The edges of the tenon on the upper end of the standard, where it goes through the mortise in the beam, have been neatly beveled in a way I've never seen on any other plow. All of this makes me think that this is an early reconstruction based on the remains of the 1838 plow, which it only somewhat resembles in size and design.
Another of these reconstructions is shown in figure 3, left. Although superficially like the 1838 plow it varies considerably in its proportions, in the angular relations of its parts, and in other details such as the use of iron bolts and nuts in place of wooden pins. All these reconstructions agree in one thing. They show a plow with handles fastened to both sides of the plow beam and standard.
Another one of these reconstructions is shown in figure 3, on the left. While it looks similar to the 1838 plow at first glance, it differs greatly in its dimensions, the angles of its components, and various details like the use of iron bolts and nuts instead of wooden pins. All these reconstructions share one common feature: they display a plow with handles attached to both sides of the plow beam and standard.
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.[Pg 25]
During the examination of the 1838 plow, I noticed that there was no sign of a handle attachment on the landside like there was on the furrow side. The position and attachment of the handle in figure 7 is clearly shown by the remnants of a wooden pin on the side of the plow beam near the back 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 illustrating this handle in place. The landside view of this plow in figure 9 indicates that the pin didn't go all the way through the beam, nor are there any marks on the standard to suggest the presence of a staple like the one on the furrow side. The four holes roughly in line on the standard and beam point to where a piece of sheet metal had been nailed to keep the beam and standard positioned correctly. The outline of the sheet metal can still be seen on the side of the beam. This was removed during this examination.[Pg 25]
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.
How was the landside handle attached? W. E. Bridges from the National Museum thinks it might have been connected to the lower side of the standard and the back end of the plow beam. This seems to be accurate without a doubt. The wood has worn down significantly over the years and the joints are loose, but, given the current structure, the plow beam can easily be positioned so that its sloping back end aligns with the slope of the underside of the standard. Also, a long bolt goes from the top part of the moldboard through the standard and sticks out quite far beyond its lower surface, as seen in figure 7. The end of the bolt is only partially threaded, so a cylindrical metal spacer has been added to tighten the nut securely. This long bolt must have initially gone through the lower end of the handle, which was secured 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 a common way to attach the handle to the beam. The square hole in the plow's iron landside (fig. 7), which might seem intended for another bolt going through the lower end of the handle at a right angle to the long bolt, appears too close to the other bolt and the edges of the handle. It may just have been an initial attempt for the bolt through the bottom of the standard. This way, the handle would have been securely attached to the plow frame and would have also helped to make it rigid by forming one side of a triangular structure. Figures 8 and 10 illustrate what I believe to be the correct reconstruction of the 1838 Deere plow based on this description and, therefore, how the 1837 plow probably looked.
Figure 10.—Reconstruction of Deere's 1838 Plow, left side, showing how left handle is believed to have been attached. (Smithsonian photo 42637.)
Figure 10.—Rebuilding Deere's 1838 Plow, left side, showing how the left handle is thought to have been attached. (Smithsonian photo 42637.)
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.
It’s also worth mentioning that it was common practice when making fixed moldboard plows to keep the plow beam, standard, handle, and landside (or sharebeam, in the old plows) all in the same plane. You can see symmetrical handles branching out from both sides of the beam 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:
The current evidence, I think, shows that:
1. The successful prairie plow with a smooth one-piece moldboard and steel share was basically Deere's idea.
1. The successful prairie plow with a smooth one-piece moldboard and steel share was essentially Deere's concept.
2. The moldboards of practically all of his plows, from 1837 and for about 15 years, were made of wrought iron rather than steel.
2. The moldboards of almost all of his plows, from 1837 and for around 15 years, were made of wrought iron instead of 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.
3. The success of his plows in the prairie soils relied on a steel share that had a sharp edge and a highly polished moldboard, which prevented the sticky soils from sticking.
4. The importance attached to the steel share led to the plows being identified as steel plows.
4. The emphasis placed on the steel share resulted in the plows being recognized as steel plows.
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.
6. The Museum's John Deere plow (Cat. No. F1111), shown in figures 7 and 9, is a very early example. This is based on a comparison with Deere moldboards from 1847 and 1855, as well as its alignment with Deere's description of his plows in an 1843 advertisement; thus, the 1838 date linked to it is likely accurate.
FOOTNOTES:
[3] Ibid., p. 16.
[5] 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.
[5] Leo Rogin, The introduction of farm machinery and its impact on labor productivity in U.S. agriculture during the nineteenth century, Berkeley, 1931, p. 33.
[8] 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.
[8] Stewart H. Holbrook, Machines of Plenty, New York, 1955, pp. 178, 179. In response to a question from me, Mr. Holbrook said that most, if not all, of the information about Andrus came from the files of the J. I. Case Company.
[10] Ibid.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Same source.
[11] Ibid.
[13] Clark, op. cit. (footnote 7), p. 34.
[16] Ardrey, op. cit. (footnote 2), p. 166.
[17] Ibid., p. 166.
[20] Reports on spark test by E. A. Battison, U. S. National Museum, and on metallurgical investigation by A. H. Valentine, Metallographic Laboratory of the Bethlehem Steel Company's Sparrows Point Plant.
[20] Reports on the spark test by E. A. Battison, U.S. National Museum, and on the metallurgical investigation by A. H. Valentine, Metallographic Laboratory of the Bethlehem Steel Company's Sparrows Point Plant.
Download ePUB
If you like this ebook, consider a donation!