DTIC File Copy
REPORT NUMBER: COESAM/ PDER-89 / 004
THE MEAL TASTES SWEETER:
0DOCUMENTATION OF YOUNG'S MILL
WEST POINT LAKE, TROUP COUNTY, GEORGIA
PREPARED FOR AND FUNDED BY:
DEPARTMENT OF ARMY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
MOBILE DISTRICT
C 11E
CONTRACT NO. DACW01-88-C-0123
PREPARED BY:
V4
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
:
1989
r
c
--
c,4
.g
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
OF THIS PAGE (when, Dote Entered)
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
READ INSTRUCLONS
BEFORE COMPLETING FORM
2. GOVT ACCESSION NO. 3.
1. REPORT NUMBER
COESAMi PDER-89/004
RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER
S. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED
4. TITLE (and Subtitle)
Final
The Meal Tastes Sweeter: Documentation of Young's
Mill, West Point Lake, Troup County, Georgia
7.
AUTHOR(s)
6.
PERFORMING ORG.
8.
CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(&)
DACW-88-C-0123
Christcpher T. Espenshade, Jeffrey W. Gardner
9.
PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
REPORT NUMBER
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT. TASK
NAME AND ADDRESS
AREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERS
Associates,
Brockington and
2853 Henderson Mill Road,
Atlanta, GA, 30341
12.
1. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME ANO ADDRESS
July 27, 1989
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District,
P.O. Box 2288, Mobile, AL, 36628
14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & AODRESS(I1 different h
REPORT DATE
3
NUMBEROF
PAGES
177
Controllin4 Office)
IS. SECURITY CLASS. (of this report)
Unclassified
Same
1S&.
16.
DECL ASSI FICATION/DOWN GRADING
SCHEDULE
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of dith Report)
Unclassified; distribution is unrestricted
17.
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the
bstjract entered)in Block 20, It different Moe Report)
Same
II. SUPPLEMENTARY
19.
20.
NOTES
KEY WORDS (Continue on revere side it neceses1ry mnd identify by block n
Young's Mill
LaGrange
Millstone
Grist Mill
Troup County
Beech Creek
Water Power
Postbellum
West Point Lake
Leffel Turbine
Oral History
Archival Research
Saw Mill
Piedmont
Robert M. Young
A8TRAr
ACT
C
m
revWa
eb
f neewiv
aimdntity
ber)
Technology
Dam
MealPhotography
by block number)
See over
DON
7
1473
EDfTION OF 1 NOV 6S IS OBSOLETE
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Dte Entered)
i
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(Whe
D~A
B neied)
ABSTRACT
Architectural and historical documentation of
Young's
Mill, West Point Lake, Georgia, was conducted for the
Corps
of Engineers, Mobile District.
The work at the 1870s
through 1940s mill
included both property specific and
contextual archival research, 4 X 5 inch format photography,
measured drawings, and detailed mapping of the site.
The
current remains include a rock and cement dam with two end
flumes, stone piers from the saw mill and grist mill, piers
and a chimney from one cabin, the chimney from another
cabin, and a store/office building with standing walls.
The history indicates that Young's grist mill was built
in the middle 1870s, while the saw mill was built prior to
1896. Throughout the hist ry of the mill, it was owned by
Mr. Robert M. Young Sr. or his direct descendents. The saw
mill was utilized only to meet the needs of the Young family
holdings, while the
grist mill served
much of
the
surrounding country.
Both mills were powered by Leffel
mixed flow turbines.
The operation of the grist mill
continued through the 1940s, long after most water powered
grist mills had disappeared from the Georgia economy. It is
argued that the wealth of the Young family and the continued
demand for traditional, stone-ground meal were responsible
for the lifespan of Young's Mill.
1........
,:J
).,
1-ii
SECURITY
CL.ASSIFICATION
OF THIS P&GE(Whe
Da
te
ford)
REPORT NUMBER:
COESAM/PDER-89/004
THE MEAL TASTES SWEETER:
DOCUMENTATION OF YOUNG'S GRIST AND SAW MILLS,
WEST POINT LAKE,
TROUP COUNTY, GEORGIA
Technical Report to Accompany Portfolio
of Phot e rshs and Measured Drawings
Sponsored By:
DEPARTMENT OF ARMY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
MOBILE DISTRICT
CONTRACT NO. DACW01-88-C-0123
Prepared By:
Jeffrey W. Gardner
Historian
Christopher T. Espenshade
Principal Investigator
Graphic Documentation By:
Richard T. Bryant
Photographer
W. Lane Greene
Architect
tchell
Ruthanne L.
Cartographer
BROCKINGTON AND ASSOCIATES
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
July 1989
ABSTRACT
Architectural and historical documentation of
Young's
Mill, West Point Lake, Georgia, was conducted for the
Corps
of Engineers,
Mobile
District.
The
work
at
the
1870s
through 1940s
mill
included
both
property
specific
and
contextual archival research, 4 X 5 inch format photography,
measured drawings, and
detailed mapping of
the site.
The
current remains include a rock
and cement dam with two
end
flumes, stone piers from the saw mill and grist mill,
piers
and a
chimney
from one
cabin,
the chimney
from
another
cabin, and a store/office building with standing walls.
The history indicates that Young's grist mill was built
in the middle 1870s, while the
saw mill was built prior
to
1896.
Throughout the history of
the mill, it was owned
by
Mr. Robert M. Young Sr. or his direct descendents.
The
saw
mill was utilized only to meet the needs of the Young family
holdings,
while
the
grist
mill
served
much
of
the
surrounding country.
Both
mills
were powered
by
Leffel
mixed flow
turbines.
The operation
of
the
grist
mill
continued through the 1940s,
long after most water
powered
grist mills had disappeared from the Georgia economy.
It is
argued that the wealth of the Young family and the continued
demand for traditional,
stone-ground meal were
for the lifespan of Young's Mill.
iv
responsible
ACKNUWLEDGEMENTS
The Mobile District is
thanked for their support
and
interest throughout tnis project.
In particular, Ms. Dottie
Smith
Jimmie
G.
and
Mr.
Gibbens
(Technical Officer)
(Contracting Officer) are
commended for
their patience
in
dealing
with
unpredictable
lake
levels
and
schedule
modifications.
Several residents of the LaGrange area offered valuable
information concerning
Young's
Mill.
Mrs.
Helen
Young
provided photographs and
recollections of
the mill,
while
Mr. Wiley Williams
consented to
an informative
interview.
Mr. "BoPeep" Scott offered information on his tenure at
the
mill, and
Mr. Emmett
Fling told
of his
father's span
as
miller.
Mr.
Don
Yates,
a
former
student
at
LaGraL;j'e
College, contributed
indirectly
by
interviewing
Mr.
Joe
Young (now deceased) about the mill in 1980.
Fellow
professionals offered
advice and
assistance
during the Young's Mill project.
Mr. Joe Joseph (New South
Associates) DrC ught to our
attention the Vanishing
Georgia
photograph of Young's Mill, and offered other leads on
mill
technology.
Mrs.
Martha Anderson and
Mr. Danny Knight
of
the
Troup
County
Archives
provided
research
aids
and
directions.
Dr. Gregory Jeane (Auburn University) discussed
the mill with us on several
occasions.
Mr.
Ken Brown,
of
Kvaerner Hydro Power,
Inc. (formerly Leffel Co.)
provided
turbine order records
for Young's
Mill.
Mr.
Ron Fain
of
Nora Mills, Helen, Georgia, gave us permission to crawl
all
over his operating
turbine powered grist mill.
All
these
people are thanked heartily for their contributions.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
iv
ABSTRACT ...............................................
...................................
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....
Chapter
1.
INTRODUCTION .. .............................
THE CURRENT REMAINS OF YOUNG'S MILL ......
RESEARCH APPROACH ...........................
REPORT FORMAT .o...........................
Chapter 2.
METHODS OF DOCUMENTATION
...................
1
1
1
5
7
RESEARCH QUESTIONS .. .....................
7
9
METHODS OF INVESTIGATION ...................
9
Archival Research .....................
10
Oral History ..........................
10
Site Plan Mapping .....................
Measured Drawings ......................... 12
nhotographic Documentation .............. 14
Chapter 3.
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY OF TROUP COUNTY
o......
INDIAN TRADE AND SETTLEMENT .................
COUNTY ESTABLISHMENT .....................
ANTEBELLUM DEVELOPMENT ......................
POSTBELLUM ADAPTATION ....................
Chapter 4.
MILL TECHNOLOGY OF THE GEORGIA PIEDMONT
....
17
17
18
21
24
26
28
MILL TERMINOLOGY .........................
MOTIVE POWER: VERTICAL WHEELS .............. 28
Overshot Wheels .......................... 29
.........................
29
Breast Wheels
32
Undershot Wheel and Flutter Wheel .....
MOTIVE POWER: HORIZONTAL WHEELS ............ 32
Tub Wheel
............................
Turbine Wheel .........................
MILL TECHNOLOGY: DAMS, RACES, AND FLUMES .
TEMPORAL/SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF MOTIVE
MACHINERY IN GEORGIA .o..................
DOCUMENTED EXAMPLES ........... .............
Chapter 5.
36
36
39
42
44
YOUNG'S MILL ECONOMIC HISTORY .................
48
.......
.........
PROPERTY HISTORY ......
REGIONAL SETTLEMENT ......................
Targeted Market .......................
Competing Mills ..........................
USE HISTORY . .............................
48
53
53
55
65
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 6.
(continued)
YOUNG'S MILL TECHNOLOGY
....................
76
76
NATURAL SETTING ..........................
76
Topography ............................
Climate and Precipitation ................ 76
Hydrology .............................
76
77
PRESENT SITE STRUCTURE ...................
77
Dam ...................................
Grist Mill ............................
77
81
Saw Mill ..............................
Office/Store ..........................
92
Cabin Chimney .........................
92
Rock Lined Feature ....................
92
95
MILL SEAT PARAMETERS .....................
Gradient ..............................
95
95
Flow ..................................
Geological Substrata ..................
97
97
Constriction ..........................
98
DESIGN SELECTION .........................
98
Technological Demand ..................
Locally Available Technology ........... 100
Locally Available Material ............. 101
MOTIVE POWER ............................. 101
1880s Motive Power .................... 102
Late Nineteenth and Twentieth Century
Motive Power ...
..................... 102
Flow Regulation ....................... 103
Power Transfer ........................ 103
GRIST MILL PROCESS ....................... 104
EXPANSION ................................ 106
SPATIAL ORGANIZATION ..................... 107
SEDIMENTATION ............................ 107
Chapter 7.
CONCLUSIONS
................................
ill
ADDRESSING THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS ......... il1
Economic Questions .................... I1
Technological Questions .................115
YOUNG'S MILL AS A TYPICAL MILL SITE ...... 118
YOUNG'S MILL AS A UNIQUE MILL SITE ....... 118
EVALUATION OF METHODS .................... 119
REFERENCES CITED
.......................................
ORAL HISTORY SOURCES
APPENDIX A.
APPENDIX B.
...................................
ORAL HISTORY INTERVIEWS.
1880 US CENSUS DATA.
vii
121
129
LIST OF FIGURES
Arrow Indicates Location of Young's Mill
(Shown as Youngs Pond on USGS La Grange,
GA 1982) ....................................
2
Aerial Photo View of Young's Mill Remains, 1
March 1988, Scale I" = 100', Roll #655, Frame
1212 ........................................
3
3.
View Towards Southeast, East Flume/Saw Mill..
4
Figure 4.
Camera Stations For Figures Presented in
Report ......................................
16
John Goff's Map Reconstructing Historic
Trails in Georgia (Goff 1955: Figure 1)
19
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Figure 7.
Figure 8.
Figure 9.
Fiiure 10.
Figure
11.
.....
William G. Bonner's Map of the State of
Georgia, 1847 ...............................
23
Simplified Schematics of Vertical Wheel
Types .......................................
30
Typical Overshot Wheel. Source: Fitz Water
Wheel Co., 1928 .............................
31
Typical Breast Wheel, Swann's (Freeman's)
Mill, Gwinnett County, Georgia .................
33
Very Hiqh Breast Wheel (Pitch Back Wheel).
The Wheel Turned Counter-clockwise.
Sewell
Mill, Coweta County, Georgia ...................
34
Comparison of Various Options for Breast and
Overshot Wheels at Hypothetical Mill Seat ...
35
Figure 12.
Simplified Schematic of Tub Wheel ............. 37
Figure 13.
Displaced Wood and Metal Tub Wheel, Lick Log
Mill, Macon County, NC ......................
38
Figure 14.
Comparison of Cased Tub Wheel (after Council
1978:Figure 4) and Scroll Cased Turbine (after
Newnan 1984:Figure 35) ......................
40
Figure
Simplified Schematic of Leffel
from end of Tailrace.
Central
Gates cutaway to show Interior
Shaded Portions are stationary
15.
viii
Turbine, view
Portion intake
Runner Blades.
.................
41
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 16.
(continued)
Three Undershot Mills at New Ebenezer,
From Seutter's Plan of
Georgia, 1747.
Ebenezer, in the Hargrett Rare Book and
Manuscript Library, University
of Georgia
43
Figure 17.
Young's Mill Property Chain of Title .......... 49
Figure 18.
Troup County Map dated 1910, shows Young's
Property ....................................
52
Map of the State of Georgia, A. G. Butts
1882 ........................................
56
Figure 19.
Figure 20. USGS Wedowee Quadrangle, 1902.
Arrow Indicates Location of Young's Mill
....
57
Figure 21. USDA Soil Map of Troup County, 1912.
Arrow
Indicates Location of Young's Mill ............ 58
Figure 22. Location of Millers by Georgia Militia
District Boundaries, as listed in the
1850-1880 Troup County Federal Population
Census ......................................
60
Figure 23. Troup County Mills Operating in the 1880s.
Mills are listed in Table 7 .................
63
Plat from 1896 Survey of the R. M. Young
Place (TCDB 16:12-13) .......................
68
Figure 25. Portrait of R.M. Voung, from F.A. Battey
& Co. (1889) ................................
70
Figure 24.
riguiLe 26.
1911 Damage to Grist Mill.
Source: Mr. E. Fling ........................
73
Figure 27.
Site Map of Young's Mill
....................
78
Figure 28.
Young's Mill Grist Mill, ca. 1947.
Source: Mrs. Helen Young ....................
79
Figure 29. View of Grist Mill Flume and Piers with
Cabin Chimney and Store/Office in background,
view towards West ...........................
80
Figure 30. Millstone in Grist Mill Flume ..................
82
Figure 31. Planar view of East Sluice, view towards
East from West Sluice .......................
84
Figure 32. Detail of Bevel Gears on Turbine Shaft, Saw
Mill Flume ..................................
85
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Fiyo
a 33.
Figure 34.
(continued)
Oolique View of Saw Mill Flume Showing
Extant Machinery, view towards North .......... 86
Young's Mill ca. 1947, Power House at Saw
Mill.
Source: Vanishing Georgia Collection..
87
Figure 35.
Young's Mill at Flood Stage. 1948.
Saw Mill
is on right and cabin is on left.
Shed
covering saw is visible between the two
structures. Source: Mrs. Helen Young .......... 88
Figure 36.
Young's Mill at Flood Stage, 1948.
View from
Behind Saw Mill Power House (L) , Saw Shed
(Center), and Cabin (R).
Source: Mrs. Helen
Young .......................................
89
Oblique View of Southside Chimney, Stone and
Cement Piers of Cabin near Saw Mill Pit, view
towards North ...............................
90
Figure 38.
Oblique View of Saw Pit, Towards Northeast
91
Figure
Oblique View front and south facades of
Store/Office, View Towards Northeast .......... 93
Figure
37.
39.
Figure 40.
Figure
41.
Oblique View of Front and West Sides of
Roadside Cabin Chimney, view towards East
..
...
Two Operating Runs of Stone.
Nora Mill,
Helen, Georgia ..............................
94
105
Figure 42.
Corn Blowers.
Third Floor.
Nora Mill, Helen,
Georgia ..................................... 105
Figure 43.
Young's Mill at Flood Stage, 1948, Looking
Past Grist Mill, Across Dam to Saw Mill
Power House.
Source: Mrs. Helen Young ......
109
Young's Mill at Flood Stage, 1948.
Saw Mill
Power House is on Left, Grist Mill is
Obscured on Right.
Source: Mrs. Helen
Young .......................................
110
Figure 44.
LIST OF TABLES
Taole
1.
Archival
Table
2.
Young's Mill, Inventory of Maps and Measured
Drawings .....................................
13
Young's Mill, Inventory of Photographic
Images .......................................
15
Corn and Wheat Production by County,
1850-1920 ....................................
26
Motive Machinery, 1880, Troup and Bartow
Counties .....................................
45
Table 3.
Table 4.
'abie
Table
5.
6.
Repositories and
Sources Examined
...
Mills in Troup and Neighboring Counties (from
George White's Statistics of the State of
Georgia (1849) ..............................
i1
59
Table 7.
Known Mills in
Table 8.
Listing
Table 9.
Mill
..................
96
Table 10.
Potential of Interpolated Flow for Young's
Mill .........................................
99
or near
Troup County, Georgia..
of Known Operators at Young's Mill
Seat Selection Factors
xi
...
64
71
Chapter
1.
INTLRODUCTION
West Point Lake, Georgia and Alabama, was completed
in
1975, and provides hydroelectric power, flood control, and a
major recreation area.
The West Point Dam, which created
a
25,900 acre impoundment, represents only the latest
example
in a
long
tradition of
water
powered technology
in
the
region.
The remains
of a
much earlier
example,
Young's
Mill, are
inundated by
West Point
Lake during
high
pool
periods (Figure 1).
This
report documents the history
and
physical
remains
of
Young's
Mill,
and
discusses
the
establishment and
operation
of
the mill
in
relation
to
regional developments.
THE CURRENT REMAINS OF YOUNG'S MILL
Young's Mill was established before 1876, and
survived
as a working grist and saw mill into the 1940s.
Its current
remains include a stone
and cement mill
dam with two
side
flumes, piers from the sawmill structure and the grist
mill
structure, piers
and a
chimney from
a related
two
story
building, the standing walls and chimney of a
store/office,
the standing chimney of a probable domestic structure, and a
poured concrete
road providing
access
to the
grist
mill
(Figure 2).
The former mill pond of approximately 10
acres
is heavily silted but discernible.
The mill is located on
Beech Creek, in Troup
County,
Georgia (Figure 3).
It is situated
just south of
Young's
Mill Road, approximately
three miles
(5 km)
north of
the
City of
LaGrange,
Georgia.
The
mill
is
designated
as
archaeological site
9Tp478.
The
top
of
the
mill
dam
measures 631.4 feet above mean
sea level (amsl) , and so
is
inundated
when
West
Point
Lake
reaches
its
full
pool
elevation of 635 feet amsl.
RESEARCH APPROACH
While
a major
goal of
the present
project was
to
document in detail the remains of Young's Mill, it was
also
necessary to
reconstruct
the
history of
the
mill.
In
addition,
it
was
important
to
place
the
mill
in
the
technological and economic contexts
of the time and
region
of opc
:ion.
Accordingly, the research effort was designed
to srnically
address the
eight technological
and
nine
eco(rw
research
questions
offered
in
the
research
proposal.
The
basic tenets of
the chosen research
design
were th.
echnology
cannot be fully
understood simply
by
recl.. strcting the mechanisms of Young's Mill, and that
the
economic context of
Young's Mill cannot
be addressed
only
through reference to mill specific production statistics.
1
01I
,
7
1I
~.-
667
0~-t
Op
64C,-
-A.
A
Yong
-
<~~-0-2
Pon
ong
LaGagG
QG
uarnl,18).
Figure 2.
Aerial
1988
Mill Remains,
Photo View of Young's
, Scale
I" = 100',
3
Roll
#655,
Frame
1 March
1212.
WA
Figure 3.
View Towards Southeast, East Flume/Saw Mill.
4
Four
research
tasks
were
undertaken
in
the
documentation
of
Young's
Mill.
Archival
research
was
conducted
prior
to
fieldwork
to
guarantee
that
all
significant features of the mill complex were identified for
mapping, photography, and recording.
The archival
research
was designed to compile both a general historic context
for
the mill and a site specific history.
The second
task was detailed mapping of the
current
remains.
The site plan was generated with a total
electric
survey station, with
reference points every
10 m over
the
entire mapped area.
The resultant site plan included 2.0 ft
contours, key vegetation, modern reference datum points
and
features,
and
all
features
of
the
mill
complex.
In
addition, reference datum points
for the recording
process
were established during the mapping.
The
third task was the architectual recording
through
measured drawings.
The dam and flumes, associated piers and
buildings,
stota,
and
domestic
chimney
were
drawn
in
accordance with
Historic
American Building
Survey
(HABS)
standards.
All
drawings were linked
to actual
elevations
and locations through mapped datum points.
The
fourth task was the photographic documentation
of
the remains.
Photographs
were
produced in
4 by
5
inch
format, in strict accordance with
the HABS standards.
All
cultural features of the mill complex and general contextual
views were
produced.
The
results were
archival
quality
prints and negatives.
REPORT FORMAT
This
report complements
the portfolio
of
measured
drawings
and
photographs,
and
provides
context
and
interpretations for those records.
The report begins with a
review of
the
research scope
and
methods in
Chapter
2.
Chapter 3 presents a
developmental history of Troup
County
and the lower Piedmont of Georgia.
The regional history
of
mill technology
is
addressed
in
Chapter
4,
which
also
reviews other
mill documentation
projects in
the
Georgia
Piedmont.
The economic history of
Young's Mill is presented
in
Chapter 5.
This chapter
provides the basic
data such
as
chain-of-title and use history,
as well as delineating
the
economics of
operation.
Chapter 5 parallels
the
sixth
chapter, which presents the technological history of Young's
Mill.
Chapter 6
discusses the natural setting,
parameters
of site and machinery selection, site structure, and changes
in the mill through time.
The final chapter synthesizes the
data from the documentation, and specifically addresses
the
research questions
offered in
Chapter 2.
The
appendices
5
history tapes (Appendix A),
include transcriptions of oral
of
Special Schedules
U.S. Census
the 1880
copy of
and a
(Appendix B).
Troup County
Manufactures for
6
Chapter 2.
METHODS
OF DOCUMENTATION
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
was
The historical/contextual research on Young's Mill
structured
to
address
two
sets
of
research
questions;
economic and technological.
These research questions
were
presented in the Technical Proposal.
While the details
of
some of the
questions have
been proven
inaccurate by
the
present research, the questions nonetheless helped formulate
the research plan
and are
therefore quite
relevant.
The
economic questions included:
capital
were
the
initial
1.
What
operating costs, productivity, and profit
time of Young's Mill?
outlay,
through
2.
Why
was
the
mill
seat
selected?
What
indicators suggest that a grist mill was a
viable
economic pursuit at
the
Young's Mill
location?
with
local
the
builder
familiar
was
How
demographic and economic conditions?
What was the
political affiliation of the
mill owner, and
how
did
that
possibly
affect
his
economic
predi ctions?
3.
What
was
the
targeted
market
for
mill
services?
Was
the
owner
aware,
prior
to
construction, of a potential
customer base?
How
stable did this market turn out to be, and how was
the market affected
by broader economic
patterns
of the state and country?
Young's
of
the
prime competitors
4.
Who were
and
Mill?
What advantage did Young's Mill offer,
did
the
competitors
make
efforts
to
modify
services to win customers away from Young's
Mill?
How did the rates charged by Young's Mill
compare
with other area mills?
5.
Who developed Young's Mill and what was
their
source of capital?
Was Young's Mill linked
with
other commercial
operations in
the area
(beyond
the mill store)?
6.
What
were the economic
relations at
Young's
If
non-family
workers?
and
Mill between owners
workers
were
utilized,
what
form(s)
of
compensation did
they
receive?
Were
workers'
houses provided near the mill complex?
7
7. What system of payment was utilized at Young's
Mill?
Were transactions strictly cash, or did the
miller grind
for a share?
Were
there changes
through
time,
in
response to broad
economic
to
of
payment
form
one
from
the
region,
in
changes
another?
To what
extent was
the mill
owner
and
involved in extending credit to area farmers,
could
this practice have contributed to
the
closing of the mill?
and
8. What was the cost of the 1900 rebuilding
modifications?
What economic factors entered into
the decision to change from a Leffel style to the
turbine system evidenced today?
Was the
second
flume added at the time of dam reconstruction, and
what was
its targeted market and product?
In
terms
of
cost-benefit,
were
the
alterations
successful? Was
the original mill insured,
and
how did the
settlement (i.e., available
capital)
enter into the decision-making process?
9. Which economic factors changed to make Young's
Mill no longer viable: regional cash flow, cost of
operations/maintenance, demand, market foL
milled
products,
availability of
workers,
government
requirements, or other economic commitments of the
owner?
When was West Point Lake first
proposed
and authorized, and was the mill closed partially
in anticipation of the lake development? Were the
mill auxillaries
(store and houses) maintained
after the mill
closed? Where did local growers
have to go for a grist mill after the closing, and
what hardships did the closing cause?
It should
be
noted
that there
inevitably will
be
some
overlap between
the economic and technological
realms
of
mill research.
The
eight technological questions
to be
addressed during the Young's Mill documentation included:
1. What was the use span of
the mill, and what
water power
technologies were prevalent during
this period?
2. How was the mill seat selected?
What natural
and cultural
factors were considered
in site
selection? Were access to an established
road,
proximity to
a population aggregate, river width
and gradient, and
location of
other grist mills
important in
establishing Young's
Mill at
this
location? What role
did land ownership patterns
have on site selection?
8
3.
How
was
the Leffel
mill
design
(actually
Leffel turbine technology) selected , and why
was
it particularly suited
to the
chosen mill
seat?
Was
the
mill
based
on
earlier
grist
mills,
published
plans,
or
vernacular
interpretation
unique to
Young's
Mill?
Who
actually
oversaw
construction and design, and
where did they
gain
their prior experience?
4.
How
was the mill
changed after its
apparent
destruction in 1900?
Had problems developed
with
the timber crib
dam, such
needed to
be
that it
replaced with
the present
rock and
cement
dam?
What increased
efficiency
was
gained
from
the
switch to the present turbine system?
5.
Where did
the turbines
and other
machinery
originate?
Were they produced to
specifications,
or
was
the
mill
designed
around
available
hardware?
Were
the turbines
and gates
salvaged
from an earlier mill in the area?
To what
extent
were
elements
of
the
nineteenth
century
mill
reutilized in the twentieth century edition?
6.
Was a trained miller brought in to operate the
mill, or was it operated by the owning family?
If
the
latter,
where
did
they
learn
the
skills
necessary to run a grist mill?
Is there a
family
tradition
of
milling?
How
unique
was
mill
ownership
by
women?
Were
the
women
owners
involved in the day to day activities of the mill?
7.
Was
culturally accelerated
sedimentation
a
factor in the demise of the mill?
How quickly did
the mill
pond
begin
to silt-in,
and
were
any
modifications undertaken to alleviate the problem?
Was the mill pond ever drawn down and excavated?
8.
Was the mill significantly modified or refined
after construction?
Is
there any evidence for
a
diversification of
services
beyond
grist mill
processing?
METHODS OF INVESTIGATION
Archival
Research
The archival
research
was
conducted
in
various
collections
and
repositories
including:
Troup
County
Archives (LaGrange);
Troup
County
Courthouse
(LaGrange);
Archives
Georgia Surveyor General Office (Atlanta); Georgia
and History (Atlanta); Georgia Collection, Map Library,
and
Laboratory
Trimble Papers (University of Georgia, Athens);
9
of Ar-haeology
(University of Georgia,
Athens);
and
the
LaGrange Public Library (LaGrange).
In addition to relevant
primary and secondary sources
concerning Young's Mill,
the
Mills
literature of the Society for the Preservation of Old
was utilized.
Table 1 summarizes the records examined.
by
The majority of the archival research was conducted
Mr. Jeffrey
Gardner;
Mr. Espenshade
contributed
research
relevant to mill technology of the Georgia Piedmont.
Oral History
The
oral history
element of
the historic
research
targeted key informants including:
Mrs. Helen Young,
widow
of the
last
owner of
Young's
Mill; Mr.
Wiley Williams,
miller at Young's
Mill from 1931
through 1937; Mr.
Emmett
Fling, whose father ran the mill from 1914 through 1919; and
Mr. BoPeep Scott, who ran
the mill from 1939 through
1944,
and whose fRther ran
the mill for
three years before
him.
The most productive interview was
with Mr. Williams.
Mrs.
Young and Mr. Fling had
limited firsthand knowledge of
the
mill, and
the memory
of
Mr. Scott
was
not clear.
The
interview with Mr.
Williams was
a free
form question
and
answer session which lasted
approximately three hours.
It
was tape recorded, and a transcript is included in
Appendix
A.
Another interview utilized was
a 1980 recording of
a
conversation between Mr. Joseph L. Young and Mr. Don
Yates,
then a history student at LaGrange College.
A copy of
this
tape was
provided
to
us
by Mrs.
Young.
Much
of
the
information contained in the tape is found in Yates'
(1980)
research report on the mill.
A transcript or the Joseph
L.
Young interview is included in Appendix A.
Site Plan Mapping
The site plan mapping of Young's Mill was undertaken to
achieve three goals:
1.
to record
seat;
the natural
context of
the
mill
2.
to relate the various site structures to local
topography;
3.
to provide
datum
points to
facilitate
photography and measured drawings.
the
The difficulties
in
mapping rugged
terrain
around water
precluded the
practical use
of steel
tape for
distances.
Similarily, the problems with relying on stadia readings for
10
TABLE 1.
Archival
Repositories and Sources Examined.
REPOSITORY
LOCATION
DATA SOURCES
Troup County
Courthouse
LaGrange
Land Records
Civil Proceedings
Troup County
Archives
LaGrange
Young's Mill File
Young Family File
Marriage Records
Photo Archives
Annual City Directories
Unpublished Local Histories
Newspaper Archives
Ga. Surveyor
Atlanta
General Office
Historic Map Files
Land Lottery Ricords
Ga. Archives
and History
Atlanta
Troup County Population
Census
1880 Special Schedule of
Manufactures
Agricultural Statistics
Published Local Histories
Civil War Records
Young Family (vertical
file)
Tax Lists
SHPO
Atlanta
Architectural Inventory
Previous Historical and
Archaeological Reports
U. Ga.
Athens
Early Troup Co. Soil
Historic Maps
Ga.
Georgia
Science Lib.
Survey
U. Ga.
Laboratory
of Archaeology Athens
Field Notes and Reports
(West Point Survey)
Unpublished Historical Data
USCOE
Acquisition Files (West
Point Lake)
Aerial Photographs (West
Point Lake)
Mobile
Soc. for the
Preserv. of
Old Mills
Atlanta
Oral History
LaGrange
Mill Inventories
Young Family, Descendants
Descendants
Miller/Worker,
11
measurements in areas with significant relief has also
been
recognized.
After
consultation
with
staff
of
the
Ben
Meadows Company and Allen Precision, it was decided that use
of a complete electrical station would be most accurate.
A
TOPCON
GTS
instrument
provided
electrically
measured
distances, horizontal angle, and vertical angle.
The target
prism was preset at the
height of instrument to
facilitate
calculation of elevations.
The recorded slope distance
and
vertical angles were utilized in sine and cosine formulae to
calculate horizontal distance and rise, respectively.
A
project datum
point was established
on the
upper
platform of the
eastern retaining dam.
Its elevation
was
established through
reference to
a USGS
datum point
(668
feet amsl) on the USCOE
property boundary northwest of
the
site.
Magnetic north was utilized, and a due west point was
marked for day
to day consistency.
All measurements
were
taken in feet and tenths of feet.
A total
of 288 points
were recorded including
major
cultural features
and topographic
reference points.
The
entire mill complex
was covered
on a
30 m
interval.
In
addition, a kayak
was utilized to
record the location
and
bottom depth of 10 points in
the stream below the dam,
and
21 points
in the
mill
pond.
A
weighted tape
was
also
utilized to record
the depth along
the downstream face
cf
All points were plotted on a field plan during the
the dam.
evening following their
recording, and the
plan was
field
verified for accuracy.
The mapping
was undertaken by
Mr.
Christopher Espenshade and Mr. Joel White.
Measured Drawings
The measured drawings
of standing remains at
Young's
Mill were
produced
following
accepted
Historic
American
Building
Survey
(HABS)
standards.
The
Preservation
Architect utilized the
site plan to
organize his
drawings
and to provide
the appropriate elevation
data.
All
field
measurements were made in feet and
tenths of feet.
Field
drawings were produced at a scale suited to final production
on
HABS
mylar
sheets,
and
structural
and
material
information was
recorded.
Table 2
provides
a
complete
inventory .f the drawings produced.
Logistical difficulties
included inclement weather
and measurement
of the
eastern
chimney which is surrounded by water.
Final
drawings were
produced
on HABS
mylar
with
permanent ink.
The conventions of
HABS illustration
were
closely followed, and all lettering was Leroyed.
The
field
measurements and drawings,
as well as
the final
drawings,
were produced by
Mr. Lane
Greene.
Ms. Ruthanne
Mitchell
completed the
lettering of
the
final drawings,
and
also
produced final versi-ns of the site plan.
12
Table
2.
1.
Title
2.
Overall
3.
Detailed
Site Plan
4.
Measured
Drawings of
5.
Measured
Drawing of
6.
Measured
Drawings of
Young's Mill,
Sheet
for
Inventory of Naps and
Folio of
leasured Drawings.
Drawings
Site Map
Store/Office
and Chimney
Dam - Triangular
East
13
Chimney
and West Flumes
Photographic Documentation
The
Young's Mill photography also met HABS
standards.
format,
4 X 5 inch negative
Photographs were produced in a
utilizing an Omega C View Camera.
A variety of lenses
were
These included:
necessary to produce the desired views.
Schneider Super-Angulon 65 mm F8
Schneider Super-Angulon 90 mm F8
Fujinon SW 150 mm F6.3
Schneider G-Claron 210 mm F9
Schneider Symmar 240 mm F5.6
All
exposures
were
produced
on
a
Kodak
Plus
X
Pan
Professional
4147
film;
this
represents
a
slow,
fine
grained, high resolution polyester-based film.
Emphasis was
placed on producing pictures
without planar distortion,
in
proper focus, and properly exposed to document the structure
and material of the standing remains.
As necessary to judge
lighting and shot
composition, 4 X
5 polaroid prints
were
produced in the field.
The
photographer recorded planar and oblique views
of
the standing
remains,
as
well
as
construction
details,
machinery, and general site
views.
A
full listing of
the
views photographed
is
provided
in
Table
3;
the
camera
station for
all figures
in this
report are
presented
in
Figure 4.
It
should be noted that
the nature of the
site
required experimentation and
improvisation on
the part
of
the photographer.
In
addition,
moderate to
heavy
brush
clearing was
necessary
around
the
office/store
and
the
western cabin chimney.
A fresh
set of chemicals was utilized in printing
the
project film
to
the manufacturer's
specifications.
The
processing was carefully controlled
to assure the
archival
permanence of the negatives and prints.
Original
negatives
and two glossy contact prints
were produced for each
shot,
and these items were packaged in new, archival quality 8
by
10
inch
negative
protectors.
The
protectors
were
appropriately labeled to indicate the site, the date of
the
picture, the subject,
and the camera
direction.
Both
the
field photography and film
processing was completed by
Mr.
Richard Bryant.
14
Table 3.
Young's Mill,
Inventory
of
Photographic Images.
WEST SLUICE
*Detail of inlerior of sluice and millstone
*FPlanar view of west sluice from east sluice, including
roadside chimney and office
Planar view of upper west sluice gate structure from east
Planar view of west side of west sluice wall
Planar view of north face of rock wall to west of west
sluice
Planar view of north face of pylons below west sluice
LOADING DOCK/SAWMILL/SAWPIT
Oblique view of interior, view towards the southeast
*Oblique view of exterior, view towards the northeast
Planar view of east side showing wooden "yoke"
Planar view of south side
Planar view of north side
CHIMNEY
Oblique view
*Oblique view
Oblique view
Oblique view
structures
of south side of chimney and pylon
of south side of chimney, pylon, and environs
of north side of chimney
of west side of chimney and associated
from west sluice
OFFICE
Planar view, rear facade, east side
Planar view, front facade, west side
Planar view, side, north side
Planar view, side, south side
Oblique view, front and north facades
*Oblique view, front and south facades
Detail of doorway arch
Detail of mantle
Detail of brick construction and inside corner
ROADSIDE CHIMNEY
Planar view of rear, south side
Planar view of front, north side
Planar view of east side
Planar view of west side
Detail of west side showing date of construction
*Oblique view of front (north) and west sides
Oblique view of front (north) and east sides
EAST SLUICE
Detail of mill gear apparatus
Detail of Dodge axle/power shaft endplate and associated
structures
*Planar view of east sluice from west sluice
Planar view of upper east sluice gate from west
*Oblique view of east sluice gate, power shaft apparatus,
and associated structures, view towards the north
Oblique view of north and east walls of east sluice
*Oblique view of east sluice and associated structures,
view towards the southeast
DAM
Planar
view of
*Reproduced
dam from north
in text.
15
04
4.)
C3C
U)
HD2 8
08
0
rZ4
pn V
C
16
Chapter 3.
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY OF TROUP COUNTY
INDIAN TRADE AND SETTLEMENT
Spanish expeditions passing through Georgia and Alabama
in the sixteenth
century encountered
aboriginal groups
of
late Mississippian
culture
in
the
Piedmont
(Halley and
Rudolph 1982:16). The Middle Chattahoochee Valley (including
parts of present-day Troup County) may have been visited
as
early as 1675 by Bishop
Calderon, the Franciscan Bishop
of
Cuba, who wrote of
thirteen "Apalachocolan" villages
along
the Chattahoochee
River near
the falls
(near
present-day
Columbus, Georgia) (Fretwell 1980:83-84).
At
the time
of first
European contact,
the
Creek
economy was
a mix
of horticulture
and
hunting-gathering.
Subsistence
was
based
on
corn
and
bean
agriculture,
supplemented with wild plants
and animals, primarily
deer.
During the 1700s, horses,
cattle, and hogs were
introduced
into Creek
life,
either through
trade
or by
theft
from
Spanish
outposts
and
English
settlers
(Corkran
1967).
Hunting continued to be strongly
emphasized as a result
of
the development of a market
for deerskins, and became
more
efficient with the introduction of firearms and metal
tools
(Ethridge 1982).
Early
Spanish efforts to
colonize the
Chattahoochee
country were soon thwarted by the growing trade relationship
between
French
and
English
traders
and
the
Indians,
beginning in
the middle
1680s.
By the
early 1700s,
the
Creeks had developed
trade with
the growing
Euro-American
centers
of
New
Orleans-Mobile
(French),
St.
Augustine
(Spanish),
and
Charleston
(English).
The
Creeks
were
participating in trade with each colony, constantly
playing
one against the
others.
By
this time, a
number of
Creek
groups had
moved east
from
the Chattahoochee
toward
the
Ocmulgee, Oconee, and
Savannah Rivers
to participate
more
easily in the deerskin trade with Carolina dealers.
At
the
outbreak of the Yamasee War of 1715, these Creeks sided with
the Yamasee of South
Carolina and coastal Georgia,
against
the English at Charleston.
Although the war went well
for
the Indians
initially,
English reinforcements
and
better
weapon and
ammunition
stocks allowed
the
Carolinians
to
counterattack, forcing the
Yamasee to
retreat to
Florida,
and impressing the Creeks with the power of the English,
as
well as the need for general neutrality and friendship
with
all Euro-Americans (Corkran 1967).
After the
Yamasee War, the
Creeks returned to
their
former
villages
on
the
Chattahoochee
River.
Soon
thereafter,
the
English
reestablished
their
trade
relationship with the Creeks, remaining dominant
throughout
the 1700s (Fretwell 1980:118).
17
Euro-American
occupation within the
Creek lands
may
have
begun
as
early
as
the
early
1700s
with
the
establishment of
settlements and
farmsteads by
individual
traders.
These settlers were permitted (actually encouraged
and protected) by the Creeks because they increased the flow
of trade goods.
as
the English increased
Economic relationships with
trails through the Georgia Piedmont developed into important
trade routes.
The major east-west artery was the
Oakfuskee
Path, which
linked Augusta,
Georgia with
the Creek
towns
along
the
Chattahoochee,
Coosa,
and
Tallapoosa
Rivers.
According to Goff (1955), the
main path to Oakfuskee and
a
number of
other
important
paths and
early
roads
passed
through what is now Troup County (Figure 5).
Of
particular
interest to
this study
is "an
Indian Trail
leading
from
today's north Troup
County via
Harrisonville to
LaGrange"
(Goff 1955:31-32).
This trail is described as a spur of the
a
branch
of
the
McIntosh
Road.
An
Grayson
Trail,
examination of modern
maps of the
area suggests that
this
path may
follow either
the present
Young's Mill
Road
or
Hammett Road.
The Creeks were
bitterly divided between the
British
and the Americans during the Revolution, and initially
gave
assistance to both sides.
However, during the course of the
war, the British were
able to maintain
a better supply
of
trade goods
through
St.
Augustine
and
Pensacola,
towns
obtained earlier from
the Spanish.
The Creeks felt
their
interests were better served by the British, and
eventually
the pro-British factions became
dominant among the
Creeks.
The Creeks assisted
the British
and loyalist
forces in
a
number of engagements in Georgia and South Carolina, and
at
the end of
the war were
forced to cede
lands east of
the
Ocmulgee River to the Georgians (Corkran 1967:291,296).
In
the
early 1800s,
growing
hostilities
between
American
settlers
and
the
remaining
British
and
Spanish-supported Creeks led to open warfare.
At the height
of the
War
of
1812, General
Andrew
Jackson
fought
and
defeated
the
Creeks
at
the
Battle
of
Horseshoe
Bend.
Jackson's actions resulted in the
Creek cession of a
large
part of present day central
Alabama to the U.S.
government
in 1814 (Abernethy 1965:24).
Euro-American settlers
rushed
into the
former Creek
lands to
establish plantations
and
settlements.
Continuing conflicts and increasing population
pressures
forced
the
Creeks
to
cede
their
remaining
territory in Alabama and Georgia by the mid-1820s.
COUNTY ESTABLISHMENT
In 1825,
representatives of the Creek nation signed
a
Treaty at
Indian Springs
(Butts County),
ceding the
land
18
TO
AA PIN LO
WIL'S T
A0.
IV
CAl!
r~&
1IOIN
VI.A(O
TW
0%TIP
T.
S*!1-
19
-
APIOXMATIY
AS.
I4j
IL(
between the Flint River and Chattahoochee River to the State
of Georgia.
This area was initially divided into five large
sections and designated
Lee, Muscogee,
Troup, Coweta,
and
Carroll Counties.
These
counties were
then divided
into
Land Districts.
Troup County,
named for
George M.
Troup
(governor of Georgia from 1823-1827), originally encompassed
twelve districts,
stretching from
the Flint
River to
the
Chattahoochee River.
Later boundary changes (1827 and 1830)
added three districts in the west and northwest part of
the
present county, and deleted all or parts of eleven districts
(Smith 1933).
The opening of Creek lands in Georgia during the middle
1820s brought a
flood of settlers
anxious to obtain
land.
Smith (1933:47) states that many early Troup County settlers
came from the
east Georgia counties
of Greene and
Wilkes.
Subsequent settlers were predominantly from Virginia and the
LaGrange,
named
fer
the
Carolinas (Johnson 1987a:11).
estate
of
the
Marquis
de
Lafayette
in
France,
was
incorporated and chosen as the county seat in 1828.
Land
in the
newly formed West
Georgia counties
was
distributed through a
land lottery,
held in
Milledgeville
between March and May,
1827.
According
to Acts passed
by
the Georgia
General Assembly
in 1825
and 1826,
all
male
citizens above the age of eighteen, widows, and orphans were
entitled
to
one
draw
for
a
land
lot
(202.5
acres).
Additional draws
were awarded
to
soldiers of
the
Indian
wars, the Revolution, and the War of 1812.
Commissioners in
each county
received and
reviewed
the names
of
citizens
wishing to participate in the
lottery.
After the
lottery,
fortunate drawers were
issued grants to
land lots and,
if
the validity of the grant
was not challenged, the land
lot
was "taken up" (Houston 1976).
A rudimentary
transportation system
and
favorable
environmental conditions
brought
many
early
settlers
to
Troup County after
its formation.
Early paths and
trails
developed into
a road
network linking
settlements in
the
county and allowing contact with outside markets.
LaGrange
appears to have been at the
center of this network.
While
initially considered to be
very rugged, a gradual
clearing
of
the
virgin
forests
revealed
rich
soils,
considered
superior to rocky soils found to the north of the county and
to sandy
soils
to
the
south.
These
conditions
were
particularly apparent on the Chattahoochee River bottoms and
along the
its six
major tributaries
which passed
through
Troup County (Johnson 1987a:7).
These favorable
conditions probably affected
initial
settlement patterning
and
the
rapid
development
of
the
plantation system in Troup County.
By the 1830s,
numerous
large tracts had been purchased by plantation operators from
the east.
According to George G. Smith (1968:388)
20
there was no part of the county sterile and it was
rapidly settled,
not
by poor
people,
who are
generally the
first
in a new
county, but by
well-to-do
planters
from eastern Georgia, who
first
their
plantations at
opened large cotton
coming.
these
settlers as
(1933:49-50) describes
Clifford Smith
"people of education and property, (bringing] with them into
this wilderness,
tools,
cattle,
slaves
and
household
furnishings."
ANTEBELLUM DEVELOPMENT
By 1830,
the population of Troup County had
reached
6,000.
During
the antebellum
period,
forests
were
extensively harvested, and cotton became the primary field
crop.
Members
of
the planter
class
lived
in
large,
well-built houses in LaGrange, while
overseers tended
the
cotton plantations. The cotton boom years of the 1830s
and
1840s led to increased prosperity for plantation owners
in
the
region,
and
furthered
trends
toward
larger
tract
ownership.
Unfortunately, planters continued to use
the
same cotton planting methods which had resulted in the rapid
decline of
cotton production
in
the
older counties
of
eastern and central Georgia (Trimble 1974).
During the early 1800s, industries of the county were
focused on water power.
Smith
(1933:123) describes Troup
County's early industries as
crude and simple
in operation
... dependent for
power on muscle, mules, and water
power ... The
mills of the early days were smithies,
carpenter
shops, and gristmills,
and
later
sawmills and
tanneries.
According to Smith
(1933:126), the old grist mills were a
source
of
pleasure
and
convenience,
as
well
as
manufacturing.
While mentioning no grist or flour mills by
name or
location, Smith
(1933:189) states
that James
and
David Culberson were the
only operators of sawmills during
the early part of Troup County's development.
By the mid nineteenth century, the cultivation of
corn
and wheat had increased
significantly. Johnson
(1987a:28)
reports:
Dozens of
mills dotted
the countryside.
Every
section possessed its own grist and flour mills.
Trade developed and communities sprang up around
many [of these mills].
The profusion of
streams
and Nineteenth Century technology made it possible
21
for the numerous
develop.
mills and
their communities
to
By 1850, White (1849:550)
records the presence of
fourteen
grist mills, ten flour mills, and eleven saw mills in
Troup
County.
In
comparison,
neighboring
Heard
County
had
seventeen grist mills, three
flour mills, and thirteen
saw
mills (White 1849:321).
Between
1830 and
1860, cotton
monoculture came
to
dominate the
economy
of
Troup
County.
This
was
most
apparent in increases seen in the number of Blacks
employed
in all phases of
the plantation system.
The average number
of slaves held by each
slave owner in the county
increased
from
ten
in
1830
to
twenty-four
by
1860
(Johnson
1987a:48-49).
By 1850, the slave population of Troup County
had exceeded
the
number
of Whites.
The
population
of
LaGrange in 1845
included about 500
Whites and over
1,000
black slaves
(Smith
1933:52).
By
1860,
74
percent
of
LaGrange was Black (Johnson 1987a:49).
Much of the cotton produced in the county prior to 1850
was cleaned
and
baled on
the
plantations, then
sent
to
manufacturing centers
in
Columbus
or
elsewhere.
Troup
County's first
cotton factory
(and only the
second
such
facility in Georgia) was
established on Flat Shoals
Creek,
southeast
of
LaGrange,
in
1848.
Troup
Factory
had
originally been
the
site
of a
water-powered
grist
mill
established by Maxey Brooks in 1829, and sold to
Robertson,
Leslie and Company in 1845 (Smith 1933:115).
The present road
system was
established before
the
Civil War.
Stagecoach traffic developed on overland
roads,
which often
followed established
Indian trails
and
which
connected Troup
County
with other
population
centers
in
Georgia and Alabama.
Bonner (1847) illustrates a number
of
roads intersecting at LaGrange (Figure 6).
Notable to
the
present project is the road shown which passes northeast out
of LaGrange
and
crosses
Beach
[Beech]
and
Yellowjacket
Creeks before reaching
Corinth (Heard County).
This
road
generally follows
the route
of
the present
Young's
Mill
Road.
Prior to
the introduction of railroads to the
region,
river
transportation
was
the
area's
primary
link
with
outside markets.
By
the mid-1820s,
a number
of
ferries
crossed the Chattahoochee and its tributaries.
As early
as
1831, river barges and flat boats were transporting
produce
from Troup County
upstream on the
Chattahoochee to
DeKalb
County, Georgia.
Boats
were regularly
running from
West
Poi.t upriver (Smith 1933:108).
Planters from the
LaGrange
area traded
with merchants
in
West Point,
Columbus,
and
Montgomery.
The river was apparently navigable within
four
miles of the falls at Columbus in the winter months
(Martin
22
/
-
~
MAN
n
low
*.Loc
-
vx=..
Figue
Wiliam
6.
. Bnner'S
1847.E
ap
o
th
23l
Stae o
Geogia
N L
I
1874:11).
River navigation for commerce declined when
railroads were
comoleted into
the area
in the
1840s
the
and
1850s.
By the early 1850s, Troup County could boast of
rail
The Montgomery and West
service to Montgomery and Atlanta.
in
1837)
was
in Georgia
Point
Railroad
(incorporated
completed to West Point
in 1851, and
the Atlanta and West
Point
Railroad
(chartered as
the Atlanta
and
LaGrange
Railroad in 1847)
reached
Troup County
in 1854
(Smith
1933:109-110).
With
the
establishment
of
rail
transportation, Troup County cotton belt plantations were
tied directly into the Southeastern transportation network.
While residents of Troup County were strongly affected
economically by events of
the Civil War,
the area was
not
the scene of any major battles.
Near the end of the war,
a
minor skirmish
occurred
at Fort Tyler
near West
Point.
Union forces under
the command of Col. LaGrange
assaulted
Fort Tyler, a bastioned earthwork surrounded by a ditch. On
16 April
1865, General Tyler surrendered the Confederate
garrison.
Union forces destroyed two bridges across the
river, 19
locomotive engines,
and 245
rail cars at West
Point (Martin 1874:184).
Also
on 16 April, Federal
troops
under General Wilson captured the city of Columbus.
POSTBELLUM ADAPTATION
At the beginning
of the Civil
War, New England
markets for cotton were lost and cotton production declined
(Lindsey 1971).
Planters
converted cotton
fields
to
cultivate table crops.
However, the West Point, Georgia
area became a storehouse for thousands of bales of
cotton
grown in the Chattahoochee Valley. After the war, only the
largest landowners
remained
solvent through the
sale of
large
land
tracts.
In
the postbellum period,
small
landowners
sold out
and entered
the
labor market
in
competition
with
free
Blacks,
bringing
about
the
landlord-tenant relationship referred to as "sharecropping."
In addition to tenancy, a pattern of small tract
ownership
became reestablished due to the division of estate portions
by impoverished large landowners.
By the middle 1860s, local planters and businessmen
had begun again to develop the water power potential of
the
Chattahoochee Valley by constructing a number
of
cotton
mills
along
the
river
and
its
tributaries.
Cotton
production was
reestablished as the economic base of
the
county, resulting in
the construction
of numerous
textile
mills
in
the
1880s through
the
early
1900s
(Smith
1933:115-121)
24
In
addition
to
cotton
processing
mills,
other
agriculturally-related industries
continued to
develop
in
the latp 1800s.
Coleman
et al. (1977:234) have
calculated
that the
number
of flour
and
grist mills
in
the
South
increased
300
percent
after
the
war,
with
sawmills
exhibiting
a
20
percent
increase.
Reconstruction
and
updating of
a
number of
larger
operations in
the
lower
Piedmont was funded by groups of local planters and Northern
investors; Alabama
and
Georgia Manufacturing
Company,
in
West Point,
Georgia
is an
example
of a
milling
complex
reestablished after the War by a group of local and
outside
investors (Chattahoochee Valley Historical Society 1957).
While post-war industrial development was most apparent
in
the
larger
cities
of
lower
Piedmont
Georgia,
many
smaller,
family-run
mills
continued
to
operate
along
upstream creeks and rivers, filling the everyday needs of
a
large portion of
the rural
population.
The 1880
Special
Schedules of Manufactures
for Troup
County records
eleven
grist mills, six
flour mills, seven
mills processing
both
wheat and
corn, and
five
saw mills
(U.S. Bureau
of
the
Census 1880b) .
Power sources for flour, grist, and saw mills in
Troup
County
changed
very
little
during
the
late
nineteenth
century.
According to
information
recorded in
the
1880
Special Schedules of Manufactures, a variety of old and
new
technology was being utilized to power grain and saw mills.
The
predominant
motive
power
utilized
in
these
mills
continued to
be hydromechanical,
and mill
locations
were
chosen to take advantage of
swift-water shoal areas on
the
river and creeks.
Engine
types included three tub
wheels,
two flutter
wheels, two
breast wheels,
one paddle
wheel,
twenty-three turbines, and one steam engine (U.S. Bureau
of
the Census 1880b).
The
dominant
food
crops produced
in
the
county
continued to
be corn
and wheat.
Grain
yields for
Troup
County, Georgia from 1850 to
1920 are presented in Table
4
(U.S. Department
of
Commerce,
Bureau
of
the
Census,
Seventh-Fourteenth Censuses).
Yields for neighboring
Heard
County, Georgia, and Chambers and Randolph counties, Alabama
are also
presented for
comparison.
After
a
substantial
decrease in production
during the war
years, grain
yields
increased
markedly
after
1870.
Despite
an
economic
depression in
the middle
1870s (Johnson 1987a:92),
Troup
County corn yields appear
to have remained high
throughout
the remainder of the nineteenth century, and into the
early
twentieth century.
Wheat production reached its peak in the
early 1880s, and declined
rapidly into the early
twentieth
century.
early
Troup County's farm
products changed somewhat in
1900s.
Cattle
breeding
and
poultry
grew
25
the
in
TABLE 4.
CORN
PRODUCT!'
CENSUS
CORN
AND WHEAT
Troup
PRODUCTION
(GA) Heard
BY
COUNTY,
1850-1920.
COUNTY (STATE)
(GA) Chambers (AL) Randolph
(bushels)
1850
687,205
265,242
876,038
319,183
1860
520,091
347,296
793,466
560,133
1870
162,946
151,435
205,099
264,488
1880
341,963
195,161
458,286
322,466
1890
338,424
221,644
504,273
331,213
1900
335,380
298,090
504,001
508,900
1910
278,884
235,103
466,312
516,770
1920
454,094
307,926
986,860
621,381
WHEAT
(bushels)
1850
17,644
12,047
2-,281
18,212
1860
48,315
57,980
78,861
63,080
1870
26,645
22,271
39,532
48,587
1880
55,572
33,439
75,945
58,379
1890
2,655
5,010
6,417
11,038
1900
15,230
22,330
25,370
35,644
1910
4,847
5,337
2,068
10,058
1920
6,922
3,120
5,125
8,284
26
(AL)
importance.
Prior to a general
decline in the
Piedmont
lumber industry in 1904, timber resources such as pine, oak,
maple, hickory,
sweet gum,
and poplar
were available
for
manufacturing purposes (Range 1954:208).
A boom in cotton
production and manufacture after 1900 -- by 1900, there were
-three cotton mills manufacturing cloth in Troup County
and before World War I, was followed by the total
collapse
of the market in the 1920s.
The collapse was due to a post
war recession, the boll weevil, and
the Great Depression.
The production of corn,
wheat, oats,
potatoes, and
other
consumables was also stimulated by the World War I economy,
only to drop off
dramatically with
the
onset of
the
Depression (Holmes 1977:261-263).
27
Cnapter 4.
MILL TECHNOLOGY OF THE GEORGIA PIEDMONT
In the history of the Georgia Piedmont, water
powered
IT,
s
inevitacly
were estaliisne
snort,:
after
the
agrlcuit~r~l development of an
area.
Unprocessed corn and
grain were bulky
and heavy
items
to transport,
as were
processed flour
and meal.
A farming community
naturally
desired to have a milling facilty close at hand.
As early
settlers
spread
across
the
Georgia
Piedmont,
they
encountered marked variability
in the natural
environment,
relative to the
establishment of water
powered mills.
In
addition, the period
of greatest expansion
in the Georgia
Piedmont, approximately
1800 through
1865, was
a span
in
which major advances occurred in mill technology. In
this
chapter, the evolution of mill technology through time
and
space for the Georgia Piedmont
is addressed
to provide a
context for understanding the technology of Young's Mill.
MILL TERMINOLOGY
Mills can be categorized by many schemes, but product
and motive machinery
are most diagnostic.
Three
gross
categories of
product
were prevalent
in
Georgia:
grist,
flour, and
lumber.
The
distinction between
grist
mills
(producing corn
meal)
and
flour
mills
(producing
wheat
flour) was not
consistently utilized by
census takers
and
other
record
keepers
of
the
nineteenth
century.
In
addition, many mills
processed both
flour and
meal.
For
example, the majority
of the Troup
County mills listed
in
the 1880
Special
Schedule of
Manufactures
produced
both
flour and grist, with corn meal the dominant product.
Jeane (1974) argues
that only commercial (or
custom)
flour grinding operations should be considered flour
mills,
with all others labeled grist
mills.
His distinction
will
be followed here, with the
notation that the major
product
of Troup
County grist
mills
was consistently
corn
meal,
although some flour was produced.
Sawmills
processed lumber, and were often
established
in conjunction with grist mills.
Sawmills were often
small
convenience operations, drawing on the facilities already in
place for a grist mill.
An examination of the 1880
Special
Schedule of
-anufactures for
Troup County
indicates
that
four
of
the
five
sawmills
recorded
were
operated
by
proprietors of grist mills.
MOTIVE
POWER:
The
industrial
VERTICAL WHEELS
means by
which water
power
use
is termed
motive power.
28
was
harnessed
for
All
water
power
systems in historic Georgia utilized
a wheel of some
form.
There are two
broad
categories
of motive power,
which
reflect
the
orientation
of
the
wheel:
vertical
and
horizontal.
Vertical
wheels (horizontal shaft)
fit
the
classic image of the mill wheel, and were in use as early as
Types of vertical
AD 25 in the Old World (Moritz 1958:131).
wheels can be determined by the point of the wheel on
which
the water impacts and the direction the wheel turns relative
to the water flow (Figure 7).
Overshot Wheels
Overshot wheels are
impacted
on
the
uppermost,
downstream segment of the wheel.
They revolved against
the
current at
their base,
and only produced
eight
to 14
revolutions per minute
(RPM).
Overshot wheels
garnered
their energy from primarily the weight and secondarily the
flow of the water.
These wheels had a test efficiency of 80
percent, but actual
use efficiency was
generally 50 to 70
percent
(Hunter 1979).
Until
the twentieth
century,
overshot wheels were made of
wood.
The development of
the
steel wheel in the early 1900s resulted
in an increase
in
test efficiency to over 90 percent (Fitz Water Wheel Company
1928).
Because overshot wheels spanned the entire height of
a
fall, this type required
relatively high falls (Figure 8).
Hunter
!1979)
reports
that
10
to
36
ft
falls
were
recommended in
the early
nineteenth century
for
overshot
wheels.
To generate
the
necessary fall,
extensive mill
races were often constructed to increase the fall (or
rise,
in geometric terms)
by increasing
the horizontal
distance
(or run).
Mill races were designed to have a much gentler
gradient than
the natural
slope,
such that
the diverted
water flow would realize an increased fall or kinetic energy
potential.
The limitations
of overshot wheels were the low
RPM
rate, the
high fall
required, the
necessity to
carefully
balance and
support the heavy wheel, and the efficiency
robbing turbulence of
the wheel
against
the
tail
race
current.
A key advantage of this type of wheel is that
its
operation drew from the top of the stream, and,
therefore,
was not hindered by stream siltation.
Breast Wheel
Also known as the centershot wheel, the breast wheel
was impacted by water
on the upstream
side, above
the
horizontal centerline of
the wheel.
The
breast wheel,
unlike the overshot wheel, rotated in the same direction as
the tailrace current.
The breast wheel was generally a slow
29
OVERSHOT
0
BREAST
UNDERSHOT
Figure
7.
...
Simplified Schematics of Vertical Wheel Types.
30
Manufactured
i
Fitz Wiater Wheel Co.
7
30 ft. di~ by 3;i ft. face Fitz Steel Overshoot Water Wheel driving mill of
This wheel is fed by a woodes foreba' aztrl
Capt. D3. W. Barger, at Shawsville. Va
is equipped with a segment gear.
Fitz WAaier Wheels have brought prosperitv to water power mills throughou! the
countIry lor hey afford stealy power antd constant service from streams that s,.ild b~e
worthless with any other type of wheel.
in the State o! Virgriniaalune that
There are nmore ta, 750 nibstaild facoric
are le .g dIri ve,, todisy by F~itt. Water Wheels.
Figure 8.
Typical Overshot Wheel.
1928
31
Source:
Fitz Water Wheel Co.,
spinning device (14-19 RPM) , suited to falls
of ten to
20
ft.
A
use efficiency of
40 to 60
percent was common
for
this type of wheel
(Hunter 1979).
Two examples of
breast
wheels are illustrated in Figures 9 and 10.
The breast wheel did not require a fall as high as
the
overshot style.
Alternatively, a larger breast wheel
could
be placed in the same seat as a smaller overshot wheel,
and
the increased capacity often
more than compensated for
the
inherent efficency differences (Evans 1850; see Figure
11).
Changes
in
water
level
in
the
tail
race
did
not
significantly affect the efficiency of the breast wheel.
Undershot Wheel and Flutter Wheel
The
undershot wheel
was impacted
on the
upstream,
bottom section of
the wheel,
and derived
its energy
from
stream flow rather than water
weight.
These wheels
turned
in the direction of the stream flow.
Undershot wheels
were
generally smaller
than
other
vertical
wheels,
and
were
suited to a fall of one to
25 ft.
Undershot wheels ran
at
24 to 25
RPM, excepting the
small diameter flutter
wheels
which generated higher rates.
Because undershot wheels
did
not fully utilize the
weight of the
water and also
fought
the turbulence of the race, they
operated at only 15 to
30
percent efficiency (Hunter 1979).
The advantage of the undershot
wheel was that it
did
not require large falls, and operated relatively well in low
flow situations (Newman 1984:5).
In addition, the high
RPM
rate of the flutter variety of this wheel (relative to other
vertical wheels) was well suited
to the needs of
sawmills.
The generally
smaller size
of
the undershot
wheel
meant
reduced structural and
engineering demands.
However,
the
low efficiency of the wheel was a clear drawback, and
Evans
(1832:280) argues that undershot wheels "may suit where
the
head is not
much higher
than the
float boards,
but I
am
fully convinced it will not suit high heads."
MOTIVE POWER:
HORIZONTAL WHEELS
Two basic types of horizontal wheels, tub and
turbine,
have many traits in
common.
The
simplicity of design
and
construction of
the tub
wheel
distinguishes it
from
the
highly engineered turbine.
Hunter (1979:83) discusses
the
differences between the tub and turbine wheels:
Turbine and tub wheel alike were horizontal wheels
with vertical shafts: of small diameter, both were
quick running in
contrast to the
slow motion
of
bucket wheels of
the breast
and overshot
types.
Yet in hydraulic terms there was little in
common
32
Figure 9.
Typical
Breast Wheel,
Swann's
Gwinnett County, Georgia.
33
(Freeman's) Mill
1'A
Figure
10. Very High Breast Wheel (Pitch Back Wheel). The
Wheel Turned Counter-clockwise.
Coweta County, Georgia.
34
Sewell Mill,
12 FTDA
~6
FT FLUME
~I
FT FLU ME
12 FT BREAST
I
\
~~ 6FT FLUME
2OF BRAST
12 FT FLUME
Figure 11.
Comparison of Various Options for Breast and
Overshot Wheels at Hypothetical Mill Seat.
35
between the
strike-and-splash-off action of
the
of
the pressure-reaction character
tub wheel and
the turbine. Turbines operated to best
advantage
submerged; tub wheels could operate only above the
tailwater.
In efficiency the two wheels were
at
opposite poles.
(like
Horizontal wheels do not rely on the weight of water
verticdl wLieels) , Lut instead react to the zirected flow of
the water.
Horizontal wheels are significantly smaller
and
lighter than vertical wheels.
It should be noted that the distinction between tub and
turbine wheels
has not
consistently been made
in the
archaeological literature (e.g., Orser
et al. 1987;
Newman
1984), and that terms such
as "reaction turbine" have been
applied to highly refined tub wheels.
As illustrated
in
Figures 12 and 14, there was a developmental continuum
from
simple tub wheel to snail
case tub wheel, to snail
(or
scroll) case
turbine, to
open
flume
(center discharge)
turbine.
Tub Wheel
The tub wheel consists of a central, vertical shaft
from which four to eight vertical paddles or spokes
radiate
(Figure 12).
A concentrated flow of water is directed
to
one half of
the wheel,
resulting in a pinwheel
reaction.
The water
exits though the bottom center of
the wheel.
type
Efficiency estimates of 10 to 15 percent apply to this
of wheel, which runs at 70
to 122 RPMs (Hunter 1979).
The
tub mill
was easily produced, and was often
utilized
in
small grist mill operations (Figure 13), in which the stones
were mounted directly to
the vertical
shaft
(Wigginton
1973).
While tub wheels could utilize any fall from eight
to
20 ft, they were generally applied in
low flow settings.
The low efficiency of the motive power was a limitation, but
its simplicity made
this type of
wheel popular
in many
areas.
A snail or scroll case often was placed around later
tub wheels, increasing the
force of the
reaction.
Such a
case can be viewed
as
ancestral
to the
scroll
cased
turbines.
Turbine Wheel
The modern turbine wheel was first developed in
France
in 1827, although the hydraulic theories were developed much
earlier (Drisko 1934; Wood 1896).
The turbine utilizes
the
forced flow of water to rotate the blades, and is much
less
dependent on the weight of water than are vertical
wheels.
36
oJ
i
WATER LEVEL
INTAIL RACE
....
........
iii'
!i'ii~i%
~iii
....
.
TUB
Figure 12.
WHEEL
Simplified Schematic of Tub Wheel.
37
Figure 13. Displaced Wood and Metal Tub Wheel, Lick Log Mill,
Macon County, NC.
38
Two basic categories of turbines were utilized in the United
States: the scroll case turbine and the open flume turbine.
Water
enters the
scroll (also snail
or globe)
case
turbine through an opening in the case at the outside origin
of the scroll.
Water pressure is increased as the
diameter
of the scroll decreases, and the water flows out the
bottom
center of the turbine,
acting on the
runners as it
exits.
Although similar to scroll cased tub wheels, the runners
of
these turbines are designed to react to the downward flow of
water, rather than react
simply to impact
(Figure 14).
A
scroll case
turbine, produced
by
Davis Foundry
of
Rome,
Georia, is
still in
operation at
Nora Mills
near
Helen,
Georgia.
The second
type of turbine, the open flume (or
inward
flow) turbine, was utilized at Young's Mill.
The
invention
of the inward flow turbine
is credited to James B.
Francis
in 1840 (Jeane 1974:30).
The open flume turbine was
seated
over the
only exit
from an
otherwise sealed
flume.
The
water flowed into the turbine through adjustable side
gates
around the entire circumference of the turbine, and
reacted
on the
runners
as it
exited
through the
center
(Leffel
1883).
The open flume turbine was lighter, less
expensive,
and equally as efficient as the scroll case turbines.
Wnle -arly
turbines had
one
set of
runners
(or
buckets), later
turbines
were
refined with
two
sets
of
runners to
optimize efficiency
under
a broader
range
of
flows.
The mixed
flow turbines, as
they were known,
were
pioneered by the Leffel Company of Springfield, Ohio (Leffel
1883; Figure 15).
Leffel turbines were utilized at
-')ung's
Mill.
MILL TECHNOLOGY:
DAMS,
RACES, AND FLUMES
The technology utilized to deliver a sufficient flow of
water to a sufficiently high head varied with topography
in
the Georgia Piedmont.
The two polar options are: (1)
build
a high dam and place
your mill at the
dam; or (2) build
a
diversion dam with a long head
race to deliver the head
at
the mill
well
downstream
from
the
dam.
A
head
race
functions by diverting
a portion
of the
stream flow,
and
reducing
the
natural
drop
through
construction
of
a
carefully engineered channel.
The head race flow elevation,
as it reapproached the normal
channel, will then be
higher
than
the
normal
stream
level,
and
the
difference
is
considered the head or fall.
The head required varied
with
the type
and size
of
wheel selected,
which in
turn
was
mandated by the anticipated power demands.
Several
factors were considered
in designiig a
mill
facility at a given
seat.
If
severe flooding was
feared,
39
PADDLE0
VIEW,
iPLAN
PADDLE
CASED
REMOVED
CASE
;
TOP OF
TUB WHEEL
~RUNNERS
METAL
CASE
PLAN VIEW, TOP OF
CASE AND TOP
RUNNER PLATE
i
REMOVED
~IN
FLOW
SCROLL CASED TURBINE
Figure
14.
Comparison of Cased Tub Wheel (after Council
1978:Figure 4) and Scroll Cased Turbine (after Newnan
1984:Figure 35).
40
DRIVE SHAFT
I
FDOGATE
PENSTOCK
SEALED
J
GATES
Figure 15. Simplified Schematic of Leffel Turbine, view from end
Central Portion intake Gates cutaway to
of Tailrace.
Shaded Portions are
show Interior Runner Blades.
stationary.
41
then it was better to place the mill on a race, far
removed
from the main current and the risky dam.
On the other hand,
if the stream dropped sufficiently, the construction of
the
mill
at
the
dam
would
preclude
the
engineering
and
construction of a head race.
materials
of
of
a variety
were constructed
Dams
including
stone
rubble,
coursed
.,rone,
timber,
clay,
concrete, and combinations
of any
of these.
Larger
dams
were generally constructed of coursed stone, while low
dams
and
diversion
dams
were
readily
produced
with
rubble,
timber, or
clay.
Dams
needed
to hold
back
The
normal
impoundment, and also be
capable of surviving the
pressure
and currents of floods.
TEMPORAL/SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF MOTIVE MACHINERY
IN GEORGIA
Hunter (1979:51) reports that "the technology of
water
mills in colonial America was wholly European in origin
and
character."
Colonial
were most
mills
commonly
tub
or
undershot wheels.
The
earliest water
mills
in
Georgia
apparently
were
those
built
at
the
settlement
of
New
Ebenezer in the late 1730s (Society for the Preservation
of
Old Mills [SPOOM]
1981).
A painting of
the New
Ebenezer
community (Seutter 1747)
illustrates three large
undershot
wheels (Figure 16)
By 1750, the overshot wheel was widely applied to flour
and grist milling, while the
breast wheel did not begin
to
gain popularity
until the
early 1800s.
Tub
wheels
were
widely
utilized
in
steep
for
small
areas
grist
mill
operations from the eighteenth through twentieth
centuries,
although Hunter
(1979:83) remarks
that
"by 1850
the
tub
wheel
was
the
element
of
traditional
technology
most
completely identified with
the past."
By the 1770s,
tub,
overshot, breast, and
undershot wheels were
all in use
in
Georgia.
As Jeane (1974:26) reports:
Numerous documents reveal milling to have been
an
important and
widespread
trade
during
colonial
times.
What
is lacking
is detailed
information
about the mechanical operations of the mills.
We
do know from these records that all major types of
water-powered machinery [excepting turbines]
were
being used in America by the close of the colonial
period and that Georgia was no exception.
Concerning the relative
frequency of the
various
motive power, Jeane (1974:29) further reports:
types
Overshot wheels were the most numerous large
mill
type in Europe and America until the
introduction
of the turbine in the early nineteenth century.
42
of
Fiue
1
.T
re
.n
Frm
Figure 16ahe
oo
eso
Mi
Sutr'
lno
l
at;,
NewS
Ebenezer
Ebenezer
Geo'rgi.;a.
in
the.
,
J.-,,t
174ttr
7.1
Rare
nderansotrills atbNeryEbneveriyo Georgia14.
43
Evans (1832) does not mention turbines in his review of
motive power, yet by 1880 turbines had come to dominate
the
Georgia techology.
The rapid
acceptance of the turbine
is
reflected in the history of the James Leffel and Co.,
which
was established in 1862 and had sold over 11,000 turbines by
1883
(Leffel
and
Co.
1883).
Likewise,
Montgomery
Manufacturing Company
(1861) literature
indicates that
it
had placed Reuben Rich's Centre-Vent wheels in grist and saw
mills throughout Georgia and
Alabama by 1861.
As Table
5
indicates, the
turbine was
the prevalent
motive power
in
Georgia Piedmont counties by 1880.
In general,
the early twentieth century saw a
revival
of
overshot
technology
in
Georgia,
partly
due
to
the
refinement of the steel overshot wheel.
The steel wheel was
much more
efficient
than
its
wooden
predecessor
(Fitz
Waterwheel Company 1923).
Research at Strickland's Mill
in
Gwinnett County demonstrated that a steel overshot wheel was
installed in the early twentieth
century at the site of
an
earlier 20 ft diameter wooden wheel (Gresham 1987).
The decline of
waterpowered milling in the
Southeast
affordability
availability and
corresponded with increased
of
alternate
powers,
such
as
steam,
electricity,
and
gasoline.
Trimble (1968)
noted that
steam technology
in
comparison with water
power required
less capital
outlay,
and could
be more
conveniently
located relative
to
work
force and customer base.
Nonetheless, water powered
mills
century
into the
twentieth
some areas
well
continued in
because the capital
outlays had already
been made and
the
facilities were in place (Hunter 1978).
DOCUMENTED
EXAMPLES
The
following
archaeologically
or
historically
documented mills
of the
Georgia Piedmont
demonstrate
the
wide range of motive power utilized, and the varying rate of
technological change.
It is emphasized
that a given
time
period cannot be securely linked
with a given motive
power
scheme, excepting the lack of turbines before the 1830s.
An early 1790s mill site in present day Greene
County,
Georgia was probably typical of grist mills of this
period.
The mill included a six ft tall
earthen dam and a 75 to
80
ft long mill race.
An overshot wheel
is suggested by
the
wheel pit dimensions
(Ledbetter and
Wynn 1987).
In
this
portion of
Georgia,
a
mill
race
arrangement
was
often
utilized to compensate for moderate natural drop.
Another
Greene
County example
is
the
Curtwright
(cotton) Factory
site
on the
Oconee
River.
The
motive
machinery of the Curtwright Factory, 1845 through the 1870s,
was initially wooden turbines, possibly refined tub
wheels.
44
TABLE 5. MOTIVE MACHINERY,
1880, TROUP AND BARTOW COUNTIES.
TROUP
----
BARTOW
------------------------------------------------------
VERTICAL WHEELS
2
9
OVERSHOT
0
5
CENTER/BREAST
2
2
BUCKET
0
2
---
------------------------------------------------------
HORIZONTAL WHEELS
TUB
TURBINE
---
Steam
---
11
3
1
18
10
------------------------------------------------------
OTHER
Bernum
21
(?)
0
2
0
1
0
1
------------------------------------------------------
to
of vertical
in relative frequency
NOTE: The difference
stream
greater
to the
is probably due
horizontal wheels
vertical
to
suited
better
County,
Bartow
of
gradients
wheels.
45
Two scroll
case
turbines were subsequently added.
The
hydraulic system included a small, stone diversion dam and a
350 ft mill race (Bartovics and Council 1978).
At
Ross' (also know as Merrell's) Gristmill on the
Oconee River,
technological change
is documented
for
the
limited
While there are
1840s through 1920 (Council 1978).
data suggesting
that an
undershot wheel
was the earliest
motive power at
the mill,
it is likely that multiple
tub
wheels and possibly a turbine were utilized in the merchant
mill
first
mentioned
in
1846.
The
archaeological
excavations located evidence of
five wooden
tub wheels
situated very close
to a 7 or 8 ft dam.
From the
1890s
through 1920, oral history
indicates that the motive power
was an overshot wheel
driven from a 40
to 50 ft head
race
off of a new, upstream dam. Council (1978:33) suggests that
the silting
of
the
tub wheels
may have
led
to their
abandonment in favor of the overshot wheel.
Also on
the Oconee River,
Park's Mill operated from
before
1850
through
the
1910s.
The
hydraulic
system
utilized a timber crib with boulder rubble dam providing 8
ft fall.
Three
late (1890s or
later) snail case
turbines
were found during excavation, and the original motive power
is unknown (Bartovics 1978).
In the Russell Reservoir area of South Carolina and
Georgia, archaeological investigations at seven mill
sites
revealed
a conservative
technology.
Newman
(1984:98)
reports:
The Russell Reservoir area did not participate
in
the rapid change in water power technology in
the
second half
of
the nineteenth century
which
prevailed
throughout much
of
North
America.
Instead, the use of
traditional forms of water
wheels such as center
discharge wheels and early
designs of manufactured turbines persisted
into
the twentieth century.
Mixed
flow
turbines,
widely employed in the eastern United States prior
to
1880,
are not
firmly documented
in
the
reservoir area until 1895 with the construction of
Pearle Mill.
It must be recalled that motive power was only changed when
damage or marked inefficiency mandated replacement.
The
motive power documented
for the Russell area demonstrates
the longevity of particular, individual wheels.
The only
transition evidenced was
at Mattox Mill
where two
wooden,
center
discharge
turbines
(refined
tub wheels?)
were
replaced prior to 1880 by iron scroll case turbines
(Newman
1984).
It should be noted
that Orser et al. (1987)
argued
that the mill technology at Millwood Plantation within
the
Russell Reservoir was state of the art,
and that the mill
46
had installed at
least one reaction
scroll case turbine by 1860.
turbine and one
metal
The
mill
seat at
McCosh's Mill,
Randolph
County,
Alabama,
apparently underwent a rather late transformation.
The early vertical wheel was washed away in a flood in 1886.
In 1888, a
26.5 inch
Leffel turbine was
installed in
the
rebuilt mill.
A second turbine was installed in 1904 (Jeane
1979).
The pattern of mill development in northwestern Georgia
was similar.
Jeane (1974)
defined
four phases
of
mill
evolution for the
period of
1830 through 1930.
He
found
evidence that mills
evolved from
small grist mills
with
tub wheels to grist and saw mills with first overshot,
then
turbine motive power.
The third phase entailed the addition
of flour
milling to
the
complex, with
overshot,
breast,
undershot, or
turbine
wheels.
The
final
phase
of
the
evolution was
termed
the
integrated mill
by
Jeane,
and
included saw,
grist, and
flour mill
elements as
well
as
associated rural support
services (e.g., blacksmith
shop).
In
northwester n
Georgia,
numerous
mills
had
become
integrated by
1880, although
the
time necessary
for
the
evolution varied greatly.
47
CHAPTER 5.
PROPERTY
YOUNG'S MILL ECONOMIC HISTORY
HISTORY
The remains of Young's Mill are located on Beech Creek,
in Land
Lots 160
and 161
of the
Twelfth District,
Troup
County.
Figure
17
shows
the
chain
of
title
for
the
property.
Land Lot 160 was originally drawn by Gray
Mabry,
of Morgan County, Georgia, in
the 1827 Land Lottery
(Smith
1933:23).
Records
in
the
Georgia
Surveyor
General
Department indicate that Mabry was granted the 202 acre land
lot on May 21,
1827.
This grant
was challenged by
Joshua
Mabry (relationship unknown) of Greene County, and the grant
was found to be
fraudulent on the
grounds that Gray
Mabry
had falsified claims of his military service.
In 1831,
the
Troup County Superior Court granted
the south half of
Land
Lot 160 (106 acres) to
Joshua Mabry,
reserving the
north
half (96
acres)
for the
State
of Georgia
(Troup County
Superior Court Minute Book 12:160).
Joshua Mabry's presence
in the 1830 Greene County,
Ga. Census (Jackson 1981a) , and
absence in
the
1840
Troup County
Census
(Jackson 1977)
suggest that he never
settled this grant.
In 1835,
Mabry
sold the south
half of
Land Lot
160 to
John Bird
(Troup
County Deed
Book [hereafter
TCDB]
D:331) .
According
to
later land records,
the State
of Georgia
appears to have
sold the north half of the land lot to John Bird after 1835,
but before 1853.
However, no record of this transaction was
found.
Land Lot 161
was drawn by Martha
Hays, a widow
from
Twiggs County
(Smith 1933:23).
Although records
in
the
Georgia Surveyor General Department
indicate that Hays
was
granted this lot, no Troup County property transactions have
been located regarding
the disposition of
Land Lot 161
by
her.
earliest reference to
The
this lot is
found in
the
sale of Land Lots
160, 161, and 162
to Robert M. Young
by
public sale
from the
estate of
John Bird,
in 1868
(TCDB
0:37).
John Bird,
probably the earliest settler on Land
Lots
160 and 161, was born in North Carolina in 1785 and moved to
Greene
County,
Georgia
before
1820
(Johnson 1987b:157;
Jackson 1976).
Bird probably settled in Troup County in the
early 1830s.
While Bird is listed in the 1830 Greene County
Census (Jackson 1981a) , A reference to "John Bird's Mill" in
an 1834
Troup County
Inferior Court
records suggests
his
presence in
Troup
County
by the
early
1830s
(F.
Clark
Johnson, personal communication 1988).
Bird's purchase
of
106 acres in
Land Lot
160 in
1835 -his first
recorded
property purchase in Troup County -- lists him as a resident
of Troup County (TCDB D:331).
48
Figure 17.
YOUNG'S MILL PROPERTY CHAIN OF TITLE.
Land Lot
1827 Lottery
Land Lot
160
161
Martha Hays
Gray Mabry
south half-1835
north half- ?
John Bird
1
1853
Amanda Bird
1868
Robert M.
1878
Young
1
Susan E. Young
1897
1
Lcttie G. Young
1959
1
Joseph L. Young
1974
United States
of America
(West Point Lake)
Troup County,
Georgia,
Compiled from
Records, and Troup county Will Books.
49
Superior
Court
Deed
John
Bird died
in 1853, leaving
his land
holdings,
slaves and
other possessions
to
his second
wife,
Amanda
Stewart Bird, and his three surviving children (Troup County
Will Book
[hereafter
TCWB]
B:73).
The
Birds
probably
remained on the
Beech Creek
property until
1868 when
the
land was sold at public sale to Robert M. Young (TCDB 0:37).
Robert
Madison Young
was born September
2, 1822
in
Rockingham
County,
North
Carolina
(Johnson
1987b:541).
Federal
census
records
for
the
Eastern
District
of
Rockingham County
record
his
presence
there
until
1850
(Jackson 1981b) .
Young
had removed
to
Georgia
by
the
mid-1850s, as evidenced by his marriage to Mary Eaton Yancey
in 1856
in
Troup
County
(Bruce
1982:368),
and
initial
purchases of land in Troup County
in 1857 and 1858.
These
land purchases,
consisting
of
more than
1,000
acres
on
Yellowjacket and Flat
Creeks (TCDB L:674; L:675)
probably
indicate Young's
initial date
and place
of settlement
in
Troup County.
Robert and Mary Young
had two children (Jessie, born
1857; and Joseph Walton, born 1858) before Mary died in 1859
(Johnson 1987b:541).
Robert married his second wife,
Susan
Elizabeth Farley Pitts (widow of
Robert Z. Pitts of
Harris
County), in 1861 (Barfield 1961:126).
This second marriage
produced four children:
Robert M.
Jr., Lalarette,
William
L., and Rosa Clay (TCWB:B423).
As noted above, Robert M. Young purchased approximately
600 acres, lying along
Beech Creek in
Land Lots 160,
161,
and 162, at a public sale
in 1868 (TCDB 0:37).
This
land,
the former
"Bird Place,"
was sold
by order
of the
Troup
County Court of
Ordinary in accordance
with Amanda
Bird's
life estate in the property, granted to her by her
husband,
John
Bird
(TCWB B:73-74).
Young's
placement
of
his
Yellowjacket/Flat Creek property as collateral for a loan in
1869 (TCDB N:524) may indicate that Young and his family had
relocated to the Beech Creek property by this date.
A
1931
obituary for William L.
Young, son of
Robert M. and
Susan
Young, notes that W.L.
Young was born (ca.
1869) in a
log
cabin built by his
father "in Troup County
at what is
now
Young's Mill" (LaGrange Daily News August 28, 1931).
Robert
M. Young
died in 1878.
At the
time of
his
death, the family was living
in LaGrange, as stated in
the
1879 sale of
their house by
Young's executor (TCDB T:59).
It appears that R.M. Young's
family mcved back to the
mill
property at
this time.
In
his will,
Young directed
his
executor to sell (at his discretion)
all of my Real Estate and personal property except
what I shall
reserve in
this item
... I
hereby
reserve from sale
my "Mill Place"
and "Mill"
in
this County [Troup] containing about one
thousand
50
acres of land.
I also reserve from sale ten of my
best mules,
two of
my best
wagons and all
the
plantation tools,
cotton
seed
etc.
that
my
Executor
may
deem
sufficient
for
the
(TCWB
Place"
said "Mill
of
successful farming
B:422-423).
Young left the
"Mill Place
and "Mill" to his wife,
Susan
Elizabeth, and his
four youngest children:
Robert M.
Jr.,
Lalarette,
William L.,
and Rosa
Clay
(TCWB
B:423).
According to
the Georgia
State Gazetteer
and Business
Directory
for
1881-1882
(Standard
Directory
Company
1881-1882), Mrs.
S.E. Young
owned
1,000 acres
valued
at
between $5,000 and $10,000.
In 1897, Young's heirs sold the
"Young's Mill
place" (then including Land Lots 159,
160,
161, 162, and part of 158)
to the wife of Robert M. Young,
Jr., Lottie Guinn Young (TCDB Y:537).
Local records and
informants indicate that the Young
family was not residing
on the mill
property in the early
part of the twentieth century.
As noted above, after
R.M.
Young Sr.'s death, some members of the family probably moved
back to the mill
tract. When Susan
E. Young died in 1900
(Johnson 1987b:541), it appears that the Young family house
was
rented
to a hired mill
operator
(Wiley Williams:
Appendix A).
In 1910,
the Young property on Beech Creek
consisted of
all
of
Land
Lots 159,
160,
161,
162
and
portions of Land Lots 130 and 158 (Figure 18).
According to
a sampling of LaGrange city directories, Robert M. Young Jr.
and his family resided in LaGrange, from before 1910
(Young
and Company
19C9-10:395) until
after 1929
(LaGrange City
Directory Company).
They moved back to the mill property in
1929 after razing
the old
family home and building a new
brick house (Joseph L. Young: Appendix A).
During the early 1920s, R.M. Young Jr. began building a
recreation area southwest of Young's Mill, to be used
by
LaGrange and
Troup County residents
as a summer
resort.
This construction
continued until
his death
in 1939,
and
included a swimming pool,
a number of
frame cabins, and
a
large stone "dance hall" (Wiley Williams: Appendix A; Joseph
L. Young: Appendix A) .
At Lottie Young's death in 1959, and by direction of
her will (TCWB E:81), the
"Young's Mill Place" was sold to
her son, Joseph Lauderdale Young
(TCDB 138:698).
Joe L.
Young retained ownership
of the property until 1974,
when
the land was taken by condemnation as part of the U.S.
Army
Corps of
Engineers, West Point Dam and Reservoir
Project
(United States District Court, Civil Action No. 1102,
Final
Decree 1974).
51
A'
673
7
ISO
13
CA. <,A
...... .
.40
Ito
1970
..
It
10 It.
X,
too
13314
is
4 A.
a,
son
I
P4.
AL
164
z If
IASP
A..
I..
A
0,-//
If
W
do
7
AT
Aar
do
a
too
or
ll y
r
im
all
00
65
(0
rt '000019.1
r.
son J
41,
W, ope
yo."j
A
We&
XL4
ILI
130
Sib
167.
1
4fff,jf0c A
r.1w
" 9.. . ..6 Y.
193
(.t
140
1%8
Ile
A
14
10
Ode
CAd,
CA=.
fe"
Add 4-0,
"Wipm
4A
P
owe
e
r
101*
A
RL
;F7
f
44.
4L
40
A.A
6:53
Co
Sr
33
,Wj
jOA
3111
Irk
so
3
AV
X
rvA
0,0
74
Pis
It.
*o
op
4
4
as
CA
pod
vv**d of,
A
90
;A
7N
0
Figure
18. Troup Countv Map dated
52
1 M
I L E
1910, shows Young's Propertv.
REGIONAL SETTLEMENT
Tarqeted Market
As noted by Johnson (1987b:28) , grist and flour
mills
were an integral part of
the economic development of
Troup
County.
By the time of earliest settlement in Troup County
(mid-1820s) the technology of
water powered mills had
been
widely applied in Piedmont Georgia (see Chapter 4).
Thomson
(1953:339) states:
As communities grew and prospered and as the white
men moved westward across Georgia, the number
of
mills grew accordingly.
Because the roads
were
poor, the mills served relatively local groups
of
customers
radius or
(those
so).
who
lived
within
a
ten
mile
From interviews with customers of small, local mills
northwest Georgia, Jeane (1974:101) determined that
in
Most farmers used a mill relatively close to home.
An ideal
situation was
one in
which the
farmer
might rise at
dawn, ride, drive,
or walk to
the
mill, have his corn ground, and return near
dark.
Average distances traveled
were between four
and
seven miles each way.
Smith (1933:123), a Troup
County historian, echoes
Thomson
in stating
that
"the patronage
of
a given
industry
was
limited to the
range of
travel of
one day
for the
round
trip."
Utilizing these assertions,
it can be assumed
that
the market area for a mill on Beech Creek at the location of
Young's Mill may have covered
a ten mile radius, and
could
potentially have
reached as
far
north as
Corinth
(Heard
County); south to
beyond LaGrange; east
to Mountville
and
Mt. Pleasant; and west to the Chattahoochee River.
While no
distinct market area can be documented for Young's Mill, the
following discussion will provide background data related to
the
probable
area
served
by
this
mill
throughout
its
existence.
According to Troup County historians, the early
growth
of Troup County
proceeded relatively
rapidly (Smith
1933;
Johnson 1987a) .
In 1830, four
years after its
formation,
the population of
Troup County had
reached
nearly
6,000.
LaGrange, with 1,000 residents, was named as the county seat
in 1828, and
was the
only settlement
of any
size in
the
central county
area
(Sherwood
1937:183).
LaGrange
was
linked with other county seats by a network of both old
and
new roads (Johnson 1987a:7).
Between 1830 and 1850,
Troup
County's population increased to 16,879 (U.S. Department
of
Commerce, 1883b:56).
Tanner's
(1839) map of Georgia
shows
LaGrange as the County Town
[seat], and Long Cane,
Shiloh,
53
as Common
Towns in
Troup
County.
Vernon, and
West Point
towns, in
addition
to
Bonner (1847)
pictures these
same
illustrating the primary roadways which had developed across
the county (see Figure 6, Chapter 3).
The Bonner map (1847) provides information which may be
mill
to
the
discussion of
a
previous
directly relevant
operating near the location of Young's Mill (see Use History
and
Corinth
below).
The road
shown
connecting LaGrange
Young's
Mill
follow the
route of
the present
appears to
Road,
or
a
combination of
the
two.
If
Road, Hammett
1988) suggestion for
the
Johnson's (personal communication
(ca. 1834
to
location of John
Bird's mill
on Beech Creek
made
this road would have
1853) can be considered correct,
portion
of
to
a large
relatively accessible
Bird's Mill
central and rc:rtheastern Troup County.
growth
During the
1860s, Troup
County's population
slowed somewhat, reaching 17,632 in 1870 (U.S. Department of
Callahan's map (1863)
of the
county
Commerce, 1883b:56).
of
the
area differs
little
from Bonner
(1847)
in terms
Additional
presence of towns and the general road network.
by Callahan
include
Asbury
local
settlements
pictured
Atlanta
(present-day Harrisonville) and Hogansville (on the
the
Point
Railroad).
LaGrange
continued
as
and
West
West
Point,
principal population
center of
the
county.
the
a dramatic
period of
growth in
which had experienced
the Atlanta
and
West
early 1850s
with the
completion of
a
center
of
was
rapidly
developing
as
Point Railroad,
in the
area of
cotton
agricultural commerce, particularly
processing and shipment (Smith 1933:56).
was
During the late
nineteenth century, Troup County
In 1880,
the
recovering from the effects of the Civil War.
Commerce,
population had reached 20,565 (U.S. Department of
a
1883b:56).
The
Butts Map (1832;
Figure 19) illustrates
LaGrange
more complex network of
roads continuing to serve
center.
principal
population
county
seat
and
as
the
state
business
directories
(Norwood
According
to
1881-82:337),
the
1879-80:558; Standard
Directory Company
a
reached 2,500,
and included
population of
LaGrange had
is
It
wide range of service and commercial establishments.
by
interesting to note that only one grist mill -- operated
is
James G. Young (no relation to the R.M. Young family) -al.
in
LaGrange
in
the
1876-77
(Wheeler et
listed
G.
directories.
James
1879-80 business
1876-77:216) and
Young's mill does not appear in the 1881-82 directory.
that Young's Mill
began
Documentary sources indicate
War
The
post-Civil
middle
1870s.
in
the
operation
(Johnson
depression had
severely
affected
cotton
prices
markedly
1987a:88) , but both corn and
wheat yields were up
According
to several
sources,
(See Table 4,
Chapter 3).
operating in
central
Troup
there were
a number
of mills
54
County during
the
late
1870s through
the
middle
1880s.
State business
directories indicate
that, in
addition
to
James G. Young's mill in LaGrange,
mills operated in Asbury
(now Harrisonville) and Hogansville (Wheeler et al. 1876-77;
Norwood
1879-80;
Standard
Directory
Company
1881-82;
Anonymous 1886).
According to the Butts (1882) map, Young's
Mill was one of only a few mills located in close
proximity
to LaGrange.
Others included
an
unnamed mill
on
Shoal
Creek, southeast of Young's Mill; Tufts Mill, on Mud
Creek,
southeast of LaGrange;
and Bradford's Mill,
on Mud
Creek,
south of LaGrange (Figure 19).
The presence of these
mills
in the area may have had
an limiting affect on the
overall
market area of Young's Mill.
Economic recovery
and expansion,
and the
increased
demand for water
ground meal may
have expanded the
market
area of
Young's Mill
somewhat during
the early
twentieth
century.
As
noted previously,
the production
of corn
in
Troup
and
neighboring
counties
increased
substantially
between 1910
and 1920,
primarily to
meet wartime
demand.
Joseph L. Young indicates that this time period was the most
productive for Young's Mill
(Joseph L. Young: Appendix
A).
Wiley Williams, operator of the mill during the late
1920s,
noted that area
farmers preferred
meal ground
by a
water
powered mill, and "at that time
a lot of mills was
around,
but that [Young's
Mill) was
the only
water ground
mill."
Williams stated that
corn was brought
to the mill
"thirty
and forty bushels at a time"
and meal was sold as far
away
as Harriionville (Wiley Williams: Appendix A).
The 1902 USGS Wedowee quad
sheet (Figure 20) and
the
1912 Troup County Soil Map (Figure 21) illustrate settlement
patterning in
the Young's
Mill vicinity during the
early
twentieth
century.
These
maps
illustrate
a
dispersed
settlement pattern, common to agriculturally oriented areas.
The two
major
centers of
settlement
in the
county
were
LaGrange and West
Point.
While
other smaller
settlements
appear at
road intersections,
along the
railroad, and at
river and creek crossings, a majority of the houses
and
farms illustrated are
shown scattered
along
primary and
secondary roads.
These
roads made Young's Mill accessible
to both farmers and consumers.
Competing Mills
As described above, grist,
flour, and saw mills
have
existed
in
Troup County
since
the
time of
earliest
settlement.
A number of
the earliest references for mills
in Troup County are found in the minutes of the Troup County
Infzricr Court.
For example, the Bird-Culberson Mill
(on
Shoal or
Beech Creek) and
the Culberson-Wilkinson Mills
(Beech Creek)
are noted
as
landmarks
in
early
road
55
I.
,
L,IJ.~-
-s"
4~
it
A~
N L N--
'
\
~
41- ky-
N
/.....
ci
~
W'
-j1/I
T
*7
GRNE'
tL
G~ANl
a-I
*
_____ tfZ~
-7-t
f
7h-Ad
Figure
19. M~ap of the State of Georgia, A. G. Butts
56
1882.
N
-7-
77S
-RT
~
1/"41
~J
'57
i," ,
-
!\/.
"
-
!
\~~
417
cP~-
k .,
~
,m-,.,_.,---
o ~~~~
, .
_a.,t/'
-J
j
..
,.I,:
/
C
7
/
,
il,
.-
- -.
.- , .
~ 'N
-. u , t _,.._
it./
I."}
- .J
-_\.-X.,t
,
.
*
*
.
41
f
'
1 ,p.,
I • ,.
' 2 "'-
,
J
/
,
,
,s- ,
'\
'4k
" :'--
"
'
-
J
'
- .
o ----...
ILI.
A-
2Z .
F r
SM
U D
-
t.
C.
...
,
-
T
rp
1 92,,. -
C
/
.
I
i
t
,-
•"
.
% :
k .
*
* ',
*
j"-""
-
"
I-("
21.
USDA Soil Map of Troup County,
MILE
1912.
Indicates Location of Young's Mill.
58
-
-;'
0
Figure
"
"
"7.w
,
- :
-
Arrow
petitions, Out their specific locations have not been
found
(Forrest Clark Johnson III, personal communication 1988).
Specific
references to Troup
County mills and their
locations do not appear in
the literature until the middle
nineteenth century.
In a general rev;iew of Georgia industry
of
and development, George White (1849) records the numbers
mills he found in operation throughout the state.
Table
6
summarizes these figures for Troup and neighboring counties.
TABLE 6. Mills in Troup and Neighboring Counties (from
George White's Statistics of the State of Georgia[1849]).
County
Flour
Mills
Troup
Harris
Heard
Meriwether
10
0
3
0
*
Grist
Mills
Saw
Mills
14
6
17
8
11
8
13
6*
Other
3 merchant mills
includes one steam powered saw mill
1850 Population Census
The
lists ten individuals
in
Troup County
as
millers
(Otto 1978;
see
Figure
22
for
distribution of millers and
millwrights in Troup County
by
Georgia Militia
District).
By comparison,
Harris
County
lists only
two
millers
for the
entire
county
(Barfield
1961).
Only one miller (Amoss Humphreys) , is listed in
the
LaGrange
District.
Assuming
that
these
figures
are
accurate, a comparison
with White's
1849 counts
indicates
that a
number
of the
Troup
County mills
may
have been
grinding both corn and wheat.
Further comparison of
these
counts suggests that White
may have included several
small
mills wherein grain was ground for the owner's use only;
in
these cases,
the owner
may have
considered his
full-time
occupation to have been "farmer" rather than "miller."
This
may provide an
answer as to
why John Bird,
then owner
of
Land Lots 160 and 161, is
listed as a farmer rather than
a
miller in 1850.
It is interesting to note that of the nine
millwrights
listed in the
1850 Troup County
Census, the households
of
four were located near those
of millers (Otto 1978).
This
proximity
probably
represents
an
ongoing
relationship, and
is possibly indicative of
the
size and production rate of the mill operation.
The
1860 Federal
millers in Troup County.
business
relative
Census of
Population lists eight
Figure 22 indicates a sparse but
59
1860
1850
0
'X
1880
1870
XaXlt
B
a
x~
xx
x
0
Figure
x
x
x
x
, xx
in th
OR
MILE
MILRFRE
Yt
X
1
8
ro
C
0X
MILLER OR MILLER/ FARMER
MILLWRIGHT
22.
Location of Millers by Georgia Militia District
Boundaries, as listed in the 1850-1880 Troup County
Federal Population Census
60
relatively even distribution of mills across the county.
A
single person, M.
McConnel, is
recorded as
operator of
a
"corn mill" in the LaGrange
District, the only mill
listed
for the
LaGrange area
at
that time
(U.S. Bureau
of
the
Census 1860).
An examination of the 1870 Federal Census of Population
revealed the presence of twelve persons listed as
"millers"
(U.S. Bureau of
the Census 1870;
Figure 22).
Additional,
related professions include: one sawyer and one sawmill hand
(LaGrange); one mill house keeper (LaGrange); one steam mill
hand (Logansville); and one millwright (West Point).
It
is
interesting to
note
that
the mill
house
keeper
(Joshua
Cameron) and the sawyer (? Cameron) were black.
Available state business
directories and
gazetteers
record a number of grist,
flour and saw mills operating
in
Troup County from the middle
1870s through the early
1880s
(the time of the initial
opening of Young's Mill).
Listed
mills are limited to
those businesses within listed
towns,
i.e., communities having
post offices,
which could
afford
advertising,
therefore
their
frequencies
cannot
be
considered representative of
the county
as a
whole.
For
example, Y.ung's Mill is not listed in any of the
available
directories or gazetteers, probably due to its distance from
a community of any size.
The earliest available business directory dates to
the
middle 1870s.
In
1876,
four grist
mills (two
at
Troup
Factory and two
in Hogansville), one
flour mill (owned by
James G.
Young [no
relation] ,in
LaGrange) , one
saw mill
(Troup Factory) ,
and
a
planing
mill
(West Point)
were
recorded (Wheeler et
al. 1877).
As
noted above,
Young's
Mill is absent from the listings.
According to
Sholes'
Georgia State
Gazetteer
and
Business Directory (Norwood 1880), the number of grist mills
in Troup County increased in the late 1870s, and some shifts
in motive power
appear to
have been taking
place.
Seven
grist mills
appear
in
this directory,
including
two
in
Hogansville and one in LaGrange.
While motive power was not
indicated
for
three
of
these
mills,
three
were water
powered,
and
one
was
described
as
a
steam-powered,
combination grist and saw mill. This steam mill was
located
in Asbury (present-day Harrisonville).
The 1880 Special Schedule of Manufactures (U.S.
Bureau
of the Census 1880b)
provides more complete information
on
Troup County mills.
The Manufactures
Schedule lists
five
grist mills
and thirteen
mills processing
both wheat
and
corn in Troup County.
Four of the five grist mills were run
by turbines; the fifth was powered by a tub wheel.
All
but
three of the combination grist and flour mills were
powered
by turbines (several
with as
many as four);
Other
power
61
units consisted of
one forty horsepower
steam engine,
one
breast wheel, and one tub wheel.
It is also interesting
to
note that four of five saw mills listed for Troup County
in
1880 appear to have been operated in combination with grist
mills (Appendix B).
The 1880 Manufactures Schedule is the only source found
for production and employment
figures for Young's Mill
and
other competing mills in Troup County. According to Jeane
(1979:16-17), caution must be exercised
in the use of
this
information; however, meaningful,
comparatiVe
information
can be obtained from these records.
According to calculations performed on the Manufactures
Schedule data, Young's Mill was competing successfully with
other mills
of comparable
size in
the county.
While
producing only four
percent of
the wheat
flour ground
in
Troup County during the census period (June 1, 1879 to May
31, 1880), Young's Mill ground nearly thirty percent of
the
corn meal and fourteen percent of the feed.
Production at
Young's Mill
for
the
census period totalled
$21,000,
fourteen percent
of the
total
county production
(see
Appendix B for raw data).
Listings in the Georgia State Gazetteer and Business
Directory, 1881-82 (Standard Directory Company 1882)
differ
somewhat with
federal census
information for
1880.
This
directory lists five grist mills (including steam mills
in
Asbury [Harrisonville]
and Hogansville) , two
flour mills
(both in West
Point) and
three saw mills.
There are no
mills listed in LaGrange.
A graphic representation of mills in or near
Troup
County, known to have been
in operation in the early 1880s
(and possibly in competition with Young's Mill) is presented
in Figure 23.
The names
of these mills and references
for
their locations are listed in Table 7.
Due to a number
of missing pages,
the 1886 Georgia
State Gazetteer (manuscript on file, Georgia Room, Hargrett
Library, University of Georgia),
contains only a partial
listing of mills in Troup County.
In addition to
"several"
unspecified water-powered mills and a steam powered mill
in
LaGrange, this gazetteer
lists two grist mills, two
flour
mills (one in Hogansville) , and one saw mill for the rest of
the county.
Figures are incomplete
on the number of mills
in
operation in Troup County after the
turn of the twentieth
century.
Stevens and Wright (1901:851) list only one grist
mill (and two planing mills) in Troup County in 1900.
Pike
Brothers,
"Contractors
and
Builders
in
La
Grange,"
advertised the recent opening
of a "first-class corn mill"
(The LaGranqe Graphic, July
17, 1900,
13:4),
and their
62
) '
.16
€5
WHOGA
VILL
Figure
3. Trop Count HillsOeatng
Number
referto Ta
LL7
13
3
ite180
MOLI6
TABLE 7.
Known Mills In Or Near Troup County, Georgia.
MILL LOCATIONS PLOTTED
REFERENCES
MAP #
Young's Mill
This Report.
i. Unnamed Mill
on Shoal
Ck
1882 Map.
(McGee Mill?)
Proximity of
McGee Chapel and McGee
Cemetery to plotted mill
suggest it is McGee Mill
(LaGrange) in Leffel (1883)
2. Tufts Mill
1882 Map.
(Truitt's?)
The 1880 census
lists a Truitt's Mill
on Mud
Creek, where Tufts Mill is
plotted.
3. Troup Factory
(and predecessors)
Maps of 1829, 1846, 1863,
1870, and 1882. 1880 Census.
Leffel (1883). SPOOM
(1981).
4. Dallas Mill
SPOOM (1981).
5. Dunlaps Mill
1882 Map.
6. Smith's Mill
(O'Neals ?)
1882 Map. 1880 Census. 1879
and 1881 State Directories.
7. Davidson's Mill
Maps of 1847, 1863, 1870,
and 1882.
Leffel (1883).
8. Hutchinson Mill
1882 Map.
9. Arnett and Hendrix Mill
(1840-1886)
LaGrange Daily News (1969)
10. Barnes Mill
1882 Map.
11.
Jeane (1979).
McCosh's Mill
12. Unnamed Mill on Wehadkee
1882 Map.
13. Cambron Mill
1882 Map.
14.
Jackson Mill
1882 Map.
15.
Harris Mill
1882 Map.
16.
Daniel Mills
1882 Map.
ii.
Braalora
1882 Map.
Mill
64
operation of a planing mill (The LaGrange Reporter, February
1, 1900, 57[61:7) in 1900.
In 1910, The LaGrange
Reporter
reported "Mr.
H.W. Caldwell
has
just installed
a
modern
grist mill at his
place on Whitesville Street
[LaGrange],"
and noted that "this is
something that LaGrange has
needed
for a long time" (The LaGrange Reporter, February 10,
1910,
6816]:1).
USE HISTORY
Two primary references
have been found which
suggest
that a mill
operation may
have existed at
the study
site
prior to Young's
ownership of the
tract (i.e.,
pre-1868).
The first
reference appears
in the
minutes of
the
Troup
County Inferior
Court
for 1834,
in
which a
petition
is
presented for the
construction of a
road from John
Bird's
Mill to
Shiloh meeting-house.
While
these court
records
were not available for research at the time of this study, a
Troup County
historian
with
access
to
the
Minutes
has
suggested that this
road, a former
Indian trail, may
have
followed
the
present
Young's
Mill
Road
(Forrest Clark
Johnson III,
personal
communication
1988).
While
this
assertion could not be independently verified, the
presence
of a road near this
location on early Georgia maps
(Bonner
1847; Butts 1870), and John Bird's recorded ownership of the
south half of
Land Lot
160 by
1835 (TCDB D:331) -!em to
support this suggestion.
The second reference to a previous mill at Young's Mill
is found in an 1877 mortgage note signed by Robert M.
Young
with the
LaGrange Banking
and Trust
Company.
Among
the
property offered as collateral for this mortgage is:
... the Bird old mill and settlement of land
lying in the (12th) Twelfth District of said
county...consisting of Nos. 160, 161 [and] 162
(TCDB R:442).
This reference provides a
general location for John
Bird's
mill and, taken in
conjunction with the previous
evidence,
increases the
probability for
the presence
of an
earlier
(ca. 1830)
mill
operation
in the
immediate
vicinity
of
Young's Mill.
Unfortunately no
other records
have been
recovered
which refer to Bird's Mill.
An examination of John
Bird's
will (probated November 8,
1853;
Troup County
Will
Book
B:73) and the appraisement
of his estate (recorded January
13, 1854; Troup
County Court of
Ordinary, Inventories
and
Appraisements Book K:643) revealed
no references to a
mill
or mill equipment.
65
No
firm date
has been
determined for
the
initial
construction of
Young's
Mill.
Robert
M.
Young's
1868
purchase of
the
land lots
on
which the
the
mill
stood
provides a terminus post
quem (1868) for its
establishment
as Young's Mill.
Joseph
L. Young, grandson
of Robert
M.
of
Young Sr., provides an undocumented date of construction
1875 (Joseph L. Young:Appendix A).
In the mid 1870s, Robert Young participated in a number
of land transactions which
may indicate a restructuring
of
his holdings, possibly
in preparation for
funding a
major
property improvement.
In 1874, Young sold a 600 acre
tract
lying south
of
his Yellowjacket/Flat
Creek
holdings
for
$6,000 (TCDB P:608) .
One
year
later,
Young
sold
his
property on
Yellowjacket/Flat
Creek
(then
consisting
of
nearly 1,400 acres) for $5,000 to a business firm in
Fulton
County (Q:548) .
In 1876, he transferred another tract (Land
Lot 5 in
the Hogansville
District) to
this Fulton
County
company to secure payment of an additional $5,000 loan (TCDB
R:26) . During
January and
March of
1877, Young
borrowed
$2,240
from
a
Dougherty
Cou
man
(TCDB R:268) ,
and
mortgaged his
Beech
Creek planL,; Lon
(then
estimated
to
contain over 1,800 acres; TCDB
R:442).
Any combination
of
these transactions would have
provided Young with
adequate
capital for the construction and operation of a mill
(Note:
The 1880 Special Schedule
of Manufactures records
invested
capital of $6,000 for the operation of Young's Mill
between
June 1879 and May 1880).
The earliest recorded reference to a mill owned by
the
Young family appears in 1878, in the last will and testament
of Robert M. Young.
In
this document, Young refers to
his
"Mill Place" and "Mill,"
reserving the surrounding land
to
the use of his surviving family (TCWB B:422-423).
The 1883 James Leffel & Co. catalog (Springfield, Ohio)
records the purchase of a 48 inch Leffel Water Wheel by Col.
R.M. Young of LaGrange, Georgia.
This listing, according to
the catalog,
is
a combination
of
an 1873
list
and
all
purchases made from 1873
through 1882 (Ken Brown,
Kvaerner
Hydropower, Inc.
[successor to
Leffel and
Co.],
personal
communication 1988).
Reference
to
Colonel Young
as
the
purchaser indicates
that
this initial
equipment
purchase
took place prior to his death in 1878.
The person responsible for the initial construction
of
Young's Mill has not been firmly established.
According
to
Joe L. Young (grandson of Robert M. Young Sr.) the
original
Young's Mill
was built
by a
man named
"Hanes"
(LaGrange
Daily
News
1971:1) .
No
documented
referenrces
for
a
"millwright" named Hanes
in Troup County
during the
1870s
could be
located during
this research;
however, the
1870
Federal Population Census
Schedule for
Troup County
lists
Albert Haynes as a 31 year old "Wheelwright" in the LaGrange
66
District.
The 1860
federal census lists
T.G. Haynes as
a
"Mechanic"
(a
general
profession
description
which may
include
millwright)
in
the
LaGrange
District
of
Troup
County, and records A.W. [Albert?] Haynes as his 21 year old
dependent (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1860).
In 1878 and 1879, A. P. Abraham, executor of Robert
M.
Young's estate, began selling Young's ancillary holdings, as
provided for in Young's will
(TCWB B:442).
In addition
to
tracts in
the
Harrisonville (part of
Land Lot
84;
TCDB
S:742) and
Hoganville (a
lot on
Flat Creek;
TCDB
S:429)
areas, Abraham sold a
30 acre lot and
a house in
LaGrange
"whereon Robert M. Young deceased resided at the time of his
death" (TCDB T:59) , suggesting that Young's family relocated
to the Beech Creek property after Robert's death.
Operation of Young's Mill appears to have survived
the
death of its founder, as
evidenced by the listing of
Susan
W.(sic] Young (Robert's widow) as
the owner of the mill
on
Beech Creek (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1880b).
The presence
of James Cagle
(whose occupation is
listed as "Runs
Flour
Mill") immediately following Susan Young's entry in the 1880
Population Census for
Troup County may
indicate a lack
of
participation of the
mill owner
in day
to day
mechanical
operations.
Information on the operation of Young's Mill during the
late nineteenth
and early
twentieth centuries
is
limited
primarily to data provided in the 1880 Troup County Census
of Manufactures.
According to these records, the mill
operated year-round, full-time (slightly reduced
hours
between the months of November
mechanic" (paid
laborer
one
(50 cents per
dollar
day).
and May),
per day),
The two
with one
and
at
"skilled
least
one
runs of stone at
the
mill were powered by a five foot Leffel turbine, grinding
wheat and corn, into flour, meal, and feed. With a capital
investment of $6,000, Young's Mill produced $21,000 in grain
products between June, 1879 and May, 1880. No saw mill was
listed, due either to its nonexistence in 1880, or to a
yearly production falling below
the $500
lower limit
(U.S.
Bureau of the Census 1880b).
The earliest depiction
of specific structures at
the
Young's Mill site
appears in
an 1896 survey
plat of
"The
R.M. Young Place" (TCDB 16:12-13;
Figure 24).
This
survey
may have been undertaken in anticipation of the 1897 sale of
the tract to Lottie Guinn
Young (TCDB Y:537).
In
addition
to the Young house and a number of tenant "cabins," the plat
shows a saw mill and mill flanking a dam across Beech Creek.
This plat
provides
the
earliest direct
evidence
of
the
presence of a saw
mill at the site,
and suggests that
the
Young family was
in residence on
the property through
the
middle 1890s.
67
bwas
HOUSE
YOUIG
I
A
1:113)
68
JI
I
An equipment purchase from James
Leffel & Co. in the
late 1890s may
indicate
an expansion or
renovation of
Young's Mill at that
In June,
time.
1898 (one year
after
the sale of tne mill
property to Lottie Guinn Young),
R.M.
Young [Jr.] ordered a 23 inch, Sampson Upright Turbine from
Leffel & Co. (Ken Brown, Kvaerner Hydropower, Inc., personal
communication
1988) . The
purchase of
this
turnine has
several possiole implications.
Given the possibilities
of
an error in the order date,
or confusion of the order
date
with the date of final payment (see Chapter 6), this turbine
may have been purchased
for the construction of
the
saw
mill.
The presence of the saw mill on the 1896 survey plat,
two years
prior
to
the turbine order
date, makes
this
suggestion tenuous.
The machinery may also
have been
purchased as a replacement power plant
for either the saw
mill or the grist mill, however supporting evidence for this
suggcstion could not be found.
Informant data, city directories, and available state
gazetteers indicate that the Young family may have pursued a
primarily supervisory role in the operation of the mill from
the late 1890s
until its
closing in
the middle
twentieth
century. As a teenager, Robert M. Young Jr. had lost an arm
in a farm machinery accident, probably curtailing his direct
participation in the mill operativn.
After attending
law
school at the Univeristy of Georgia, Young began a practice
in LaGrange, which led to his election as County Ordinary in
1886.
He occupied this office until 1896, and served in the
State Legislature
from 1907
to 1910
(Johnson 1987b:541).
According to
Joseph L. Young
(interview 1980)
and Wiley
Williams (interview 1989), Robert M. Young Jr. spent
little
time at the mill, preferring to hire a mill operator (Figure
25).
The
sequence of millers at
Young's Mill has
been
partially
reconstructed
from
informant data and census
records.
A list of
these mill operators
is presented
in
Table 8.
No information
could
be found concerning
the
length of employment of
James Cagle, the
first recorded
millet at Young's Mill (U.S. Bureau of the Census
1880a).
Wiley Williams recalled
his father speaking
of a previous
miller named Hackney (or Hackner?), but the milling span for
Hackney is unclear and may have occurred either between 1880
and 1914, or
after 1919.
Daniel Earl Fling
ran the mill
from 1914
to 1919 (Emmett Fling,
personal
communication
1989).
A Mr.
Freeman operated the mill from 1925
through
1927 (or 1928) .
Frank Williams
followed Mr.
Freeman,
working at the mill through
1931.
Wiley Williams,
Frank
Williams' son, ran the mill from 1931 through 1937.
Gerald
Scott operated the mill from 1937 through 1939, and his son
"Bo Peep" Scott took over for him,
running the mill
until
1939, when John Young stopped operations at the death of his
father, R.M. Young Jr. (Helen Young, personal
communication
1988) . A Mr. Hard is reputed to have run Young's Mill after
69
\j
Figure 25.
Portrait of R.N.
Young,
70
from F.A. Battey & Co.
(1889).
TABLE 8.
LISTING OF KNOWN OPERATORS AT YOUNG'S MILL.
Time Span
Operator
ca.
James Cagle
Daniel
?
?
?
Hackney [or HacKner]
?
Earl
-
1914 -
Fling
Hackney
1880 -
(or Hackner]
?
1919
1919 - 1925
1925 -
Freeman
1927/28
Frank Williams
1927 - 1931
Wiley Williams
1931 - 1937
Gerald Scott
1937
-
1939
"Bo Peep"
1939
-
1944
?
Scott
1944 -
Hard
7]
Joseph Young re-opened it in 1946 and until its close in the
middle to late 1950s (Wiley Williams interview 1989;
Joseph
L. Young interview 1980) .
In 1911, Young's grist mill was destroyed in an accident
involving tne county road maintenance crew (Figure 26).
The
local newspaper reported:
Yesterday the rodd working
crew that are at
work
on the
Young's
Mill
road, placed
a
charge
of
dynamite and powder in the hill at that place that
completely destroyed
the mill.
In
some
manner
they did not judge the
way in which the force
of
the explosion would go, and when the smoke cleared
away they
found the
mill completely
demolished,
buildings near by damaged, and considerable damage
done to the
bridge that spans
the creek at
that
place.
The property
belonged to Mr. R.M.
Young,
of this
city,
and
was
one
of
Troup
County's
oldest landmarks (The LaGrange Reporter 21
April,
1911).
It is not
clear whether the
saw mill was
damaged in
this
accident.
According to Joseph L. Young, the grist mill
was
immediately rebuilt by
his father,
R.M. Young
Jr., and
a
number of hired
laborers, using
timber cut
from his
land
(LaGrange Daily
News 14
October, 1971).
Williams
(Wiley
Williams: Appendix A) recalled that either the county or the
state paid for
the reconstruction, and
that millinq
after
this time was limited to the grinding of corn.
Joseph Young
states
that
the
years
immediately
following the reconstruction of the mill and prior to
World
War I were the "busiest" for the mill.
Young also indicates
that
Young's
Mill
remained
in
operation
during
the
depression, but was closed before the beginning of World War
II (Joseph L. Young: Appendix
A).
Mrs. Helen Young
(widow
of Joe L. Young) recalls that the mill went out of
business
in 1939,
after
the
death
of
R.M.
Young
Jr.
(personal
communication 1988).
Young's Mill
resumed
operation
in
1946, when Jos ?ph
L. Young returned
from military
service
and had the flume gates
rebuilt (Joseph L. Young:
Appendix
A).
While Joseph Young indicated that the grist mill closed
a few
years after
this
reopening "due
in large
part
to
government regulations"
(Yates 1980:3)
the mill
may
have
continued
in
use
intermittently
until
the
late
1950s.
Lottie Guinn Young's death in 1959 may also have contributed
to the
final closing
of the
mill (Helen
Young,
personal
communication 1988).
Information concerning the
operation of the saw
mill
during the
early to
middle twentieth
century is
somewhat
limited.
Williams recalls
that the saw
mill was run
only
sporadically during the late
1920s through the late
1930s,
72
C4
73
primarily to
provide
lumber
for
Robert
M.
Young
Jr.'s
building projects (Wiley Williams: Appendix A).
When
asked
to compare business activity
at the saw mill with that
at
the grist mill, Joseph L. Young stated
Well, there's no comparison because they kept
the
grist mill
running ...
and
they only
used
the
sawmill in the
fall of
the year
and the
winter
when there was ample
water.
When
it got dry
in
the sumanertime,
I didn't dare
use
the
sawmill
because I'd
save the
water
for the
grist
mill
(Joseph L. Young: Appendix A).
The buildings at Young's Mill began a period of decline
after mill operations were abandoned.
Photographic evidence
(see Chapter
6)
indicates
that the
saw
mill
was
still
standing during the late 1940s,
but there is no
indication
that it was
still in
use at that
time.
After 1960,
the
grist mill building was
used sporadically by local
hunters
for meetings.
The
structure was
vandalized
periodically
until 13 October 1971, when Young's grist mill burned to the
ground in "a fire of mysterious origin" (LaGrange Daily News
1971:1).
Documentation of
day to day
activities at the
grist
mill during
its
use
comes
primarily
from
an
interview
conducted
with
Mr.
Wiley Williams
on
24
January
1989
(Appendix A) , and relates to
his term as miller at
Young's
Mill (1931-1937).
Williams recalls that customers came from
all
around
the
area
(including
sections
of
Troup
and
Meriwether counties, Georgia, and across the state line from
Alabama), to purchase meal and to have their corn ground
at
the water powered mill.
People would
begin coming to
the
mill during harvest in the fall, and would continue to bring
corn to be ground throughout the winter.
The mill had to be
run all day
and sometimes late
into the night
to keep
up
with the demand for meal.
The amount of corn processed
by
the single stone in operation often reached 200 bushels
per
day.
While most of the
corn was ground for home use,
some
meal
was
taken
to
nearby
stores
in
LaGrange
and
Harrisonville and sold there.
The mill operator normally chargistomers one
peck
of corn for
every bushel
to be
ghowever,
Williams
notes that Robert Young Jr. often gave meal to those in need
during hard times in the 1930s.
Pay for the m.il
operator
consisted of a
daily wage,
and was
often supplemented
by
free housing, firewood, and meal.
Operation of the mill was
usually handled
by
a
single
worker;
however,
the
corn
sheller was often manned by customers.
The grist milling operation at Young's Mill appears
to
have
outlasted
other
small,
local
milling
concerns.
According to Mr. Williams
74
at that time a lot
of mills was around, but
that
[Young's Mill]
was the
only water
ground
mill.
a
of difference
between
there a
lot
You know,
other
all these
and steam and
water ground mill
mills ... People'd rather
have water ground
meal
than these other meals ... Most of these mills run
by these engines I reckon run faster.
Don't
have
the same speed as the water ground mills.
It just
naturally
tastes
better.
The meal
tastes
sweeter...
75
Chapter 6.
YOUNG'S MILL TECHNOLOGY
NATURAL SETTING
Topography
Young's Mill
is located in the Midland section of
the
Piedmont province (Wharton 1978), also referred
to as
the
The toporraphy is
dominated
Lower Piedmont (Harper 1930).
by rolling
hills
and
ridges
between
dendritic
drainage
the west/southwest.
systems flow to
The natural soils
of
the area are
predominately clayey loams
and clays
derived
from underlying
granite, gneiss,
and schist.
Shoals
are
present throughout
Troup
County
in
areas
where
granite
uplifts resist
stream
entrenchment.
Moderate
to
severe
surface slope is
reflected in
the soil
mapping units;
31
percent of the surface soils of Troup County have six to ten
percent slope, and 45 percent of the soils have greater than
ten percent slopes (Brooks 1980).
Climate and Precipitation
The
climate and precipitation of the region
determine
not only the growing season and agricultural potential,
but
also the feasibility of yearround
mill operation.
In
1912
(Sweet and Smith 1912), the average annual precipitation was
calculated as 49.1 inches (range 33.9 to 73.1 inches).
The
fall months had the lowest
average rainfall (18% of
yearly
total), and
rainfall was
relatively
even for
the
winter
(29%), spring (25%), and summer
(27%) months.
The
growing
season is usually between 197
and 237 days.
Cotton,
corn,
soybeans, and grain
crops do
well in this
climate, as
do
hardwood and coniferous trees (Brooks 1980).
Hydrology
The 50 inches of annual rainfall results in an
average
of 11 inches
of surface
runoff in the
Troup County
area.
Thirty-five inches of the remainder is lost to
evaporation,
while approximately 6
inches enters the
water table.
The
surface runoff and ground water discharge combine to
create
a stream outflow of 17 inches.
Surface water in the
region
foll'ws a pattern of long, relatively narrow drainage basins
feeding directly into the Chattahoochee River or one of
its
major tributaries.
Beech Creek at
Young's Mill is a
rank 4 stream;
its
rank reflects its narrowness and lack of major
tributaries.
It drains
approximately
13,950 hectares
(34,456.5
acres)
abcve the mill.
Elevations in the drainage basin range from
920 to 625 feet amsl.
The creek is generally mud
bottomed
76
in the general vicinity of the mill, but current
conditions
may reflect the results of
extreme soil erosion during
the
late
nineteenth
and
early
twentieth
centuries
(Trimble
1974).
PRESENT SITE
STRUCTURE
The
site structure, as
documented in the
associated
portfolio, is dominated by the
remains of the dam,
flumes,
and structural piers (Figure 27).
In addition, tL
walls of
the office/store building are standing, as is the chimney of
a cabin.
Young's
Mill,
from
at
least
1896
to
1945,
consisted of both a
grist mill and a
saw mill, located
on
opposite ends of the
dam; the grist mill
on the west,
and
the sawmill on the east.
Dam
The dam is a coursed
granite structure with a
cement
cap.
It measures
83 feet
from flume
to flume,
and
its
height varies from 6.9 feet on
the eastern edge of the
dam
to 10.5 feet at the western
flume.
The variability in
dam
height is directly related to the contour of the
underlying
bedrock.
Probing and
sounding demonstrated
that
bedrock
extended under the entire length of the dam.
The dam has a 6.5 feet wide top, and is stepped down to
the south (upstream side) in a series of six 0.7 feet
drops
separated by 1.0 feet horizontal
steps.
The front
(north,
downstream) face of the dam angles out slightly from top
to
bottom.
Maximum thickness
is estimated at
15 feet at
the
western base of the dam.
The dam is
buttressed by a
short (27 feet)
retaining
wall on the west, and a more substantial wall on the
east.
The eastern retaining wall is capped in cement for 35
feet,
and then
is
comprised
of
loose
granite
rubble
for
an
additional 74
feet.
The difference
in
retaining
wall
lengths is
probably
due to
the
steeper contours
on
the
western bank.
Grist Mill
Tne grist mill saL above the western flume (Figure 28).
The main
body
of
the
flume
was
constructed
of
formed
concrete, apparently poured between set pylons (Figure
29).
The entire
flume structure
measures 30.5
feet in
length,
with 'he
following elements
contributing to
that
figure:
head race/trash gate
(3.5 feet); control
gate (2.0
feet);
stilling basin (5.0 feet); and
open flume (20.0 feet).
No
trash gates are present, but
a double, wooden control
gate
77
t4_
_
F9
0
78I
SE)
Nno
Figure 28 . Young's Mill
Source: Mrs.
Grist Mill, ca.
Helen Young.
79
1947.
Figure 29
.
View of Grist Mill Flume and Piers with Cabin Chimney
and Store/Office in background,
~
...
.....
.
I
ii~i iii
. ....
80
. ....
view towards West.
is in
place.
The
control gate
opens into
the
stilling
basin, from which
water exits through
a 3.0 feet
diameter
orifice.
The stilling
basin apparently
served to
lessen
efficiency-robbing turbulence, while also increasing head by
lengthening the
flume.
The interior
measurements of
the
flume proper
were
7.5
feet maximum
width
by
18.8
feet
length.
The
water exited
the flume either
through a
4.0
feet diameter
opening
in
the flume
end
or
through
the
undocumented (submerged) turbine seat opening.
No direct
evidence of the motive power was present
on
the grist mill side of the site.
The flume did contain
one
of the grindstones from the mill (Figure 30).
The stone was
apparently produced of local granite, and was dressed with a
quarter dress.
It was 3.8
feet in diameter, with a
center
opening of 1.2 feet and a thickness of 1.0 feet.
The
stone
was surrounded by an
iron band.
The
shaft upon which
the
stone was apparently mounted was also present in the
flume.
A second grindstone was partially visible beneath the
water
directly north of the flume.
Another artifact was located adjacent to the
exterior,
northwestern corner of tne flume,
and consisted of a
large
welded and bolted iron piece.
The artifact was a
circular,
flat-top piece of iron
bolted onto the
welded flange of
a
1.6 feet tall cylinder.
An arc of 3.5 feet of the estimated
6.0 feet diameter of the item was visible.
The eastern
end
of the piece did
not extend beneath
the flume, but
rather
ended in a finished edge, suggesting that a full circle
was
not originally
produced.
The
artifact does
not
closely
resemble any published
drawings or
descriptions of
Leffel
motive devices or grist processing items.
It is possibly
a
locally produced item installed
to enhance the
performance
of the original Leffel (48 inch) turbine.
The grist
mill structure was
supported by two
-arge
stone piers north of the flume and two other piers along the
dam line.
All four piers are intact, and appear as seen
in
a late 1940s photograph of the site (Figure 28).
An additional element of the grist mill was the
poured
cement drive leading
from Young's
Mill Road
to the
grist
mill.
The road
consists of two 1.9
feet wide tracks
with
2.6 feet between them.
Its present length is 108 feet.
The
hard road
would have
allowed loaded
wagons or
trucks
to
unload directly at
the mill, without
the risk of
becoming
mired in the red clay.
Saw Mill
The saw mill sat above
the eastern
flume, with
an
associated building to the north.
The flume has
apparently
been damaged, and there are no internal dividers between the
81
Figure 30.
Millstone in Grist Mill Flume.
82
flood gates and the
flume exit .
The total length of
the
flume is
40.0 feet,
but it
is estimated
that the
actual
flume may have been only 26.0
feet long (Figure 31).
This
length is considerably
longer than at
the grist mill,
and
the difference
is probably
related to
the lesser
natural
fall on the east end of the dam and to a desire to
increase
the head by increasing the length of the flume.
The saw mill flume apparently contains an entire Leffel
Sampson 23 inch turbine.
Visible indications of the turbine
are the
upper
portions
of
the
turbine
shaft
with
the
horizontal bevel gear
in place
(Figure 32).
The
turbine
itself is not visible because the present main water flow is
through the eastern flume.
The horizontal bevel gear is
a
60 tooth metal
gear, 48
inches in diameter.
This gear
is
meshed with a 32
tooth, 24 inch vertical
bevel gear.
The
vertical gear is attached
to a 21.0
feet drive shaft
with
several belt pulleys
attached.
The alignment
of the
two
standing piers with
shaft rests indicates
the the
turbine
and
drive
shaft
have
settled
north
of
their
original
placement (Figure 33).
A counterwheel spindle is present in
the western wall of the flume, south of the current
turbine
position and in line with the shaft rest.
The various piers
present on the saw mill side can
be
interpreted through reference to period pictures of the mill
(Figures 34-36).
It
appears that
a mill
house or
power
house was located directly
above the flume.
A walkway
to
the north connected the power
house with a two story
cabin
structure, evidenced
today by
stone piers
and a
standing
stone chimney.
The
actual
sawing area
was east
of
the
walkway and power
house, and
was covered by
an open
shed
(Figure 36).
In terms
of the present
remains, the
stone
piers are associated with the
power house and cabin,
while
the cement piers
apparently supported the
walkway and
saw
shed (Figure 37).
The saw pit or saw
seat remains today as a
concrete,
squarish structure (Figure 38).
It exhibits a center
point
support pier with
a 0.5 feet
wide by 2.0
feet deep
slot.
This slot is
oriented in
the same direction
as the
blade
seen in
the
photographs
(Figures
35
and
36),
and
was
probably the location of the saw.
The
cabin
mentioned
above
was
apparently
not
functionally related to the saw mill.
Oral history from Mr.
Wiley Williams,
Mr. Emmett
Fling, and
Mr. Charles
Gibson
suggests that this structure was a summer cabin located near
the saw mill for scenic reasons.
The cabin remains
include
a corner chimney
with upper
and lower
hearths, and
stone
support piers.
83
L
__A
Figure31l
4A4
view of
Planar
West Sluice.
East Sluice,
view towards East
from
Figure32
of Bevel Gears on Turbine Shaft,
Saw Mill Flume.
.Detail
85
Figure 33
.
Oblique View of Saw Mill Flume Showing Extant
Machinery, view towards North.
86
Figure 34
.
Young's Mill ca. 1947, Power House at Saw Mill.
Source: Vanishing Georgia Collection.
87
Figure
35.
Young's Mill at Flood Stage, 1948.
Saw Mill is on
Shed covering saw is
right and cabin is on lef
visible between the two sL,U-ures. Source:
Mrs. Helen Young.
88
Figure36
Young's Mill at Flood Stage, 1948.
View from Behind
Saw Mill Power House (L), Saw Shed (Center), and
Cabin (R).
Source: Mrs. Helen Young.
89
Figure
37.
Oblique View of Southside Chimney, Stone and Cement
Piers of Cabin Near Saw Mill Pit, View Towards
North.
90
°i L
Figure 38
.
Oblique View of Saw Pit, Towards Northeast.
91
Offi ce/Store
The
office/store is
currently represented
by
four
standing walls lacking
a roof
(Figure 39).
The one
room
building measures
12
feet by
13
feet 8
inches,
and
is
constructed of coursed granite on the exte(rior and red brick
on the interior.
The building is accessed through front and
rear arch-top doorways.
An interesting construction feature
of the office/store is the use of wooden bricks at
selected
spots on the interior to provide useful anchors.
Artifacts
associated with
the
office/store include
two
large
Coke
coolers (i.e., drink boxes).
The
structure is
located
on
a
small
platform,
maintained in part by a mortared rock wall along the
poured
concrete drive.
The rear door of the office/store exits
to
the top
of
a stone
staircase,
which leads
down
to
the
driveway.
Cabin Chimney
A
standing
chimney
is
located
south
of
the
office/store, just east
of Young's Mill
Road (Figure 40).
The 18 feet tall chimney has
a first floor hearth, as
well
as an additional hearth pipe originating in a basement.
The
chimney is located at the south end of a 16 feet by 30
feet
depression
cut
into
the
side
slope.
The
chimney
is
constructed of
coursed field
stone with
concrete mortar.
Two dates were inscribed into the wet mortar: "Feb 24
1922"
and "2/24/22."
Oral history
indicates that this was a
log
structure
inhabited
by
various employees
of
the
Young
family, and was not used as a summer cabin.
The
unfinished
basement reportedly had a hearth,
and was utilized by
mill
customers as
a
waiting
room during
cold
weather
(Wiley
Williams: see Appendix A).
Rock Lined Feature
A cultural
feature
of indeterminate
function
was
located during the topographic mapping south of the
eastern
retaining wall.
The
feature measures approximately six
by
two feet, and is bordered
by one to two unmortared
courses
of field stone.
In addition, several strands of barbed wire
were covering the
feature, and an
early twentieth
century
medicine bottle was present.
The dimensions of the
feature
are suggestive of
a grave,
but no
supporting archival
or
oral
history
data
were
recovered.
No
subsurface
investigations were undertaken.
92
VAt
Figure39
.
Oblique View front and south facades of Store/Office,
View Towards Northeast.
93
.... 2
Figure40
41..*
Oblique View of Front and West Sides
of
Roadside Cabin Chimney, view towards East.
94
>tILL
SEAr
PARAMETERS
As
discussed
in
apparently were considered
economic
factors
were
Chapter
4,
several
parameters
in selecting a mill seat.
The
addressed
in Chapter
5,
and
this
s-ction will focus
on natural
factors including
gradient,
flow, sunstratum, and bank
constriction. The data suggest
that key parameters
in the
selection of
the Young's
mill
seat were
its exposed
rock bottom and significant
stream
constriction.
lGrad ient
The Beech Creek gradient was calculated from pre-West
Point
Lake topographic maps
for
the
section
from
the
confluence with
Yellowjacket Creek
to ten
creek miles
upstream.
Young's Mill is located at creek mile 3.4, if the
confluence is designated creek mile
0.0.
Table 9 presents
the elevation and gradient data
for the eleven mile points
and Young's Mill.
An
examination of
these data
indicate
that the gradient
in the Young's Mill section is slightly
less than the stream mepn.
The above calculations, it
should be noted,
concern
gradient on
a coarse
scale.
In reality, micro-gradient
(i.e., the drop
encompassed by the dam and flumes)
was
prooably more important
in selecting
a seat.
Because of
mill pond
silting,
it is not
possible to determine
the
original bottom elevation of Beech Creek directly above
the
dam. However, the similar elevations of the granite outcrop
directly beneath the eastern end
of the dam and beyond the
downstream end
of
the
eastern flume
suggest
that
a
significant micro-gradient was not present.
Flow
Reliable data on the Beech Creek flow before West Point
Lake are
not
available, but
comparable
data
from
Yellowjacket Creek can be interpolated for Beech Creek.
The
flow figures (Table 9) reflect the viability of Beech
Creek
as a mill seat.
In order to interpolate the available data
to other sections
of the creek,
the contributing drainage
basin in acres was calculated for each creek mile.
If other
factors
(gradient,
stream
width,
stream
depth)
are
relatively constant, flow will
vary directly with the area
of the drainage basin.
The interpolated flow data
indicate
that while
Young's Mill
was not
at the point of
highest
flow, it did receive ample flow to drive either a 23 inch or
48 inch turbine (Table 9).
The optimal flow would have been
realized at a location below the confluence of Shoal
Creek,
since the Shoal Creek portion of the drainage represents
a
significant addition to the Beech Creek flow.
It must
also
95
Table 9.
Aill Seat Selection Factors.
ATTRIBUTE
Creek
Mile
Stream Gradient Constriction
Rank
(feet/mi)
(feet)
Drainage
(hectare)
Estimated
Avg. Flow
1
5
5.5
1200
20,000+
84.0
2
4
6.0
1400
14,100
59.2
3
4
6.5
1200
13,900
58.4
4
6.3
500
13,950
58.6
4
4
6.0
1800
13,700
57.5
5
4
6.0
900
13,000
54.6
6
4
7.0
1100
12,500
52.5
7
4
7.0
750
12,300
51.7
8
4
7.5
600
11,400
47.9
9
4
9.0
2000
11,000
46.2
10
4
10.0
400
9,600
40.3
Mill
NOTES: Stream rank
assigned following
the Strahler
(1957)
method.
Gradient
calculated
as
0.5
times
elevation
difference
between
1.0
mile
upstream
and
1.0
mile
downstream.
Constriction measured as distance from bank to
bank at elevation 20
feet above stream level.
Flow is
in
cubic feet per
second, and is
interpolated from
1978-1982
data from Yellowjacket Creek.
96
be noted
that flow
is
affected by
creek width,
and
the
discussion of
bank constriction
(see belowl
must also
be
considered.
Geological
Substrata
While mill seats were successfuly constructed in
areas
of clay or silt substrata, the nineteenth century literature
and documented mill
sites reflect the
preference for
rock
substrata.
In addition
to
providing an
impermeable
dam
base, rock
outcrops
were
often located
at
natural
nick
points,
where
the
stream
narrowed,
stream
velocity
increased, and natural drop
increased (Trimble 1968;
Doyon
1983).
In the
natural evolution of
streams and rivers,
a
downgrading water course would
be naturally dammed to
some
degree by erosion
resi~tant rock outcrops.
Such
settings
would provide naturally advantageous mill seats.
A
photograph
of
Young's
saw
mill
(Figure
34)
illustrates that a major rock shelf was present beneath
the
mill and dam.
Bottom soundings confirmed that a rock
ledge
was present across the entire creek at this point, extending
10 to
20
feet
downstream
from the
dam.
In
terms
of
substratum, the
Young's
Mill
seat
was
well
suited
for
development.
Constriction
The width or constriction of a stream can be
important
in mill
seat selection
for two
major reasons.
First,
a
relatively narrow section of river is more easily spanned by
a dam
than a
wider
area.
Secondly,
an area
of
stream
constriction
results
in
increased
stream
velocity
and
greater head per volume of
water.
For these reasons,
mill
seats were often established
in constricted areas, or
nick
points (Trimble 1968; Doyon 1983).
Quadrangle maps were again consulted, and a measure
of
constriction was defined as the distance from bank to
bank
at 20 feet above natural stream level.
The 20 feet rise was
considered the
minimal
reliable interval
which
could
be
interpolated from
the USGS
maps.
Table
9 and
Figure
1
illustrate that Young's
Mill was located
at a
significant
narrows.
Although the
constriction was
greater at
creek
mile 10.0. Aie Young's Mill
seat represents the only
major
constrP-- - .. on
the lower
portion of
the drainage.
The
relative
short length of the mill dam (83 feet)
relative
to its heiqh
(6.9 to 10.5
feet) confirms the
value of
a
narrows to
mill seat.
-
97
DESIGN SELECTION
It has been argued that form follows function, and
for
water powered mills, function
and
form are
both
closely
linked to the selected mill seat. Additional factors which
enter into
the
selection
of a mill
design
include
the
anticipated tecihnological demands, the available technology,
and the available materials.
In the following discussion,
it is argued
that Colonel Young
was fortunate because his
land
contained
a very satisfactory mill
seat,
because
granite building
materials were
locally available,
and
because the competitiveness of the mill machinery market had
resulted in readily available technology and consultation.
Colonel Young was able to build a mill well designed to meet
the moderate anticipated demand of his targeted market.
Technological Demand
From data provided in Chapter
5, it may be
suggested
that the
anticipated demand
on the original Young's
Mill
could be met by four stones
(i.e., a two run mill).
The
required horsepower to
turn
the stones
could
have
been
achieved through a number of methods, but the design
also
had to allow for
the necessary power to
be available on a
consistent basis during
milling seasons.
Stream flow and
the effect of pondage had to be evaluated to determine the
maximum
daily
draw
which
could
be
sustained
without
depleting
the
pond
below
operational
levels.
These
calculations may simply have utilized "horse sense" and
the
available data base of numerous area mills.
Alternatively,
Colonel Young could have supplied
the Leffel Company (or
a
competitor) with
the
pertinent
data,
and
allowed
their
engineers to suggest the optimal design for the Young's Mill
seat and demand.
A
consistent theme in the Leffel
primers
and brochures of the
nineteenth and twentieth century
(see
also Montgomery Manufacturing Co.,
Inc. 1861) was that
the
important selection of mill design is best undertaken by the
companys' trained engineers.
The company
offered to
send
engineers on field consultations as necessary.
It is
likely that the design selection began with
the
consideration of the dam size feasible and necessary at
the
mill seat.
The seven
feet fall/six feet head (eastern
end
of dam) represents a moderately high dam, and this dam
size
was common in the western Piedmont
of Georgia.
Once a
dam
size
was
selected,
the
head
and
pondage
were
easily
calculated.
It was
then a simple
matter to calculate
the
sustainable flow
in
cubic
feet
per
minute.
Table
10
delineates a sample of the options available under seven
or
ten feet of head, with an average stream flow of 58.6
cubic
feet per second.
It should be noted that Table 10 does
not
consider the estimated pondage of 2,178,000 cubic feet,
and
98
TABLE 10.
Potential
of
Interpolated Flow For Young's Mill.
HOURS PER DAY OF MILLING
AVERAGE FLOW
MINIMUM FLOW
7 FEET HEAD
(SAW MILL)
10
inch Sampson Turbine
24.0
23.0
23
inch
Sampson Turbine
24.0
4.3
48
inch Sampson Turbine
24.0
1.0
74
inch Sampson
12.5
0.3
10
FEET HEAD
10
inch Sampson Turbine
24.0
19.0
23
inch Sampson
Turbine
24.0
3.6
48
inch Sampson Turbine
24.0
0.8
74
inch Sampson Turbine
10.5
0.0
Turbine
(GRIST MILL)
Note: These are
hours per day
of milling possible
without
depleting pondage.
Actual
hours of potential milling
were
undoubtedly higher.
Calculated from interpolated flow data
and Leffel (1883:30-33) Double Turbine Tables.
Assumes only
one turbine operating
at any given
time, and that
turbine
operating at full gate.
99
therefore the
actual
significantly higher.
hours
of
operation would
have
been
The 48
inch turbine originally used in the grist
mill
represented a
conservative
selection,
in
that
it
would
supply ample horsepower,
and could
be run
all day during
periods of average flow, and one hour a day at minimum
flow
without significantly depleting the pondage.
The
selection
of a more powerful (i.e., larger) turbine would have
placed
the pondage at greater risk or would have forced the mill to
be operated fewer
hours per day.
dam and
Once a
turbine
size had
been selected,
the mill
design probably
closely
followed the published recommendations of the Leffel Company
(1883, 1881, n.d., and the Leffel News).
Locally Available Technology
Technology
refers to both the existence of
machinery,
in this case, and the knowledge to install and utilize
that
machinery.
At the
time of
the establishment
of
Young's
Mill, the efficiency and reliability of turbine motive power
was well established, and such
power units were present
in
the majority of the'mills
of the western Georgia
Piedmont.
The turbines
were available
as mass
produced units
in
a
variety of sizes and styles.
While some turbines were being
produced in small, regional foundries (e.g., Davis
Foundry,
Rome, Ga.) , quality was
best assured through purchase
from
large companies such as Leffel or Reynolds.
Shipping
times
were minimal, and these companies generally had the turbines
in stock.
The large companies also offered service support
which
smaller foundries could
not rival.
This support
included
published guidelines
on
the selection,
installation,
and
operation of machinery, as well as the availability of field
engineers to visit proposed
mill seats.
Mass
production
guaranteed that
a
dam
and penstocks
could
be
built
to
specification before the
arrival of the
turbine, and
that
the turbine would
fit.
The
guidebooks and newsletters
of
the Leffel Company and others
served not only as
excellent
advertising,
but
also
provided
necessary
technological
information.
In addition,
the
guidebooks
inevitably
included
testimonials from
satisfied customers
from throughout
the
country, reassuring the potential customer that the
turbine
reaily was suited
to his
particular area.
It should
be
noted that
testimonials
from LaGrange
area
millers
were
included in
both
the
1883 Leffel
Catalog
and
the
1861
Montgomery Manufacturing Co. (Reuben Rich's) listing.
Given
the intensity of the advertising claims, it is possible that
the various guidebooks, because they were full of scientific
proof, testimonials, and challenges
to competitors, were
a
100
mixed blessing
decision.
to the small miller attempting
to make a wise
Locally Available Material
While
many nineteenth
century mills
operated
with
timber dams and penstocks, a much hardier mill facility
was
possible with rock construction.
Rock dams and flumes
were
not as susceptible to flood damage and general wear as
were
their wooden counterparts.
Leffel (1881:55) argued:
Whatever
may
be
said
in
favor
of
other
descriptions of dams, whether they be frame, crib,
log, pile,
earth, brush,
or iron
dams, it
must
still be admitted that
stone is on many
accounts
the most suitable material
for a barrier
against
the
pressure
of
water,
and
one
which
will
naturally be selected
where the circumstances
do
not make it too costly...
Young's Mill
is located within an area of granite
and
granitic gneiss bedrock, and
granite quarries have
existed
in the area since the early nineteenth century.
The closest
quarry documented by
the present
research, the
Mountville
quarry, was situated only 6 miles from Young's Mill
(Watson
1902).
This
quarry or
other area
quarries were
probably
able to
provide the
necessary rough
cut granite
for
the
construction of Young's Mill at a reasonable cost.
It
will
be recalled that the
1880 Special Schedule of
Manufactures
reports a capital investment of $6,000.00 for Young's
Mill,
and that the turbine unit cost only $500.00.
The
rock dam
designs published
in the
1880s
were
targeted for large industrial complexes.
The cost of
stone
in most areas of the country precluded its use at small mill
complexes.
Therefore, it is likely that the dam itself
did
not follow
any
published
plans
(cf.,
Fitz
Water
Wheel
Company 1928:9), but instead represents a locally successful
pattern.
MOTIVE POWER
When Young's
Mill was established
in the 1870s,
the
prevalent
motive
power
technology
was
the
mixed
flow
turbine.
For
example,
the
1880
Special
Schedule
of
Manufactures indicates that ten of the thirteen
grist/flour
mills, four of five grist mills,
and three of the five
saw
mills in Troup County had
turbines in place.
The
relative
efficiency of
turbines, their
availablity, their
relative
ease of
installation and
operation, and
their history
of
successful application in the region probably precluded
the
101
consideration of any other
Mill.
type of motive power
for
Young's
1880s Motive Power
Young's
motive power at
earliest description of
The
of
Schedule
Special
1880
the
in
included
is
Mill
one
containing
as
mill
the
lists
Schedule
The
Manufactures.
Leffel power unit producing 12 horsepower at 300 revolutions
and
The height of fall is given as seven feet,
per minute.
must
breadth
wheel
The
feet.
as
five
wheel
of
the breadth
entrance
the penstock
a measurement of
actually have been
Leffel
The
turbine.
the
Leffel
of
possibly
width, or
turbine
a
such
but
turbine,
61 inch
Company did produce a
of
54.0 hp with seven feet
had an advertised horsepower of
1883)
Co.
&
Leffel
fall (James
breadth
feet wheel
that the five
is more likely
It
a
48 inch
The casing of
represented the wheel casing width.
1883).
Co.
inches (James Leffel &
Leffel turbine was 60
on
Such a turbine would have produced an advertised 21.4 hp
advertised
should be noted that the
It
a seven feet fall.
horsepower ratings were rarely achieved in actuality, a fact
emphasized by proponents of other water power systems (e.g.,
Company
Fitz
The
1928:24-26).
Company
Fitz Waterwheel
percent
literature claims that turbines usually produced 60
efficiency
such an
advertised capacity;
of their
or less
1880
on the
hp estimate
the 12
indicate that
rate would
census may have been accurate.
is
listing, Young's Mill
1883 Leffel Company
In the
turbine
Leffel
inch
48
single
a
having
as
described
is
mill
The
(not fall).
feet head
a 6
operating under
In
described as a flour mill (James Leffel & Co. 1983:136).
48
single
a
utilizing
was
apparently
Mill
Young's
1880s,
the
mill.
inch, Leffel Improved Double Turbine to run the grist
flume
recommended
and
turbine,
flume
open
an
This was
than
greater
significantly
inches,
108
to
99
diameter was
suggests
This
inches).
84
to
(72
diameter
flume
the present
at
rebuilt in 1911,
indeed damaged and
that the flume was
smaller
a
to
adapted
were
dimensions
flume
which time the
not
inch turbine may
Alternatively, the 48
turbine size.
inch
23
the
and
flume,
small
too
a
in
have been productive
turbine was selected as more appropriate for the flume.
Late Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Motive Power
measured
(Leffel Company records,
While the evidence
the
that
indicates
history)
oral
drawings of the penstock,
turbine
inch
48
the
used
Mill
grist mill element of Young's
1896
at least through 1880, the saw mill established before
48
a
Instead of
slightly different motive power.
utilized
102
inch Leffel Improved Double Turbine (as in the grist
mill),
the saw mill
was probably
equipped with a
single 23
inch
Leffel Sampson Upright
Turbine, right hand
rotation.
The
saw mill turbine was placed in
a 6.0 feet wide flume,
very
close to the
recommended range
of 50 to
59 inches
(James
Leffel & Co.
1883).
The flume
of the
sawmill was
built
longer than its grist mill counterpart to increase the drop,
since the
natural fall
on
the east
end
of the
dam
was
significantly less than on the west end.
The records
of Leffel turbine orders for Young's
Mill
are somewhat
confusing.
The
first
order of
a
23
inch
turbine was
delivered to
Young's
Mill in
1898.
It
was
replaced by an
identical unit after
the road
construction
accident in
1911,
and by
another
similar unit
in
1945.
Since the sawmill
was established by
1896, it is
possible
that the 1898
turbine was
installed in the
grist mill
at
this date.
Alternatively, the order date may be
erroneous,
and the 1898
turbine may have
actually been delivered
for
the sawmill at an
earlier date.
Regardless, it is
highly
likely that the 1911 turbine was for the damaged grist mill.
The 1945
turbine may
also have
been for
the grist
mill,
since the sawmill
was probably
no longer
in operation
by
that date.
Whenever
the first 23 inch
turbine was put
in
the grist mill, it was installed in a larger than
necessary
flume.
Flow Regulation
It is likely that two
points of flow regulation
were
present at the grist
mill and at the
saw mill.
The
first
control mechanism was the wooden flood gates which could
be
raised or
lowered
to control
flow
into the
flume.
In
addition, the Leffel
turbines had
adjustable intake
gates
which allowed the turbines to run at different rates and
to
be shut
down completely.
The
flood gates
were
probably
operated from the
dam wings, while
the turbine gates
were
adjusted from within the mills.
Power
Transfer
While physical evidence of the power transfer mechanism
is absent from the grist mill,
it is likely that the
grist
mill system is similar to that evidenced at the saw mill.
A
large (60 tooth, 48
inch diameter) metal, horizontal
bevel
gear is present on the
turbine shaft in the eastern
flume.
This gear meshed with a smaller (32 tooth, 24 inch diameter)
vertical gear on
the end
of a 21
feet drive
shaft.
The
drive shaft sat on at least two shaft rests atop piers.
The
shaft was stamped
"Dodge" on
one element, and
may be
the
drive shaft
from an
early
Dodge truck.
Two
small
belt
pulleys were present on the
shaft, and it is reported
that
103
leather belts were used to drive the saw mill and
(Wiley Williams: Appendix A).
grist mill
Utilizing Leffel's (1883) estimate of 147 RPM for a
23
inch turbine under 6 feet head (on eastern end of dam),
the
main horizontal drive shaft would have been spinning at
276
RPM.
For comparison, the main shaft at McCosh's Grist
Mill
had an estimated spin of 146 RPM.
For early pitman saws (up
and down stroke) ,
a rate
of 120 RPM
was suggested
(Evans
1850), but circular saws like that used at Young's Mill
had
an optimal rate
of 300
to 350
RPM (Henry Disston &
Sons
1921).
Nineteenth
century saw mills utilized
water
power
minimally to saw the logs, but
often also to move the
logs
to the blade and to roll or maneuver logs to cut four
sides
(Wigginton 1980;
Rutsch
and Gimigliano
1979).
Although
Orser et al.
(1987:386) argue that
multiple turbines
were
needed to run a saw mill, single wheel saw mills are
common
in
the
nineteenth
century
literature
(Leffel
1883;
Montgomery Manufacturing
Co.
1861;
Evans
1850)
and
the
archaeological record (Rutsch and
Gimigliano 1979).
It
is
clear
that
at
Young's
Mill,
the
various
saw
milling
mechanisms were run from a single turbine with multiple belt
pulleys on the main
horizontal drive shaft.
It should
be
noted that the
saw mill
was used
on a
limited basis
for
producing housing
materials
for the
Young's
cabins,
and
intricate
log
handling
machinery
may have
never
been
installed.
GRIST MILL PROCESS
This discussion of the
grist mill process is
derived
from the
recollections of
Mr.
Wiley Williams,
miller
at
Young's Mill from
1931-1937 (see
Appendix A).
While
his
experience
was
limited
to
the
1930s,
the
process
he
described was typical of small grist mills through the
late
1800s and early 1900s.
The customers brought unshelled
corn to the mill,
in
lots fro.. 3 to
40 bushels.
A
corn sheller
was
located
outside the mill on the
ground floor, and it was
typically
operated by the customer.
The share
(1 peck) was
removed
from the shelled corn, and
the remainder was sent
upstairs
via a
cup-belt.
Upstairs, the
blower cleaned
the
corn,
removing the
chaff and
other impurities
with forced
air.
The cleaned corn was then moved to one of two large
hoppers
above the grindstones.
The use of two hoppers assured
that
each customer's corn remained separate from other corn.
The
corn was released
from the
second floor
hoppers into
the
grindstones.
The ground
meal was swept
into a large
bin,
from which
it
was manually bagged.
Figures
41
and
42
104
Figure
Figure
41.
42.
Two Operating Runs of Stone.
Georg ia.
Corn Blowers, Third Floor.
Georgia.
105
Nora Mill,
Helen,
Nora Mill, Helen,
illustrate
Georgia).
similar
technology
at
Nora's
Mill
(Helen,
The turbine
was never run
full open, and
reportedly
produced 25 horsepower.
Although two pairs (runs) of
stone
were present, the
turbine could
only drive one
pair at
a
time.
When one
pair became dull, the
work would shift
to
the other stones.
The dull stone was
lifted with an
iron
crane, and a fresh dress was applied.
Mr. Williams
learned
the art of
sharpening the stones
through pecking from
his
father, Mr. Frank Williams.
The
mill was often run all
day and part of the
night
during peak demand periods.
There was never a problem
with
low water, although Mr. Williams indicated that the saw mill
and grist mill were never run at the same time.
EXPANSION
While
initial indications suggested that the
addition
of the saw mill added greatly to both the profitability
and
the water demand at Young's Mill, further research
revealed
that the saw mill operation was seasonal and small, and
may
have been present
from the first
establishment of
Young's
Mill.
It must be emphasized that there is no evidence
that
the saw mill
ever
represented
a
commercial
endeavour;
rather it functioned as a service to a large neo-plantation.
The records of the Leffel Turbine Company (as discussed
above) and the
mill remains
suggest that
the Youngs
were
sufficiently satisfied
with their
earlier Leffel
48
inch
turbine to install
similar (but smaller)
machinery in
the
new saw mill.
The
23 inch
Sampson Upright
turbine
was
installed in a penstock narrower but longer than that of the
grist mill.
Although it cannot be established
conclusively
whether this penstock was built in a former flood chute,
or
if it was
constructed from scratch,
the dimensions of
the
sawmill penstock very
carefully follow the
recommendations
of the Leffel literature.
While the
energy of
the mill
pond head
apparently
remained constant (i.e., there is
no evidence that the
dam
was raised), the demand on the
water flow was
potentially
increased by 130 percent i.e., if both turbines were run
at
once.
The gate systems on both penstocks would have allowed
the grist mill, saw mili, both, or neither to be operated at
any one
time.
Seasonal
variation
in services
has
been
suggested
by
other
researchers
(Yates
1980),
and
such
scheduling would have optimized use of the mill seat without
reducing the operating
efficiency of either
element.
The
oral history
conducted for
the present
project
indicated
that the saw mill was
operated only during slack times
for
106
the grist mill, and that the grist mill was consistently the
most important economic element of the complex.
The expansion of the Young's Mill operation to
include
ramifications.
technical
did
not have major
saw milling
Engineering necessary for the addition of the saw mill would
The
in water management.
have required only minor changes
operate as before, with
a
grist mill probably continued to
predicting
on scheduling
and
slightly increased
emphasis
service needs.
SPATIAL ORGANIZATION
The spatial organization
of the Young's Mill
complex
represents the well designed use of the existent
landscape.
The grist mill
facility was entered
from a major
LaGrange
access route (Young's Mill road) via a short, poured
cement
drive.
The mill office
and possible store was situated
at
the juncture of the highway and drive, in an ideal
location
to control
the
management
of
the grist
mill.
A
back
staircase of rock and cement provided easy foot access
from
the office to the mill.
The drive,
which formerly may have been rock or
plank
lined, led 108 feet
down to the grist mill itself.
Given
the
steep
banks
in
this
section,
it
is
likely
that
unprocessed grain would
have been
moved laterally
(rather
than up or down) into the grinding room.
The grist mill was
located adjacent
to the
penstock, and
power transfer
was
probably accomplished through short,
direct shafts.
Wiley
Williams (Appendix A) reports that cup-belt mechanisms
were
present at Young's
Mill to
move the
unprocessed grain
or
processed meal;
cup
belts
were
also
present
at
larger
facilities (e.g., Jeane 1979).
Prior to 1896,
the saw mill was added to the east
end
of the mill dam.
Unlike the other
side of the creek,
the
east side of the dam
abutted a relatively level area
which
would have
been well
suited to
manuevering loaded
lumber
wagons.
The spatial arrangement
on the saw mill side
was
apparently more oriented to recreation than intensive use of
the
saw mill.
The
stream
side
cabin,
walkway,
and
observation window in the power
house were all tailored
to
summer visitors, while the saw was placed under
a pole shed
out back.
This organization supports
the contention
that
the saw mill was used only
to supply lumber for the
owner,
and was never utilized on a commercial scale.
SEDIMENTATION
The work of
Trimble (1974) on culturally
accelerated
erosion in the Piedmont was briefly discussed in Chapter
4.
107
Young's Mill was situated in a region which lost 7.1 to
9.6
inches of
topsoil since
initial Euro-American
settlement.
The relative intensity of erosive
land use in Troup
County
went from low in 1810 and earlier, to high/very high in 1860
and 1920
(Trimble 1974).
The soils
of the
Beech
Creek
drainage basin above
Young's Mill
are predominately
Cecil
Clays, considered the most agriculturally productive of area
soils (Sweet and Smith 1912).
It is quite likely that major
expanses of the basin
were utilized for cotton
agriculture
prior to and during the lifespan of the mill.
The Young's Mill seat would have prompted the
settling
of silt and
clay sediments
from the stream.
The
natural
narrows and the mill dam
would have combined to reduce
the
stream velocity,
and
stream
flow
would
have
also
been
reduced when the mill was
not operating.
A major
decrease
in stream velocity
will result
in the
loss of
waterborne
sediments, and major
silting will
occur.
The results
of
mill pond silting can range from minimal operational impact,
to significant reduction
of stored
water (i.e.,
potential
energy), to forced abandonment.
Trimble (1974:119) provides
Mauldin's mill dam (Hall County,
Georgia) as an example
of
extreme sediment impact.
Mauldin's mill was established
in
the 1860s, and was silted to inoperability in 1906.
In
evaluating the possible impact of sedimentation
on
the Young's
Mill operation,
changes in
the
sedimentation
patterns
must
be
considered.
The
sediment
loads
of
Piedmont rivers have generally decreased since the 1930s
as
better
agricultural
methods
were
utilized.
This
has
resulted in
the
partial
degrading of
areas
of
sediment
deposits from the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
In contrast, the construction
of West Point Lake
has
created a major velocity decrease in the immediate
vicinity
of Young's Mill, so
that much of
the Beech Creek
sediment
load from
the
past
13 years
has
been
deposited
behind
Young's
mill
dam.
During
the
1970s
1980s,
and
soil
conservation measures
peaked
in Troup
County,
and
field
rotation, terracing,
pasture
establishment,
and
woodland
management were
responsible
for only
minimal
erosion
in
comparison with the nineteenth and early twentieth century.
The
final consideration of
sedimentation is that
it
clearly was not
significant enough during
the use span
of
the mill to disrupt operation.
The mill was still
operable
when milling ceased in 1945.
It appears the
sedimentation
which
did
occur
was
either
relatively
light,
or
the
resulting silt was washed out
in major floods, such as
the
one photographed in 1948 (Figures 43 and 44).
108
Figure43
.
Young's Mill at Flood Stage,
Mill, Across Dam to Saw Mill
Source: Mrs. Helen Young.
109
1948,
Power
Looking Past
House.
Grist
Figure44
.
Young's Mill at Flood Stage, 1948.
Saw Mill Power
House is on Left, Grist Mill is Obscured on Right.
Source: Mrs. Helen Young.
110
Chapter 7.
CONCLUSIONS
ADDRESSING THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS
the
As was noted in Chapter 2, many of the premises of
research questions were proven invalid during the
research.
Nonetheless, the best way to interpret the findings of
this
questions.
In
this
to the original
research is to return
individually,
section, the research questions are addressed
incorporates all
the
results
while the
following section
into a picture of Young's Mill through time.
Economic Questions
capital
initial
were
the
1.
What
operating costs, productivity, and profit
time of Young's Mill?
outlay,
through
outlay,
data discovered on capital
The only concrete
costs, productivity, and profit
were from the 1880
Special
Schedule of
Manufactures.
Unfortunately
it
is
unclear
whether the figures given
under "Capital Invested"
($6,000
recorded for Susan W.[sic] Young) refer to total capital
in
the mill
operation or
capital invested
during the
census
year.
It should be noted that the schedule recorded a value
of $21,000 for products produced by Young's Mill during
the
1880 census year.
The oral history
suggests that the twentieth
century
operating costs were limited to providing housing, meal, and
a minimal salary
to the miller
and his family.
The
oral
history further suggests that profit was not the sole motive
in
the
continued
operation
of
Young's
Mill.
It
was
apparently viewed
as a
service by
Mr. Joe
Young and
his
father, Robert
M. Young
Jr.
The
charity of
the
Youngs
during the Hoover days indicates
that they were not
overly
concerned with converting their share into cash.
It
should
be emphasized
that the
economic resources
of the
various
mill owners were extensive, and that their livelihood in
no
way depended on the mill.
2.
Why
was
the
mill
seat
selected?
What
indicators suggest that a grist mill was a
viable
economic pursuit at
the
Young's Mill
location?
How
familiar
was
the
builder
with
local
demographic and economic conditions?
What was the
political affiliation of the
mill owner, and
how
did
that
possibly
affect
his
economic
predi ctions?
The
represented
a
mill seat
was
apparently chosen
technologically/environmentally
111
because
it
well-suited
location within the
holdings of
Robert M. Young
Sr.
The
development of the
mill was probably
based on the
obvious
growth in population in and
around LaGrange.
It should
be
noted that
the
earlier Bird
Mill
may have
proven
the
viability of a
mill in this vicinity.
As mentioned
above,
it is not clear
that R.M. Young Sr.
considered the mill
a
money-making venture.
R.M. Young Jr. was politically active
in the area,
and probably recognized
the need for
milling
services.
3.
What
was
the
targeted
market
for
mill
services?
Was
the
owner
aware,
prior
to
construction, of a potential
customer base?
How
stable did this market turn out to be, and how was
the market affected
by broader economic
patterns
of the state and country?
The targeted market for the mill was probably a
number
of neo-plantations developing
within 5 to
10 miles of
the
city of LaGrange.
Young's Mill
could readily service
the
area north to Harrisonville, and south into LaGrange.
The market appears to have been relatively stable.
By
staying with
a local,
waterpowered
mill which
ground
on
shares, Young's Mill was able
tn continue through times
of
low cash supply in the region.
Regardless of the cash value
of their share, Young's Mill
provided meal for corn.
This
approach differed
from
commercial
mills
and
their
cash
marketing.
Young's
Mill continued in operation through the
first
World War and the
Great Depression, but apparently
stopped
milling during World War II.
The economic position of
the
Youngs allowed the mill to continue when its cash profit was
minimal.
It must again be noted that the only ongoing costs
to the Youngs was the miller's salary.
4.
Who were
the
prime competitors
of
Young's
Mill?
What advantage did Young's Mill offer,
and
did
the
competitors
make
efforts
to
modify
services to win customers away from Young's
Mill?
How did the rates charged by Young's Mill
compare
with other area mills?
The advantage of Young's Mill was apparently proximity,
with few
other
grist mills
serving
this portion
of
the
county.
In addition, the various Youngs were known as
fair
men, and the
meal produced at
Young's Mill was
considered
special by some.
It is not clear how their rates compared.
As
the twentieth
century progressed,
Young's
Mill
became a novelty as other waterpowered mills closed with the
introduction of
modern roller
mills.
However,
the
more
conservative people of Troup County sought out Young's
Mill
112
as the
last remaining
water ground
source of
meal.
The
survival of Young's Mill through the early twentieth century
was paradoxically due to its status as the lone survivor.
5.
Who developed Young's Mill and what was
their
source of capital?
Was Young's Mill linked
with
other commercial
operations in
the area
(beyond
the mill store)?
Robert
M. Young
Sr. was
the initial
developer
of
Young's
Mill,
and
his
capital
originated
in
diverse
agricultural real estate holdings.
The economic success
of
the Youngs allowed the mill
to operate without pressure
to
make large profits . Young's Mill was not linked with other
commercial operations in
the area, excepting
that the
saw
mill provided lumber
for the rental
recreation
cabins and
facilities at R.M. Young
Jr.'s Lake Lahleet.
Even when
a
cash market was demonstrated for
his meal in LaGrange,
Mr.
Joe Young had no desire to begin commercial operations.
6.
What
were the economic
relations at
Young's
Mill between owners
and workers?
If
non-family
workers
were
utilized,
what
form(s)
of
compensation did
they
receive?
Were
workers'
houses provided near the mill complex?
The millers at
Young's Mill were
generally left
on
their own to run the mill.
Robert Young, Jr. and Joe
Young
both lived near
the mill,
but apparently
did not
involve
themselves in
day-to-day
operations.
The millers
were
trusted with cash from sales, and the Youngs had
sufficient
confidence in their millers to regularly leave the area
for
several weeks each year.
No
Young family
members were
directly involved
in
milling, although Robert Young, Jr. apparently would run the
saw mill on occasion.
Instead, the Youngs selected
millers
to live near the mill year round, and to do all the milling.
Both white and black millers were used, and in two cases the
miller's job was passed from father to son.
The Youngs paid
a competitive salary (for
the times), and more
importantly
provided free housing, firewood, and meal.
7.
What system of payment was utilized at Young's
Mill?
Were transactions strictly cash, or did the
miller grind
for a
share?
Were
there
changes
through
time,
in
response
to
broad
economic
changes in the region, from one form of payment to
another?
To
what
extent
was
the
mill
owner
involved in extending credit to area farmers,
and
could
this
practice
have
contributed
to
the
closing of the mill?
113
The major
form of payment
at Young's
Mill was
the
share.
The miller would
remove a share (probably one
peck
per bushel) from the shelled
corn, in payment for
grinding
the remainder of the bushel.
Cash transactions were limited
to the selling of the meal
from the mill's share; this
was
not an emphasized element of
the mill operation.
The
only
temporal change
in mill
payment/economics was
during
the
Great Depression, when R.M. Young Jr. would give away a peck
of meal to any person in need who requested assistance.
The
archival research did not reveal any instances of the Youngs
extending credit to
area farmers; because
all the
milling
was done on shares, a credit situation probably never
arose
at the mill.
8.
What was the
cost of the 1900 rebuilding
and
modifications?
What economic factors entered into
the decision to change from a Leffel style to
the
turbine system evidenced
today?
Was the
second
flume added at the time of dam reconstruction, and
what was
its targeted
market
and product?
In
terms
of
cosL-benefit,
were
the
alterations
successful?
Was
the original
mill insured,
and
how did the
settlement (i.e., available
capital)
enter into the decision-making process?
The cost of the 1911
rebuilding of the grist mill
is
unknown, although the state or
county paid all costs.
The
second flume apparently
had been added
prior to 1896,
and
may
have
existed
from
the
original
time
of
mill
construction.
It is unclear if any modifications were
made
in 1911, although the 48
inch Leffel turbine may have
been
replaced by a smaller 23 inch turbine.
The 23 inch
turbine
is better
suited
to
the present
grist mill
flume,
and
apparently was adequate to run the grist mill.
The reference
in Question 8 to
a change from
Leffel
style to
turbine was
based on a
misunderstanding in
the
first reading of the 1880 Special Schedule of
Manufactures.
The present data
clearly demonstrate
that Leffel
turbines
were utilized throughout the history of Young's Mill.
9. Which economic factors changed to make
Young's
Mill no longer viable: regional cash flow, cost of
operations/maintenance, demand, market for
milled
products,
availability
of
workers,
government
requirements, or other economic commitments of the
owner?
When
was West Point
Lake first
proposed
and authorized, and was the mill closed
partially
in anticipation of the lake development?
Were the
mill auxillaries
(store
and houses)
maintained
after the mill
closed?
Where
did local
growers
have to go for a grist mill after the closing, and
what hardships did the closing cause?
114
Joseph L. Young cites government regulations
requiring
supplements to the
corn meal as
responsible for the
final
closing of Young's Mill.
Mill activities probably ceased in
the early 1960s, after the
death of Young's mother,
Lottie
Guinn Young.
A lack of interest by the surviving family may
have
also
been
responsible
for
the
cessation
of mill
operations.
Technological Questions
It should
be noted that there inevitably will be
some
overlap between
the economic
and technological
realms
of
mill research.
The
eight
technological questions
to
be
addressed during the Young's Mill documentation included:
1.
What was
the use span of
the mill, and
what
water power
technologies
were
prevalent during
this period?
The primary use span of the mill was from the 1870s
through
the 1940s.
By the
time
of establishment
of
the
mill,
turbine technology was well established and dominant in
the
Georgia Pedimont.
The Leffel turbines used at Young's
Mill
were probably as efficient as any available turbine system.
2.
How was the mill seat selected?
What
natural
and
cultural
factors
were
considered
in
site
selection?
Were access
to an
established
road,
proximity to
a population aggregate, river
width
and gradient, and
location of
other grist
mills
important in
establishing
Young's Mill
at
tis
location?
What role
did land ownership patterns
have on site selection?
The
mill seat
was probably selected
because it
was
favorable in
terms
of: stream
flow;
stream
constriction
(major factor);
rock
ledge across
(another
stream
major
factor); and land ownership (mill and pond impoundment
were
all
within
Young's
land).
In
addition,
the
evidence
suggests that Young's Mill Road existed before the mill, and
served as a focus for a local, linear settlement pattern.
3.
How was the
Leffel mill design selected,
and
why was it particularly suited to the chosen
mill
seat?
Was the mill based on earlier grist
mills,
published
plans,
or
vernacular
interpretation
unique to
Young's
Mill?
Who
actually
oversaw
construction and design, and
where did they
gain
their prior experience?
turbine
general
The
possible
technology
reputation
reasons for
the selection
of
Leffel
include:
influence
of
advertising;
of
Leffel
turbines;
knowledge
of
115
successful local use of Leffel turbines;
The technology was well
at Young's Mill.
suited
to the
and possibly price.
flow and natural
drop
The design of
Young's Mill
apparently represents
a
vernacular interpretation of a generalized model of
Georgia
Piedmont mills.
The extensive use of stone was feasible due
to the proximity of granite quarries.
The actual
builder of Young's
Mill was not
verified
during this research.
Oral history and census data suggests
that the builder may have been Albert Haynes, a 31 year
old
wheelwright living in the LaGrange District in 1870.
While
Jeane (1974:41)
indicates that
most mills
constructed
in
rural areas of
Georgia during the
nineteenth century
were
built by
farmers
with
little knowledge
of
mill
or
dam
construction, Young's
Mill
may have
benefitted
from
the
knowledge of a trained machanic.
4.
How
was the mill
changed after its
apparent
destruction in 1900?
Had problems developed
with
the timber crib
dam, such
that it
needed to
be
replaced with
the present
rock and
cement
dam?
What increased
efficiency
was
gained
from
the
switch to the present turbine system?
This question was based on the faulty premise that
the
Leffel wheel referred to in the 1880 census was a dam
style
rather than motive
power.
The
present data indicate
that
stone was the
original building material
for the dam,
and
that turbines were used from the beginning at
Young's Mill.
The only example of gained
efficiency may have occurred
in
the
1911
rebuilding
of
the mill
with
the
possible
replacement of the 48 inch
turbine with a 23 inch
example.
If the flume size remained constant (i.e., was not
enlarged
in 1911),
then
the
23
inch
turbine
was
actually
more
efficient than the larger one.
5.
Where did
the turbines
and other
machinery
originate?
Were they produced to specifications,
or
was
the
mill
designed
around
available
hardware?
Were
the turbines
and gates
salvaged
from an earlier mill in the area?
To what
extent
were
elements
of
the
nineteenth
century
mill
reutilized in the twentieth century edition?
The motive machinery
was ordered
directly from
the
Leffel Company.
It was purchased in standard sizes, and the
flume was designed around the
needs of the turbine.
There
is no evidence that items were salvaged from earlier
mills,
although it is
likely that
a Dodge truck
drive shaft
was
reused to transfer power at the saw mill.
116
The
current interpretations are
that the entire
saw
mill complex and all
of the dam
survived the explosion
of
were
grist mill and
its flume
1911.
Apparently
only the
directly impacted.
6.
Was a trained miller brought in to operate the
mill, or was it operated by the owning family?
If
the
latter,
where
did
they
learn
the
skills
necessary to run a grist mill?
Is there a
family
tradition of
milling?
How unique
was the
mill
ownership
by
women?
Were
the
women
owners
involved in the day to day activities of the mill?
There is no evidence of a prior Young family
tradition
of milling before Young's Mill.
While a trained miller
may
have initially run Young's Mill, it appears that
subsequent
millers learned through a very informal apprentice
program.
It appears that the skills were handed down either within
a
family (2 instances) or between workers on the Young's farm.
The female owners of Young's Mill had little involvement
in
the running or management of the mill.
7.
Was
culturally accelerated
sedimentation
a
factor in the demise of the mill?
How quickly did
the mill
pond
begin
to silt-in,
and
were
any
modifications undertaken to alleviate the problem?
Was the millpond ever drawn down and excavated?
Culturally
accelerated sedimentation never
precluded
operation of
Young's
Mill.
The
dam was
not
raised
to
alleviate silting,
and
the
only
indication
of
possible
silting problems was Wiley Williams' reference to a biannual
releases of the mill pond.
These drawdowns were
apparently
undertaken to
repair
equipment,
and
to
seine
the
pond
remnant in order to supply a
large fish fry.
Mr.
Williams
does not recall the pond ever being excavated.
8.
Was the mill significantly modified or refined
after construction?
Is
there any evidence for
a
diversification
of
services
beyond
grist
mill
processing?
The
only possible
modification to the
mill was
the
change in turbine
size during the
rebuilding of the
grist
mill.
It
does
not
appear
that
the
grist
mill
was
significantly modified during its reconstruction.
A diversification of services
can be argued from
the
probable addition of
the saw
mill in
the late
nineteenth
century.
The use
of the saw mill, however, suggests
that
sawing was not
offered as
a commercial service.
It
must
also be
recalled
the
the 1880
census
and
oral
history
suggest that wheat and corn were both processed in the early
mill, while the twentieth century mill processed only corn.
117
YOUNG'S MILL AS A TYPICAL MILL SITE
In many respects Young's
Mill was typical of
Georgia
Piedmont mills.
Its
turbine
technology
was
common
throughout the second
half of the
nineteenth century,
and
Leffel machinery was
widely used
in the state.
The mill
produced predominately corn meal for
a share, and only
one
run (pair)
of
stones
was
utilized
at
any
given
time.
Young's Mill
apparently added
a saw
mill, fulfilling
the
expectations of Jeane's (1974) expansion model.
Young's Mill was located on
a natural narrows with
a
rock substratum.
Beech
Creek was
typical of
the
medium
sized streams often utilized
for water power.
A road
was
apparently in existence before the mill, providing access to
the intended market.
The mill was considered more
a service than a
profit
source.
Oral history suggests that
the mill was not a
big
money maker, but
did serve
a large rural
community.
The
mill required
only the
miller to
operate.
In all
these
respects, Young's
Mill was
probably
typical of
the
vast
majority of Georgia
Piedmont mills,
excluding those
which
were developed into factories or textile mills.
YOUNG'S MILL AS A UNIQUE MILL SITE
A few unique attributes of Young's Mill and its history
set it apart.
The
most striking feature
is that
Young's
Mill continued to operate through the 1940s, long after most
waterpowered mills had
been replaced by
steam or
electric
mills of
the
roller variety.
It is
posited
that
this
longevity
was
due
to
four
factors:
(1)
the
financial
condition of the Young family permitted the operation of the
less profitable
anachronism;
(2)
the
LaGrange
community
recognized clear taste differences between stone ground
and
roller processed meal, and
preferred stone ground; (3)
the
Young family possibly maintained the mill for its scenic and
historic values; and (4) the neo-plantation system of
Troup
County was conservative in many aspects of lifeways.
The extensive
use of
granite
for dam,
mill,
and
building construction was unique to areas of the state
with
local quarries.
The nineteenth century literature of
water
power indicates that stone
was preferable when
affordable.
The degree to which stone was used in non-vital elements
of
the complex (i.e., store) suggest that aesthetics were
also
important in selection of stone as a building material.
The use of black millers may also have been contrary to
the Piedmont Georgia pattern.
The census data suggest
that
very few black
millers were employed
in Troup County,
and
millers in
the
south are
commonly
assumed to
have
been
118
white.
At Young's
Mill, at least four
of the eight
known
millers were black.
The
amount of responsibility given
to
the millers
at
Young's Mill
is
interesting in
light
of
conceptions
of
white-black
relations
in
the
postbellum
South.
Finally, the low level of day-to-day involvement by the
owners with the mill operations was probably atypical.
The
Youngs provided the operating capital, but were not directly
involved with the milling.
This contrasts with the
common
image of a family owned and operated mill.
EVALUATION OF METHODS
Our
assessment of the originally proposed methods
for
the project
is that
they worked
very well,
and that
all
project goals
were achieved.
A
major necessity
for
the
project from beginning to end was the close coordination
of
several researchers performing disparate tasks; to meet this
need, frequent meetings
and project
conferences were
held
involving the site mapper, the historian, the
photographer,
and the historical architect.
We felt the archival and historical research for
the
project
was
exhaustive
for
all
relevant
sources
and
repositories, and that
the return on
this research
effort
was excellent.
A wealth of contextual and property-specific
historic
data
was
available,
and
data
these
greatly
strengthened the study.
We
felt we were fortunate to
have
located
useful
informants
and
historical
material
in
possession
of
local
residents.
Informant
data
was
particularly important in interpreting
many aspects of
the
history of Young's Mill, and
such data potential should
be
stressed for future projects.
We were surprised that one of
our informants demanded to be
paid a consulting fee
before
talking; perhaps this contingency should be budgeted for
in
future projects.
We
did not
initially
plan to
investigate
other,
contemporary mills for
comparison with Young's
Mill.
The
need for this became apparent during the research,
however,
and we attempted
to examine and
photograph several of
the
major mill types in the
region.
This comparative
research
was not as thorough as we
would have liked, and we
suggest
that future
project
specifications include
this
element.
The locations of a number of mills in the immediate
project
region
(perhaps several
still
standing)
were
recovered
during the archival research.
We
were very
pleased with the
methodology for
site
mapping.
The electric
transit station
worked very
well,
allowing for increased speed during the mapping, as well
as
greater precision.
The general mapping point interval
used
119
(30 meters)
appeared to provide adequate coverage
for
detailing the topography of the site
area.
The
use of
a
boat was essential for several mapping tasks.
Measured drawings of the mill features proceeded in an
efficient manner.
Again, we emphasize
the need for close
coordination of
the architectural
work
with that of
the
mapper and the photographer.
Photographic work proceeded largely as planned,
except
for some weather difficulties. Many days during the project
were too bright (direct sun with shadows) or too dark
(very
cloudy and rainy).
Several
days were also lost because it
was too windy for stable photographic tripod setup. We had
anticipated that
field photographic
work would
take much
less (calendar) time than it actually did; we did not
plan
sufficiently for the need for perfect lighting. We feel now
that we were
fortunate
that completion of
all
of
the
photographs was not critical to performance of other ongoing
project tasks.
Potential for less than ideal weather should
be anticipated
in future
projects, as
optimum
lighting
conditions are essential for
this work.
Schedule pressure
on future projects
could force photography to
be done
in
less than optimum conditions, degrading the quality of
this
important aspect of such documentation studies.
120
REFERENCES CITED
Abernethy, Thomas P.
Alabama,
in
Period
The
Formative
1965
University of Alabama Press, University.
Andrews, Ralph W.
This Was Sawmilling.
1957
Seattle.
1815-1828.
Company,
Superior Publishing
Anonymous
Incomplete
Volume 5.
Gazetteer.
State
Georgia
1886
Library,
Hargrett
Room,
Georgia
The
file,
copy on
University of Georgia Libraries, Athens.
Barfield, Louise Calhoun
Georgia,
Harris County,
of
History
1961
Louise C. Barfield, Columbus, Georgia.
1827-1961.
Bartovics, Albert F.
Archaeological
For
report
Site
Preliminary
A
1978
Mill
Site).
(The Park's
at 9Mg99
Salvage Undertaken
Georgia,
of
University
Archaeology,
of
Laboratory
Athens.
Bartovics, Albert F., and R. Bruce Council
Archaeological
For
Report
Site
A
Preliminary
1978
Factory
9Ge37 (The Curtwright
at
Salvage Undertaken
of
University
Archaeology,
of
Laboratory
Site) .
Georgia, Athens.
Bonner, William G.
Wm. G.
Georgia.
State of
Map
of the
1847
Map on File, Georgia
Milledgeville, Georgia.
General Department, Atlanta.
Brooks, Jule
1980
Soil
Georgia.
Bonner,
Surveyor
Counties,
Coweta, Heard, and Troup
Survey of
Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.
Bruce, Merle Massengale, compiler
Early Marriages, Troup County, Georgia,
1982
W.H. Wolfe Associates, Roswell, Georgia.
1827-1850.
Butts, A.G.
General
Georgia
of Georgia.
the State
Map of
1882
Map on file, Georgia Surveyor General
Assembly, Macon.
Department, Atlanta.
121
Callahan, D.
on
and
Alabama.
Map
1863
Georgia
Surveyor General Department, Atlanta.
Chattahoochee Valley Historical Society
the Chattahoochee.
West Point on
1957
Valley Historical Society, Bulletin No.
Coleman, Kenneth, editor
A
History
of Georgia.
1977
Press, Athens.
Corkran, David H.
The
Creek Frontier,
1967
Oklahoma Press, Norman.
File,
Chattahoochee
3.
University
1540-1783.
Georgia
of
Georgia
University
of
Council, R. Bruce
For
Archaeological
A
Preliminary
Site
Report
1979
(Ross'
or
Merrell's
Undertaken
at
9Pm239
Salvage
of
Laboratory
of Archaeology, University
Gristmill).
Georgia, Athens.
Craik, David
Miller:
and
the
Practical
American Millwright
1882
Elementary
Princil
!s
of
Mechanics,
Comprising
Baird
Henry, Carey, and
Mechanisms, and Motive Power.
and Company, Philadelphia.
Drisko, John B., translator
Basic
1934
Centrifugal Pumps, Turbines, and Propellers:
[Translation
of
Original
Characteristics
Theory and
Technology
Press,
Spannhake].
The
Work by
Wilhelm
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.
Doyon, Roy Robert
Abandoned
for Discovering
1983
A Locational Strategy
in
Georgia's
Waterpowered
Activities
Small-Scale
Unpublished MA thesis, Anthropology
Piedmont Counties.
Department, University of Georgia, Athens.
Ethridge, Robbie F.
Slave-Catchers:
Flintlocks
and
1982
the
Indians
of
Georgia.
Transformations of
Georgia 10(1 and 2):13-26.
Economic
Early
Evans, Oliver
13th
Cuide.
1850
The Young
Millwright and Miller's
Reprinted
Blanehard, Philadelphia.
Edition.
Lea and
in 1972 by Arno Press, New York.
122
F.A. Battey & Company
and
1389
Biographical Souvenir of the States of Georgia
of
Sketches
Biographical
Containing
Florida,
Families
Representative Public, and many Early Settled
F.A. Battey & Company, Chicago.
in These States.
Fitz Water Wheel Co.
No.
60.
Bulletin
Farm.
on
the
Water Power
1923
Milinological
by
International
in
1979
Reprinted
Society, Hanover, Pennsylvania.
Fitz Water Wheel
Fitz Steel Overshoot Water Wheel.
1928
The
Reprinted in 1987 by
Co., Hanover, Pennsylvania.
Mishawka,
of
Old
Mills,
For
Preservation
Society
Indiana.
Fretwell, Mark E.
This So Remote Frontier: The Chattahoochee Country
1980
Historic
Chattahoochee
and
Georgia.
of
Alabama
Commission, Eufaula, Alabama.
Goff, John H.
to Oakfuskee
The
Path
1955
Indians.
Georgia to the Creek
Quarterly 39(1):1-36.
in
Route
Upper Trading
Historical
The Georgia
Gresham, Thomas H.
Lake
Proposed
of the
Survey
Cultural Resources
1987
Forsyth
and Lake Area,
Sidney Lanier Reregulation Dam
Southeastern
Georgia.
Counties,
and
Gwinnett
Archaeological Services, Athens, Georgia.
Henry Disston & Sons, Inc.
1921
The Disston Lumberman's Handbook: A Practical Book
Saws.
Care of
the Construction and
of Information on
Henry Disston & Sons, Inc., Philadelphia.
Holmes. William F.
Part Five:1890-1940.
1977
edited by Kenneth Coleman.
History of
In A
pp. 257-336.
Houston, Martha Lou, compiler
of Official Register
Reprint
1976
Southern Historical
Georgia, 1827.
Carolina.
Georgia,
of
of Land Lottery
Press, Easley South
Hunter, Louis C.
A History of Industrial Power in the United States,
1979
1780-1930: Volume One: Waterpower in the Century of the
Virginia,
Press
of
University
Steam
Engine.
Charlottesville.
123
Jackson, Ronald Vern, editor
1976
Georgia 1820
Census Index.
Systems, Inc., Bountiful, Utah.
Accelerated
Indexing
Census Index.
Georgia 1840
1977
Inc., Bountiful, Utah.
Systems,
Accelerated
Indexing
Census Index.
Georgia 1830
1981a
Systems, Inc., Bountiful, Utah.
Accelerated
Indexing
1981b
North Carolina
1830 Census
Indexing Systems, Inc., Bountiful,
Index.
Utah.
Accelerated
James Leffel & Co.
by
1881
Leffel's Construction of Mill Dams, Illustrated
Print,
Plates.
Leffel
News
Nuerous
Full-Page
as History
of
in 1972,
Reprinted
Springfield Ohio.
New
Technology, Volume No. 1, Noyes Press, Park Ridge,
Jersey.
Improved
of James
Leffel's
Illustrated Handbook
1883
Leffel
1883 and 1884.
Double Turbine Water Wheel for
in 1988
by
Ohio.
Reprinted
News Print, Springfield,
Mishawaka,
Old Mills,
Preservation of
The Society of
Indiana.
Pamphlet
"A."
n.d.
Leffel
Ohio.
Company, Springfield,
The
James
Leffel
and
Jeane, Donald Gregory
Northwest
1974
The Cultural History of Grist Milling in
Department
Unpublished
Ph. D. Dissertation,
Georgia.
Louisiana
State
Anthropology,
of
Geography
and
University, Baton Rogue.
West
of McCosh's Mill,
and Field Survey
1979
Archival
Auburn
Department of Geography,
Point Lake, Alabama.
for
Mobile
Alabama.
Prepared
University,
Auburn,
District, US Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile, Alabama.
Johnson, Forrest Clark III
Volume
1987a
A History of LaGrange, Georgia, 1828-1900.
Georgia.
LaGrange and Troup County,
I In Histories of
Family Tree, LaGrange, Georgia.
Troup
Register
of
and Historical
1987b
Genealogical
LaGrange
Volume
III In Histories of
County, Georgia.
LaGrange,
Family
Tree,
County,
Georgia.
and Troup
Georgia.
LaGrange Daily News
1931
William L.
1931.
Young
Claimed by Death.
124
August
28,
1971
Young's
Old Grist
October 14, 1971.
Mill
Is
Destroyed
ny
Blaze.
LaGrange Graphic
1900
Pike Bros., Contractors and Builders, and
Dealers
in All Kinds of Building Material. Vol. 13:4.
July 17,
1900.
LaGrange Reporter
1900
Pike Brothers,
LaGrange
57(6):7.
February 1, 1900.
1910
A Grist Mill.
1911
Mill
Vol.
Planing Mills.
68(6):1.
Blown Up. Vol.
69(15):1.
February 10,
April
21,
Vol.
1910.
1911.
Ledbetter, R. Jerald, and Jack Wynn
1988
An Archeological Assessment of Three Sites in
the
Oconee National Forest, Greene County, Georgia.
Joint
Publication of Southeastern Archeological Services
and
National Forest Service.
Montgomery Manufacturing Company
1861
Reuben Rich's
Patent Centre-vent Iron
Water-wheel
and Iron Scroll.
The Montgomery Manufacturing Company,
Montgomery, Alabama.
Moritz, L.A.
1958
Grain-Mills
and
Flour
Clarendon Press, Oxford.
in
Classical
Antiquity.
Newman, Robert D.
1984
Archaeological Investigations at Seven Mill
Sites.
National
Park
Service,
Archaeological
Services,
Atlanta, Georgia.
Norwood, C.W.
1879
Shole's
Georgia State
Directory For
1879
& 1880.
Company, Atlanta.
Gazetteer
James P.
and
Business
Harrison
and
Orser, Charles E., Annette M. Nekola, and James L. Roark
1987
Exploring
the
Rustic
Life:
Multidisciplinary
Research
at
Millwood
Plantation,
A
Large
Piedmont
Plantation in
Abbeville
County, South
Carolina,
and
Elbert
County,
Georgia.
National
Park
Service,
Archaeological Services, Atlanta, Georgia.
Otto, Rhea Cumming, compiler
1978
1850 Census
of
Troup County,
Cumming Otto, Savannah, Georgia.
125
Georgia.
Rhea
Range, W.
Agriculture,
Georgia
1954
A
Century of
University of Georgia Press, Athens.
Reynolds, Terry S.
Hundred Men:
a
Stronger Than
1983
The Johns
Wheel.
Vertical Water
Press, Baltimore.
1850-1950.
the
of
A History
University
Hopkins
Rutsch, Edward S., and Michael N. Gimigliano
at
Documentary Investigations
Archaeological and
1980
New
Complex, Broome County,
the Graves-Butler Sawmill
Interagency
Park
Service,
National
York.
Archaeological Services, Atlanta.
Sherwood, Adiel
A
Gazetteer of
1860
Richards, Atlanta.
Georgia.
Smith, Clifford
1933
History of Troup County.
Atlanta.
Fourth Edition.
Foote and Davies Company,
Smith, George G.
Georgia
and the
The
Story
of Georgia
1968
Genealogical Publishing Company, Baltimore.
Standard Directory Company
Gazetteer
and
Georgia
State
1881-82
P. Harrison and
James
Directory, 1881-1882.
Atlanta.
Stevens, O.B. and R.F. Wright
Historical
1901
Georgia:
Harrison, Atlanta.
and
Industrial.
Sweet, A.T., and Howard C. Smith
Georgia.
of
Troup
County,
1912
Soil
Survey
Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.
Tanner, Henry S.
Alabama.
Map
on
Georgia
and
1839
Surveyor General Department, Atlanta.
Thomson, M.T.
1953
The
Grist
7:332-346.
Mill
in
J.
Georgia.
File,
Georgia
People.
Business
Company,
G.W.
Soil
Georgia
Review
Trimble, Stanley R.
System
1969
Water Power Utilization on the Oconee River
1790-1870.
Georgia,
Milledgeville,
Upstream
from
Unpublished manuscript,
126
1974
Man-Induced Soil
Erosion on the Southern
1700-1970.
Soil
Conservation
Society
of
Washington, D.C.
Troup County, Georgia
various
Troup County Court of Ordinary,
and Appraisements Books.
Piedmont
America,
Inventories
various
Troup County Deed Books.
various
Troup County Inferior Court Minute Books.
various
Troup County
various
Troup County Will Books.
Superior Court Minute Books.
United States Bureau of the Census
1850
Troup County,
Georgia Population
Schedules.
On
Microfilm, Georgia Department of Archives and
History,
Atlanta.
1860
Troup County,
Georgia Population
Schedules.
On
Microfilm, Georgia Department of Archives and
History,
Atlanta.
1870
Troup County,
Georgia Population
Schedules.
On
Microfilm, Georgia Department of Archives and
History,
Atlanta.
1880a
Troup
County, Georgia Population
Schedules.
On
Microfilm, Georgia Department of Archives and
History,
Atlanta.
1880b
Troup
County,
Georgia
Special
Schedule
Georgia
Department
Manufactures.
On
Microfilm,
Archives and History, Atlanta.
United States District Court
1974
Civil Action No. 1102,
of
of
Final Decree.
Watson, Thomas L.
1902
A Preliminary Report on a Part of the Granites
and
Gneisses of
Georgia.
Geological
Survey
of
Georgia
Bulletin No. 9-A.
Atlanta, Georgia.
Wheeler, Marshall & Bruce
1876
Georgia State
Directory.
Volume 1.
Marshall & Bruce, Nashville, Tennessee.
White, George
1849
Statistics of the
Williams, Savannah.
State of Georgia.
127
Wheeler,
W.
Thorne
Wigginton, Eliot
1973
Making a Tub Wheel.
Wigginton, pp. 142-163.
York.
In Foxfire 2, edited by
Eliot
Anchor Press, Garden City, New
Wood, De Volson
1896
Turbines, Theoretical and Practical, with
Numerous
Examples
and
Experimentdl
Results
and
Many
Illustrations.
John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Young and Company
1909-10
Young and Company's business and Porfessional
Directory of the
Cities and Towns
of Georgia.
Young
and Company, Atlanta.
Yates, Don
1980
History of Young's
Mill: Troup County,
Ms. on File, Troup County Archives, LaGrange.
128
Georgia.
ORAL HISTORY SOURCES
Mr.
Emmett Fling
Mr. Fling is the son of Daniel Earl Fling, who was
the
miller at Young's Mill from
1914 through 1919.
Mr.
Emmett
Fling also
visited the
mill with
his grandparents
during
summers after his
family had
moved from
the Young's
Mill
area.
Mr. Fling is
a resident of LaGrange, Georgia,
where
he was interviewed for this
report.
The conversation
with
Mr. Fling was not recorded.
Mr.
'BoPeep' Scott
Mr. 'BoPeep' Scott was the miller at Young's Mill
from
1939 through 1944, and his father (Mr. Gerald Scott) ran the
mill from 1936 to 1939.
Mr. 'BoPeep' Scott is a resident of
he
was
interviewed.
The
LaGrange,
Georgia,
where
conversation with Mr. Scott was not recorded.
Mr.
Wiley Williams
Mr. Wiley Williams was the miller at Young's Mill
from
1931 through 1937.
His father, Mr. Frank Williams, ran
the
mill from 1927 through
1931.
Mr.
Wiley Williams lives
in
LaGrange, Georgia, where he was interviewed for this report.
A tape recording was produced and transcribed (Appendix A).
Mr.
Joseph L. Young
Mr. Young owned
the mill from 1959
through 1974.
A
cassette tape of an interview
with Mr. Young was loaned
to
this project by Mrs. Helen
Young.
The interviewer was
Mr.
a
a paper on Young's Mill for
Don Yates, who in 1980 wrote
history course at LaGrange College.
A copy of the interview
is included with
the project records,
and a transcript
is
provided in Appendix A.
Mrs.
Helen Young
Mrs. Young is the widow
of Joseph L. Young, owner
of
the
mill
before
the
USCOE
acquisition.
Mrs.
Young
contributed to the taped interview with Mr. Wiley
Williams,
and
also
provided
untaped
information
throughout
the
project.
129
APPENDIX A
ORAL HISTORY TRANSCRIPTS
from
INTRODUCTION.
The following interview was transcribed
The
Principal
Investigator.
tape
by
the
cassette
Jeff
Gardner
Chris Espenshade
(CE) and
interviewers were
former
(JG), and the informant was Mr. Wiley Williams (WW),
Although he was 79 years old at the
miller at Young's Mill.
his
was alert,
and
Williams
the
interview, Mr.
time of
be
the
to
Other contributors
accurate.
memory appears
Y), widow of
Joe
Helen Young (Mrs.
interview include Mrs.
]",
Young, and Mrs. Wiley Williams (Mrs. W) . Brackets, "[
while
information,
to
provide supplementary
are utilized
recording
asterisks, "****", indicate sections in which the
in
parentheses,"(?)",
marks
Question
inaudible.
was
indicate that the spelling is uncertain.
Mr.
Wiley
with
[19891,
and we're
It's
January 24
CE:
us
to
talk
with
agreed
He's
Williams of Lagrange, Georgia.
understanding
about the way Young's Mill operated, with the
totally
not be
memory, and may
all from his
that this is
what
that is
best of
his memory,
with the
accurate, but
we'll talk about.
JG: Mr. Williams, just to get a little background, when
you start working at the mill?
did
the
WW: Well, when I first started working there, it was in
But
I
twenties, I guess, right about 1925, when I started.
white
that time.
It was some
at
wasn't running the mill
they
that time,
the Freemans,
then, at
people running it
I guess, I don't know exactly
were running it at that time.
They run it for something like two or
how long they run it.
Williams,
Frank
And
after that my father,
three years.
time
on up until the
And then he run
started running it.
in
Then I take it over
that he got disabled, he got sick.
I
And that was,
run it.
thirties, when he got disabled to
can
as near
as I
the early thirties,
don't remember, in
in
Somewhere about .. 1931 or 32, somewhere
recollect now.
there I started.
JG:
How old were you then when you started down there?
When
I started
WW:
started to work ... ?
to run
the mill?
You
mean, when
I
I'd kind of like to know when you first started working
JG:
actually
you started
We can
figure out when
down there.
When you first started working down there...
running it.
young
I was just a
working down there when
WW:
I started
the
I plowed some for
I was plowing.
boy.
I started ...
I
started
old when
ten years
about
I was
Freemans, and
Then after that, I started to working for
plowing for them.
A-2
I did a lot of work for him before I started to
Mr. Young.
Of course, he was working out there building
run the mill.
I used to work on that a
that lake over there, that spring.
anything
I guess most
lot.
Help around with that a lot.
come to hand, I used to help do it.
Mr. Robert Young, is that correct?
JG:
That was
WW:
Yeah, I think that was his name...
Mrs. Y:
Joe's father
Well, he
Joe's father, that's right. Mr. Robert Young.
WW:
the
because he used to be
was well known here in LaGrange,
And as I say, after
city judge of LaGrange, many years ago.
1932,
I can't
1931 or
my father got disabled, around
And,
I
I started running the mill.
remember just exactly.
I
it was maybe about 37, when
run it on up until, I guess,
a
it used to be
1937.
That mill,
left from down there.
there.
great place, because, we used to grind a lot of corn
there
Just like people going to a gin house, people stayed
all day long. Come early in the morning, and we'd run that
night,
I'd have to run it at
Sometimes
mill all day long.
to catch up. And then some people had to come back the next
like
We would grind something
finish
grinding.
day to
about, maybe, 200 bushels a day.
You ground mostly meal.
CE:
there too?
Did you ever do any flour work
told that the first mill.., that wasn't
WW:
No sir, I was
...that the first mill,
the only mill that had been there
through there, they uh,
blasting that road
when they were
Of course,
in the creek.
rocks tore it down, knocked it
Young
left, and Mr.
of that old machinery
there was a lot
But the county, or
sold it to Simon's junkyard down here.
They built the mill
back.
the state one, built the mill
to
back free. But that other mill, they tell me they used
only
But this last mill, they just
grind wheat and corn.
made meal.
CE:
So they only
pair?
had one run of
stones, or two stones,
a
but didn't have enough
run two,
tried to
Well, we
WW:
Mr. Young, Mr. Robert Young, went to Newnan and got
power.
just
But we didn't have enough power, so we
another stone.
we
rock get dull,
When one
had to run one at a time.
other one. We just had . . . Mr.
switched it over to the
it
horsepower, that what
Young said that turbine was a 25
That's
one mill at a time.
was.
So we couldn't run but
over
I used to grind meal for people from all
what it was.
from
of them come clean
Troup County, Meriwhether, a lot
mean,
I
imagine.
could
you
everywhere
Alabama, and just
A-3
around.
People
used to just
come.
From
the time in
the
into
start gathering corn up on
fall of the year, people'd
Christmas, and all through the winter, that's all I did, run
that mill.
If I
stopped for a few
minutes and went up
to
the house, I had ... I used
to live right up on that
bank,
above the mill, there used to be a house up there.
They had
a piece of iron down there what they mounted, and you
could
hear it for miles.
And that's when I know somebody was down
there, and I'd come back.
CE:
Did you dress
the stones
...
?
crane
WW:
Yes, when the stones got slick, we had a big old
there.
We'd hook it up to that crane and we'd turn the rock
over and we'd peck it.
That'd
make
it rough so it
would
cut the
corn.
And that's
what we
called sharpening
the
rock.
That's what
we called it.
And
we'd turn it
back
over and go back to grinding again.
CE:
Was that something you learned from your
father?
WW:
Yes sir, I learned that from my father.
He used to
do
that a lot.
I learned that from him.
I learned a lot
from
that mill there.
I learned how
to improve their
cleaning
process.
They had
a blower upstairs
that would suck
that
chaff and other stuff ... clean
the corn.
In other
words,
clean the corn.
And it wasn't running
fast enough, and
I
changed it.
Put on another pulley, and that run it faster.
I done that
when Mr. Young
went to Missouri.
They had
a
place out there in Missouri, and they'd go out there twice a
year.
They'd go
out there every
spring, that's when
they
done the planting.
They had
a big wheat
farm out
there.
the fall at harvest
Then they'd back in
time.
And
they'd
be gone something like a month
at a time, sometimes 5 or
6
weeks.
And during that time, I invented a looking glass
up
over the hopper where you could
see when the corn got
out,
and you used to have to climb up there and look over, but
I
could stand on the
floor and look up
there.
I could
tell
when the corn out,
and then I'd let
the other corn in
for
the other customer.
When he
come back he was very
pleased
about it.
He
said "If I'd of
stayed off longer, ain't
no
telling what you would have invented."
Mighty
good fellow to work
for, I mean, friendly and
all.
You could go up to him.
I used to sell a lot of meal
while
he was gone.
I just kept the money until he come back.
CE:
So he'd work by a share,
and
then sell his share?
WW:
No sir, I didn't ... he just payed
me so much a
day.
You know, wages was real cheap
then, real cheap.
In
other
words, ******,
wasn't charging
us
no rent,
nothing
like
that.
We didn't have no electric lights out there then, but
he didn't charge us no rent for the house or for the wood we
A-4
burnt.
The
meal,
of the
course the meal
was free.
Like
that.
CE:
Did you work at
WW:
The saw mill he had out there?
CE:
Yes sir.
the saw mill
also?
WW:
Well, yes, I used to help out there, you know.
It
was
run by that water, and it was just a slow process.
We
used
to saw enough wood to board up a few houses around there.
I
mean it served for him.
But when you was running that,
the
mill wasn't running, when you run the saw mill.
JG:
the
So people didn't come
... ?
to
the sawmill like they did
to
WW:
Oh, no
sir.
He just
used that
saw mill
only
for
himself.
He used to have
a lot of camp buildings, about
4
or 5, camp houses, over on the other side of the creek
from
here.
They used to have some big times over there.
People
used to come out from town, rent them houses in the
summer.
They had a place up above it, up from the camp houses,
that
was a dancehall.
Used to
have big dances out there,
bands
used to come out
there from town and
play, back in
there.
People would dance.
Had a big time out there.
That lasted ...
them camp houses
... a thunderstorm
there
one summer, somebody got
hit by lightning
over there.
It
didn't kill nobody, but it hit
somebody.
And I think
that
sort of broke up people staying in those houses over
there.
Because a lot of them nailed to the trees, and it struck one
of them pine trees.
Somebody got hit by lightning up there.
JG:
Do you remember about when
that was?
WW:
Like
I say, I
don't know just
exactly,
back in the twenties, I would say around about
been 28 or 29.
it
somewhere
.. might have
JG:
Going back to Mr. Young.
Did he spend much time at
mill itself, or basically you just kind of ran things?
the
WW:
He didn't spend no time at all at the mill.
I run that
by myself.
He didn't
spend no time at
the mill.
Now,
he
... after he built that swimming pool over there,
sometimes
you could find him over there.
People used to go
swimming,
you know.
He charge them so much to go swimming over there.
And then he had another
lake above the swimming place,
and
it was a
catfish lake.
I have
seen him up
there many
a
times; he'd sit
up there
with a shotgun
and kill
snakes.
There was a pile of
snakes in there.
And
every time
one
would come up, he'd knock... he'd shoot it.
A-5
I've seen him, he used to
feed those fish.
Get this stale
Light bread, and he'd drop it in there and those fish
would
just wiggle
like maggots.
That's been a long time
ago,
though. Long time ago.
It
used to be a great place
out
there. Great place.
That dam used
to be higher
than it is
now.
They
blasted
off.
CE:
Was it higher rock, or did it have flashboards?
WW:
It was built
up higher.
But the
blasted that
off.
I reckon
the
engineers,
government
they
got
I used to have to go down
in the turbine and clean it
out.
Remove any sticks or
things get in, wash
in there from
up
the creek.
I'd have to ... a place on the low side with a
door you go down there and
take off.
Just about as wide as
the screen on that television [24" diagonal].
I just could
get one shoulder
in there at a time, and
go in there
and
clean out them old ... had like, buckets, like, that's what
turned that turbine in there.
And I cleaned it out and come
out through that door.
Come back, and it would be just like
brand new.
One day I went in there,
the old gates
above there,
the
water gates done
got old.
Young had warned
my dad about
letting me go in there to clean it out. He didn't pay much
attention.
And I went in there one day to clean that
thing
out, and the water broke loose on me.
And that thing filled
clean up to the top.
And that water was so stout, it pushed
one of my
feets out the door. And
this man, this
fellow
that'd come to the mill, and he was
waiting 'til I get
it
cleaned out, and he happened to be there, and he just jumped
in the creek down below there -- the water wasn't about knee
deep -- and he grabbed me by the knees and he snatched me
out of there.
That water so strong coming out of there,
it
knocked me and him both about as far from here to that wall
[about 15 feet] down the creek.
He saved me, hanging
out
of there.
That thing
done filled up to the top.
I never
will forget that.
My daddy he was on the other side of
the
creek, helping
them at
the sawmill I think, and he was
hollering, Mr. Young was hollering, and I had a time, let me
tell you that.
I liked to have been gone.
JG:
You
guy...
were awful
lucky.
You
were lucky
to have
that
WW:
I know, I was lucky.
His name is Sam Winneby, but he's
dead and gone.
I used to know all his people, they all dead
and gone. That's the truth.
A-6
Had some
good times
out there
and some
bad times.
mostly good times. Cause I was young, I wis young at
time.
Was
that
JG:
Now when you
were working
out there,
when you
were
running the mill, was there anyone else helping out there or
were you pretty much doing it on your own?
WW:
I was running the mill on my own.
There was some more
people living out there, plantation where we worked at.
I
run the mill alone.
It was just one person, really.
JG:
It didn't take any more than just one person?
WW:
Didn't take
any more than one
person, cause we had
a
corn sheller there, and people coming to the mill would come
with corn unshelled, and we'd show them how to run
that
sheller, you know.
I'd be doing the other part myself.
I'd
be grinding meal, just like people asked me.
Depend on how
they like it.
Some like it fine, some like it coarse.
And
that's what I done.
People just went wild about that meal.
Just come from every
which way. There
were 2 or 3 plantations, people used to
bring it by loads,
some bring 30 to 40 bushels at a time.
You know, one person. From everywhere. Sometime I'd
run
all day long, couldn't catch up.
And
I'd go down
there,
sometime me and my wife would go down there, I'd run it 'til
one o'clock at night.
Get up the
next morning, and start
right back.
Run it all day long.
CE:
You never had a problem with the water getting too low?
WW:
No sir.
CE:
The creek ran pretty good?
WW:
Ran good.
Surely did.
Never did have any problems.
JG:
You said you were grinding pretty much from the
fall,
when they were bringing
the corn
in, through
wintertime.
Did you do much grinding in the spring or the summer?
What
did you do during that time?
WW:
Kind of slowed down.
It did kind of slow down in
the
summer.
But
you know, people'd come along
every now and
then. Like I said, if I'd be over by the house or somewhere
doing something else, that didn't have nothing to do but hit
that -- we
called it a gong -- you could hear that
sound
from here to town.
I come running cause I know somebody was
down there.
But now, this time of year ... was a log cabin there, people
used to live in it.
It had a basement like, up under there,
A-7
were people used to make a fire in the wintertime when
they
come to the
mill.
Make
a fire, while
I'm grinding
corn,
Until their
time
people would go there
around that fire.
come, then they'd come in there.
CE:
That would be ... that
above the grist mill there?
cabin's kind of on
the hill
up
WW:
Yes sir, yes sir.
It was right there on the bank,
but
it's done tore down now.
I think it
is ... yes it's
gone
now.
That's been 35 years.
Ms. Young's chauffeur, Mr. Albert Morris [or Moore], he used
to live there.
Old log cabin,
had about two rooms to
it.
It had a
basement like
under there,
it wasn't
set up
in
there, it was just open.
It had a fireplace down in
there,
cause it had a chimney to
it.
That's where people used
to
go in there to the fire.
JG:
Was that cabin kind
to the
of built into the bank there
next
road?
WW:
That's right.
CE:
I think the chimney might still be out there.
WW:
I think
it
Right
into the bank by the
road.
is.
CE:
We have a chimney with a regular hearth, and then
down
below it's like
it had
a second little
hearth that
would
have been in the basement.
WW:
Yes
where it
sir,
is.
that's right.
That's where
it
is.
That's
JG:
While we're talking about buildings up there, there
is
another building
that's still
partly standing.
It's
all
stone and it's got brick on the inside.
What was that ... ?
WW:
That was right there.
He did build that for kind of an
office.
What he did was, he was going to run a little stand
there, a
little
store.
I
don't
remember
him
putting
anything in there, not while I stayed there.
He could
have
done it after I left.
That's what he built it for.
To
run
a little stand or a store there.
I don't think he ever
put
anything in there.
JG:
You were down there when he built that?
WW:
Yes sir,
sure was.
CE:
Do you have any idea
where he got that ... did he
get
the granite locally, the stone for
the dam and for some
of
the buildings up there?
A-8
WW:
Stone
CE:
Yes
for
the dam?
sir.
was before my time
too.
Now, I
suppose
WW:
No sir, that
... that's what I
heard them say.
The mill was there
way
back in the eighties,
1980s [1880s] .
I really don't
know
whether
it
was
there
in slavery
time or
not, but
if
it
wasn't, it was
shortly after slavery.
I used
to hear
my
father speak about a man he
knowed who used to run it way,
many years ago.
Carl Hackney (?) , Hackner (?) , a great big
old man, weighed about 300 pounds.
I think he stayed
up
there, used to be a house
up there right this side, on
the
other side of the brick building we used to call the
"big
house."
It was made of wood, they say that house been there
since slavery time.
It had an upstairs to it.
And we
used
to live there.
We lived there many years after Mr.
Young
had moved out of it.
They have tore
that house down.
It
was a big house, had about 7 or 8 rooms, upstairs and down.
JG:
That's where that big brick house is now, right?
WW:
It would be right below that brick house.
Mrs. Y:
You
know where that
kitchen is?
Well, it had
a
dog trot from
the big house -- the weatherboard house,
you
know-- into the
kitchen.
They didn't
cook in
the ...
I
mean, they only cooked in the kitchen.
WW:
It's still standing there?
Mrs. Y: Yes.
JG:
The kitchen, I think,
building is.
WW:
Well they
slavery times.
say that
the kitchen is still there,
they
used to
cook in
the re
the
in
CE:
To go back to
the grist mill, was that leather
belts,
is that how they were driving everything?
How did the power
get
WW:
from the
turbine, from the drive shaft
Leather belts.
Long
... ?
leather belts.
CE:
Was there
any kind
... Some of these old mills had, I
guess they called
them elevators, had
little
scoops
on
leather belts, to
take the grain up to
the second
story.
Did you have anything like that?
WW:
in.
with
like
Yes sir.
We had a hopper where you first put the
corn
After you shell it.
Then it go on the belt, the
belt
cups on it, and went upstairs to another hopper.
Just
I said, we had
a processor up there pulling back
all
A-9
there.
that chaff and stuff from the corn, had a big fan up
was right up
over
hooper there, and it
Fed in another big
the mill.
And when corn got out of this hopper, I just
had
a lever I pulled, and that let it out of the hopper upstairs
into this other hopper.
I could look through that
looking
glass and tell when it was time to let it out.
I had a
big
old box there, about that wide
[3 feet] where you scoop
up
the meal after it's *****.
You get this hand and swept
the
meal up, and sack it in...
CE:
There's a piece of machinery down there, big huge round
thing.
To me it looks
like part of a boiler or
something,
about 6 ft around, probably,
and about that deep (1
foot),
was that part of the machinery?
WW:
Down
there
CE:
Yes sir,
in that water?
it's down by the flume.
WW:
I'm satisfied that must have been that turbine.
Cause
the turbine about six feet wide.
It was round.
The
stave
come up through the top, and it come on up in the mill.
It
had another part to it that went on up to the dam, that
was
round like that. Up against
that pylon, and the water
come
through that part and
hit that big turbine.
I guess
it's
still there.
Down in the water.
CE:
So
think?
that would force
the water
into
the
turbine,
WW:
It come
off of that
dam, and the
water got in
pockets.
It was
up off
the water,
and the
water
through them pockets
started that
to turning.
Mr.
always said it was 25 horsepower.
CE:
Did you always run it
full open, or did you ever
like, half-gate or something?
you
those
going
Young
run,
WW:
I didn't hardly
pull it wide
open, cause
as far
as
running wide open ....
You know if
it was wide open,
you
know it was
running faster
than you want.
I
just had
a
certain degree I'd pull it
... if that thing turned
loose,
it'd sure enough run fast.
I
used to run it, I imagine,
a
little faster than my father.
I imagine, you know, I had
a
little better nerve than
he had.
I
soon caught on to
it.
Everybody said that I made better
meal than he did.
Seems
like people just went wild for it.
Couldn't hardly keep
up
with it, this time of year, like
I said.
All this time
of
year, it was crowded.
All this time.
CE:
Did Mr.
JG:
Like
Young ever sell
any meal commercially?
to stores or anything
A-1O
like that?
WW:
I sold some meal
Mrs. Y:
Joe used
On his bicycle.
to
...
deliver meal,
10 pounds per
customer.
WW:
Probably he ... he
might have done that after I
left.
I used to sell a lot though.
People come ... Mr. Young,
he
was a freehearted
person, back
in them
days, them
Hoover
days, he
used to
give away
a lot
of meal.
People
just
didn't have no job or had a family, and didn't have nothing.
Gave away a lot of meal.
Most anybody come around and
tell
him their situation, and they didn't have nothing, he'd give
them a peck of meal.
I remember one day, down there, a lady come down there,
she
was living back up that road there somewhere.
She said
she
had 4 or 5
children, husband was
out of a
job.
That
was
back in the Hoover days, so
you all don't know about
that.
Hoover was President, and times
were bad.
Couldn't get
no
jobs, didn't have
no money.
Nothing.
She
asked could
I
give a peck of meal.
I told her it's Mr. Young's mill,
and
I'm just doing it for
Mr. Young.
I
said I'll go up
there
and ask
him.
He
was
up there
on
the
porch;
it
was
summertime.
He was laid back, about half asleep, and I told
him, I said "Mr. Young, there's
a lady down there says
she
got a big family, her husband's
out of work, and she
wants
some meal."
****** looks up, and says "Alright, is she good
looking?"
I said,
"Yes
sir, she's
alright."
He
said,
"Alright, give her a peck."
I went back and give to her.
JG:
What did you or Mr. Young normally charge for
to come and grind there?
Was it a share...?
WW:
Yes
sir,
I used to
take a peck
out of a bushel.
Take
JG:
the corn before
So he'd take
somebody
... that was all,
a peck
that out of a bushel of corn, a peck.
it was ground?
WW:
Yes sir, I'd take that out of the corn.
Had a big
old
hopper.
Throw that
corn in a
big old ... bin.
I
would
take that out
of ***
everything I'd
grind.
Had a
round
thing, hold a peck.
That's about two gallons.
[end of side one]
were there
in the
CE:
How
many other
grist mills
Were there a lot of other grist mills in the area?
area?
WW:
Yes sir, at
that time a lot
of mills was around,
but
that was the only water ground mill.
You know, there a
lot
of difference between a water ground mill and ... steam
...
and all these other mills gasoline or ... engine pulled
...
something like that.
********* little old
mills.
This
man, used to come up there, and he was the one I was telling
A-Il
you all about, and he'd have anywhere from 35 to 40
bushels
at a time.
He sent with
this old colored fellow, he had
a
T-model Ford.
He'd
load it
down.
That was
a man
they
called Haz Lumpkin.
He's
from Harrisonville.
Do you
know
where Harrisonville is?
That old place used to be, I think,
three of four
stores there at
that time.
And he used
to
sell
that
whole
community
around
there
meal,
Mr.
Haz
Lumpkin.
So,
he used
to send
this old
colored man
down
there.
Had an old T-model
Ford.
He'd bring anywhere
from
30 to 40 bushels at a time.
Another man
from
around
there,
Mr.
Freeman,
he
had
a
plantation.
He used
to bring 30 to
40 bushels at a
time.
There were lots of people around that had plantations,
used
to bring it
in in loads,
you know.
And sometimes,
other
people bring 3 or
4 bushels at
a time, like
that.
A
few
bushels, 3 or 4 bushels.
The
reason we got to do so
much,
so many people was raising
corn then, everywhere.
So
many
people farming, is
what I'm trying
to say.
And they
had
these plantations, and
they'd send anywhere
from 30 to
40
bushels at a time.
JG:
Was there any particular
day of the week, when
things
were really running,
was there
any particular
day of
the
week when people came, or was it just every day?
WW:
Well, this
time of the year
it was just mostly
every
day.
Now, long
about
in the
month of
December,
before
Christmas, there was a lot of people used to come.
Grind up
their meal for
Christmas, I reckon.
But a
lot of
people
brought meal down and had it
ground and carried it back
to
the stores and sold
it.
A
lot of people
in town used
to
bring meal out
there.
People'd rather
have water
ground
meal than these other meals.
JG:
What
taste?
was the difference
in water ground?
Was
it
in
WW:
It's in the taste, I can tell you.
Most of these mills
run by these engines
I reckon run faster.
Don't have
the
same speed as
the water
ground mills.
It just
naturally
tastes better.
The meal tastes
sweeter.
You can't buy
no
meal like the meal I used to make around there.
JG:
When these
folks would
bring their
corn out
to
be
ground and take it
back to stores, did
people know it
was
from Young's Mill?
WW:
Yes
JG:
Did they tell
WW:
the
sir...
folks that
They could tell
label on there.
the
it was...?
difference.
A-12
They could
tell
from
JG:
That's
what I was
wondering, was there
a label
that
said "Young's Mill" on it?
Did you have a label on a
bag
that said "Young's Mill?"
WW:
No
JG:
Mostly just word of mouth?
sir.
We didn't advertise.
WW:
The
meal
difference.
JG:
advertise
They'd find out where
itself.
They
could
tell
the
it came from and then come back?
WW:
And they'd always come
back.
That's the truth.
More
and more of them come.
I
know a lot of people, I did
know
-they're dead
and gone today
-of people
a lot
around
Harrisonville ******** I don't
think there's but one
store
up there now.
JG:
It's kind of
just a crossroads up there now.
WW:
That's right.
Just
a crossroads.
Clean
on up
Carrollton they used to come from all up in there.
JG:
Could
about the
little bit
to us what
we
kind of go
buildings that
about the grist
it looked like,
to
back and talk
a little bit
more
were
down there?
We
talked
a
mill, could you kind of
describe
the building itself?
WW:
Now, it was just a
plain square building.
It had
two
doors.
We
never did
use but
one.
It was
just a
plain
building,
something
like
this
here
[WW
sketched
the
building at this point]
JG:
Just a square building?
WW:
Yes...
JG:
Made out of wood?
WW:
Yes
JG:
A wood
sir,
a wood building...
frame buiding?
WW:
It had two stories,
you see, but there wasn't no
mill
upstairs.
This is the bottom of
it.
That was a door,
and
there was a door.
Both the doors were on the bottom.
JG:
was?
And those
were on the side,
Those were on the bank side?
the bank where the
creek
WW:
No sir, it
was sitting down in the
bank.
I mean,
in
the creek.
There was a platform, up there where you'd drive
up to.
And the mill sit right over the creek.
Ha2 some big
A-13
pillars,
big
pillars
out
in
the
water.
Two
windows
upstairs, like that.
And this
thing that run the mill
You know where the dam at?
the dam.
JG:
Right.
WW:
This, like I draw the dam, this thing here, ran out
to
the mill,
and the
turbine sit
about in
the middle,
like
that, you see.
To run the mill.
But this, this thing here,
run up to the dam, and the water run in there.
And the dam,
that dam was higher.
I can't...
JG:
Chris has a drawing here of what they've done out there
already.
I'm not sure whether you'll recognize any of
this
stuff, because it's obviously
after the buildings are
gone
out there.
CE:
[showing preliminary site plan map] The creek's flowing
this way, and this is the dam with the steps going down
the
back there.
This doesn't have
the cement driveway
coming
down there.
It would come
to right about
here, I
think.
These are two
big piers
it was sitting
on.
This is
the
flume, and I assume the turbine would have been about in the
center.
WW:
That's right.
CE:
There's an old millstone
it burned it caved in.
WW:
I guess
when
That's right.
CE:
The
flood gate, or
other side.
The flume on
JG:
out there now.
On the sawmill
the main control
gate.
Then
the
the other side was a lot longer.
side.
CE:
Was that
because the drop was
less over here, do
you
know?
I
know the natural
rock, the natural
bedrock is
a
little higher on
that side.
The turbine's
still down
in
there, you can see the big old gears...
WW:
That's on the other side?
CE:
Right.
WW:
Over at
the sawmill.
That's right, yes.
CE:
Then,
the only other
thing standing up
out there
is
right in this area,
a kind of
triangular chimney, which
I
guess was a
house, or
a building,
right next
to the
saw
mill.
A-14
a
building?
There's
Do you
know anything about that
JG:
that
a photograph of it.
Maybe
I have
big, tall chimney.
We have some
will help a little bit, if I can find it here.
[shows
recently.
out
there
were
taken
photographs that
the
on the
top here,
the one
a picture,
photos] This is
the
dam
here,
and
there's
on
the
left
mill
is
over
grist
underneath
or
flume
that
was
running across, and this is the
was
the saw mill
saw mill.
Here's the piers
next to the
sitting up on top of.
There's a picture here showing the big chimney that sat
where
There was a building
it was right down in the creek.
were
what we
right next to
Now that's
that chimney was.
calling the saw mill.
WW:
Right.
Next to the saw mill?
It's a
chimney
building at all?
Do you remember that
JG:
A
of a
building.
have
been in
the
corner
that would
fireplace like right in the corner of a building.
CE:
It has an upper and a lower hearth.
It has two hearths
in
WW:
there.
I think now
I don't remember that,
...
I believe.
JG:
This is a picture that was taken quite a few years
Do you recognize that?
of the saw mill.
WW:
Right there.
JG:
There's the dam.
WW:
That's right, that's
ago
right.
right
we've been talking about is
Now, the flume that
JG:
underneath
was down
the turbine
there, and
up underneath
here.
This opening in the side, do you remember that?
WW:
Yeah,
I remember
that.
JG:
What was that for?
side of that building?
WW:
That building,
JG:
Right.
Why was there a big opening
in
the
I
can
the one right there?
know for what reason
WW:
Well, I don't
remember that old building sitting there.
JG:
It was made of
log...?
WW:
I believe that chimney...
A-15
it was,
but
JG:
The chimney would have
been off
WW:
this particular
been over here.
It would
have
picture.
The chimney would have been from that place there?
The
Right.
JG:
Right.
edge of it right here...
building, you can sort of see
the
As
WW:
It must have had another house there at that time.
I say, he had 3 or 4 houses over there, where people used to
camp.
Over
there on that
side.
It used to
be a
little
house out there next
to the bridge.
I think it tore
down
now.
It
was like
a little
office.
A little
storehouse
where he used to sell drinks, and everything like that.
... [finding photo]
this building
It's
JG:
right there?
Do you
recognize that?
Right
road.
WW:
It's a stone building.
A little
I do...
about earlier, where
we were talking
JG:
That's what
Young ... building that to use as an office.
WW:
That's right.
JG:
We don't have any other pictures.
CE:
When we were
doing a map out
thing.
Let's
see, it
was on the
above this little retaining wall...
WW:
one
the
Right next to the road?
JG:
Now the roof is gone.
arch doorway...
WW:
... that
next to
Mr.
there, we came across
a
saw mill
side, up
here
That's right.
CE:
It's back in
the woods, and I'm
afraid it might be
a
grave.
Did you ever know
of, did you ever hear of
anybody
being buried out there?
It was stone lined . . .
WW:
On
the side where the saw mill was?
CE:
Yes sir.
It would have been, probably, right about out
here.
On
the flats.
About
right next
to the
retaining
wall.
It's stone lined, and it's
about 6 ft long and 2
ft
wide.
Had
some barb wire,
a few strands
of barbed
wire,
laid over the top of it.
WW:
I don't know
what that
could've been.
I
remember,
there was a fellow got drownded, that could've been in
that
corner.
There's one place up there, they measured, used
to
A-16
be fifteen feet deep.
I don't have any idea if they
buried
him out there.
I guess they brought him to town and
buried
him.
Him
and another person
got drowned out
there.
The
water was up.
He and
some more boys, other boys in
there,
he was having a bet that he
could swim up to the dam.
And
that water was awful
swift, when that
creek up, you
know.
And this boy here, going to stand up on the dam and pull him
up there.
up on
that dam and
the water
And he got
just
swept him off in
there like that.
Drowned him, you
know.
His father was
out there.
I
think ***
was carrying
out
there then, people
was hooping and
hollering.
They
found
his body,
done washed
against one
of them
Water
piers.
swept him off
of that.
He could've
hit a
rock there,
I
don't know.
He
drowned.
That was
the only people I
ever
knowed to drown out there.
Anything happen to them, then
I
was out there.
in
other pictures that were taken
JG:
We've also got some
19... 48, I think.
They were taken during a flood.
Do
you
remember there being
any floods
out there?
Things
being
washed away?
remember any
floods out
WW:
I don't
photos] That water was way up.
there.
[looking
at
JG:
These were taken in 1948.
Now that's a picture of
the
mill looking across.
Now,
the dams completely under
water
there, and that's the saw mill over on the other side there.
WW:
The water's up.
JG:
Did
WW:
No.
JG:
Not that high?
the water get up that high very often?
No.
WW:
No, no
sir.
It'd
have to rain a
water to get up like that.
Rain a long
long
time.
time for
that
JG:
This
i
a',or
picture
Loking across
the
creek.
That's the building
were talking about,
with the
chimney.
Do you remember that at all?
It looks like a cabin, maybe a
one room cabin.
WW:
He had
3 or 4 cabins over
JG:
So he
might have
vacation cabins?
built
there.
that just
as one
of
those
WW:
I know so, cause he'd rent them out to a lot of people.
They stayed over then
until got hit
by lightning.
That's
what broke that up.
A-17
JG:
After that, not too many people stayed out there?
He had those cabins
WW:
No.
Lightning struck a pine tree.
to
those
trees.
Lightning
struck that
built on
tree,
I know when
I
close by.
********
somebody was standing
used to come to town to get Mr. Young before he got a car.
Come to
A mule.
Come to town, he had a one-horse wagon.
town and get him. He get his ice, his stuff, 2 or 3 cases
That'd be like on a Sunday
of drinks, and head out there.
morning.
He'd be running that swimming pool.
After that he
got him a T-model.
Then he went on to an A-model.
When
I
left there
he
had that A-model.
He give me
that old
his
I had
bought me an old T-model, 19..., well
T-model.
was 1929.
Mine was a little later than that. When he give
me that old T-model he had,
I'd taken the motor and put
it
in mine.
I taken the tires he give me and put them on mine.
I didn't have no good tires.
I did some real traveling
in
that car,
Atlanta ... everywhere.
It would run through ...
it was a good one cause ... it wasn't long since he had that
motor reworked.
JG:
in,
Can i ask, when ... I know you quit working down
say, the 30s...
there
WW:
Yes sir.
It would have been in the 30s, because my son
in there he was born out there, and he's 55 years old his
next birthday.
56.
He's born in April 1933.
I had another
son born about
two years difference his age
and this
boy
here.
I stayed on there about 12 more months, so that would
have been ... I left about...I
left about 36 or 37.
About
37.
JG:
1937?
WW:
Yes sir.
JG.
Now, who ... do you know who ran the mill after
Who ran the mill after you left?
that?
WW:
Gerald Scott.
He was living there. He had quite a few
children.
I don't know how long.
But he'd taken over after
I left.
Gerald Scott.
He got
... I think
all his
kids
dead, except Mary.
[to Mrs. Young] You know Mary Scott?
Mrs. Y:
Yeah. Mary.
They lived across from our
driveway
that went to the log house.
Joe said they had a houseful of
chilluns, as they called it, and he'd pay them a nickle
to
open the gate.
WW:
I think all her
boys of his.
Mrs. Y.:
brothers dead.
BoPeep's living.
A-18
*****
those two
older
WW:
Yes, BoPeep,
that's the only
And...
oldest one, he's dead.
Cootney?
Mrs.
Y.:
WW:
Cootney, he's dead.
JG:
And those are all Scott children?
WW:
All
Mrs.
Y.:
JG:
Is BoPeep still around?
WW:
BoPeep
JG:
Do you know where about he lives now?
Mrs.
Y.:
I know.
JG:
Mrs.
Young, do you know where he lives?
of them.
Mary worked
...
for me.
His daddy run
I know where he's
Mrs. Y.:
talk to him?
it.
working today.
JG:
We may want to talk to him.
Mrs.
Y.:
Let me call her.
[tape stopped while Mrs.
BoPeep later]
Yes,
JG:
died.
the
one, because James,
Can
I call
Do you want
to
right now?
Young made arrangements to talk
I think you told me it was 1939 when Robert
to
Young
that.
than
have been much longer
must not
Yes, it
WW:
while.
good
a
there
from
Because I remember I had been left
you
that they,
I remember
around 1937.
I left somewhere
in
up
all
community,
all the
truck around
know, sent the
come
to
there where I was living, any colored people wanted
only
that's the
working that day,
I was
to his funeral.
reason I didn't attend.
So you
JG:
mill?
went
to work someplace
One of
town].
the sawmill [in
I worked
Yes,
WW:
I'm going to
get somebody can write,
days, if I can
the history of my life.
JG:
lot.
Sounds
like a good
idea.
A-19
the
else when you left
Sounds
these
write
like you've done
a
WW:
I've covered a lot of ground.
I didn't plainly make no
money.
I mean,
I done told you,
when I come along,
wages
was so cheap.
I remember working for 60 cents a day, many a
day.
People wasn't
getting
nothing
until
President
from
He changes the
time
Roosevelt come on the scene.
working all
day to
working 8 hours.
That's when people
started, you know, wages
started going
up.
Because
I
remember, we started in getting paid by the hour, not by the
day, but by the hour.
Before then, the highest I was making
two dollars a
a dollar
or a dollar-half,
was maybe about
day.
JG:
Was that what Mr. Young was paying you out there?
[Laughter from WW and Mrs. Y]
WW:
I ain't going to discuss that.
JG:
I was just curious.
I was just curious.
Mrs. Y.:
When Joe was building his house in 29, he paid
man and a mule a dollar and a half a day.
JG:
a
A dollar and a half a day?
Mrs. Y.:
So I know he wasn't making...
WW:
So
you can
go from that.
You figure it out.
nothing.
[laughter]
JG:
I'll
WW:
But, people were living, you know.
Mrs. Y.:
I won't
say
figure it out.
Folks were living.
Just like we do today...
WW:
We were having a good
time.
And I can say one
thing:
we never did go hungry out there.
Because, you could
raise
hogs.
And, I don't think but at the time there wasn't but
two of us on the place then. My family, and Scott,
Scott's
family.
We'd divide hogs down
there. Didn't have but one
hog, we'd divide the hog between us.
Then, we got
plenty of fish.
I know where this old
lake
used to be, back over behind this other place I used to be.
All that water come
from up there at
the spring.
Busted,
the dam busted, and then we had to let the grist mill
water
out.
We got down in there and picked up fish.
We picked up
3 tin tubs full.
Big old catfish, all kind.
I happened
to
be standing up there.
I thought it was a piece of tin I was
standing on, something nearly a wide as this rug here [about
36"].
It was round, and it commenced to moving off.
It was
a turtle.
Liked to scare me to death.
A-20
Old Scott, he wanted a turtle.
I didn't want that
turtle.
It was too big for me.
I'd never seen a turtle that big.
I
think he swapped me his fish for that
turtle.
I had
fish
for 100 years, seem like.
Mrs. W:
No wonder you don'c like them now.
WW:
Young, they
used to let that pond off, about twice
a
year.
You raised them gates, you let it
off.
Let it off
and you get
out there and
you go to
seining.
And
they'd
catch them big old suckers.
That pond be full of
suckers.
Some of those suckers used to weigh anywhere from 15 to
25
pounds or more.
Take them and clean them, they'd cut
them
up and slice them, and put them
in a wash pot.
They had
a
big old dipper with a handle
on it, put them fish in
there
and let them ... they had
a pot about half full of grease,
oil, cooking oil.
They'd lay them down in
there and
fry
them, boil them.
Good, boy they were good.
Put some hush
puppies in there and take them out.
Have two or 3 big pots
of coffee, 2 or
3 gallons of liquor.
About all you
could
wish for.
These white folks come out there, boy they'd have
a feast. Get through, there'd
be heap more left then
they
could eat, give the rest of it to the hands to eat up.
Mrs. W:
You'd eat a sucker?
WW:
Then.
You could just eat it bones and all the way they
cooked it.
You couldn't
tell
there were
bones
in
it.
After they put them in that grease, you
That's the truth.
know. Had some good times out there.
JG:
Do you know much about what went on at the mill
after
you left there?
I know you said Mr. Scott ran it after you
left?
WW:
I don't know a thing.
JG:
You didn't go back out there...?
WW:
I never did go back.
JG:
After you stopped working there, you never did go
out?
back
WW:
I never did.
I never did go back down there, because I
wasn't planting or nothing like that, so ... the mill ... I
didn't have no
corn to carry down there.
I been at
the
sawmill, I don't know, I don't know how long.
But,
through
those years,
I drove all
through Harris County,
Troup
County, Meriwhether County, clean down to
***** a little
warehouse???? where Mr.
Roosevelt supposed
to have
stayed
at, to run the
sawmill.
Down Lookout
Mountain.
You
look
down those mountains and look right dead over Manchester.
I
A-21
was working
for
this other company up there Hogansville, and
this man ****
[to Mrs. Young] You
We started to move out there.
Mrs. W.:
remember, Mr. Joe wanted me and Wiley to move out there?
Mrs. Y.:
In Ira Hirshum's house.
You all wouldn't do it.
WW:
Well, he had moved that house where we used to live
there on the bank.
He tore it down.
Mrs. Y.:
WW:
The house he moved on the Hammett Road...
He moved that house, and he said "I'll move it back"...
somebody asked me,
I got back to town and
Mrs. W.:
going out there with all those snakes?" You mentioned
snakes, them cane snakes.
WW:
up
"You
them
I thought we was going to move back...
come
If
hadn't mentioned snakes, I was going to
Mrs. W.:
He
out with you.
I was going
to come out there with you.
those
snakes...
mentioned
[a lengthy discussion of snakes completes the interview]
A-22
INTERVIEW WITH MR. JOE YOUNG, 1980.
The following was transcribed by Jeff Gardner from a tape in
the possession of Mrs. Helen Young.
A copy of the tape
is
now in the Young's Mill
project file.
The tape
apparently
captures an interview
with Mr. Joe
Young conducted by
Don
Yates on
July
25, 1980.
A
paper by
Don
Yates
(1980)
contains
paraphrased
information
from
this
interview.
Question
marks
in
parentheses,
"(?)",
indicate
unclear
and
spelling,
asterisks,
"*
*",
indicate
inaudible
sections of the tape.
The interview
was conducted at
Mr.
Young's home, Pineland Farms, and background interference on
the tape is high.
Yates: I'm
with Mr.
Joe Young,
owner of
Pineland
Farms.
Today's date is ... The date
is July 25, 1980.
He's
going
to tell us about Young's Mill, an old sawmill and grist mill
in the northern part of Troup
County.
Mr. Young, when
was
the
...
Young:
On Beech Creek.
Yates: On Beech Creek.
When was the
... ?
Young: ... built by my
grandmother shortly after the
Civil
War.
Ground meal on one side and had a sawmill on the other
side.
In the winter time the neighbors would bring logs
in
and pile 'em
up in the
yard out there,
and when they
had
plenty of water, why they'd saw 'em up and just leave 'em in
a pile.
Yates: Do
Young?
Young:
you know
That was
approximately what
the date
was,
Mr.
...
Yates: When they put the dam up?
Young: I'd say,
years.
in the
1890s
... about
1875,
Yates: I've seen a
map ******* 1879, I
first with Young's Mill on it ... ******
Young: ...
as 1375.
about that time.
about a hundred
think this was
...
Could have been there as
Yates: Your
grandmother,
now
what was
her
name?
grandfather was R.M. Young also?
Is that correct?
Young:
Yes.
I think her
name was Susan.
A-23
the
early
Your
Yates:
Susan
Young:
I don't know what her maiden name was.
E. Young?
Yates: What would
you say would
be the best
years of
the
mill?
I
know it was
there several years
before you
were
born, but ...
Young:
Before World War
I.
Yates:
mill?
The early 1900s were
Young:
Uh huh.
the best business part
Yates: And it stayed
in operation all
and through the depression?
for
during World War
the
I,
Young: And up
until World
War II, when
my brother,
John,
arranged the gates and
let the water over
the dam, out
of
the pond.
When
I came back
from World War
II, I had
Roy
****** build some new gates out of creosote pine, because
I
wanted to see the water pouring
over the dam.
See, when
I
came out
of the
army in
1946,
I put
the water
back
to
.
pouring over the dam, I didn't want to see it
Yates: Well
the
...
Young:
I
put
the
mill
back
into
operation,
but
the
government got to interfering.
I had
to put vitamins
and
other ******* into
the meal in
addition to straight
corn,
ground corn, and I didn't appreciate that, so we just turned
the mill down.
Yates:
Altogether
Young:
Something like
Yates:
It was profitable all during
it was
in operation for 75,
80 years?
that.
that
time?
Young: Well it served a purpose in the neighborhood, really,
to grind corn, meal for the natives.
Made enough out of
it
to keep it open.
They
charged an eighth to the gallon
out
of every bushel.
That was toll for grinding the corn.
Yates:
The
grist
mill
was
...
how
businesswise in activity to the sawmill?
did
it
compare
Young: Well,
there's no
comparison because
they kept
the
grist mill running ********,
and they only used the
sawmill
in the fall of the year and the winter when there was
ample
water.
When it got dry in the summertime I didn't dare
use
the sawmill because I'd
save the water
for the grist
mill
A-24
Yates: How long
has the land
that
long has it been in your family?
the mill
is on
...
how
Young: Well it's been in the family [since] before the Civil
War, because my ... the old
cast iron cauldron over at
the
house there now, well my grandmother used to have to furnish
the army so many
sides of pork ...
lard and what have
you
for the troops.
And she
had to
cook up the
lard in
her
cauldron.
Yates:
This was your grandmother?
Young:
GrandmothEr.
Yates:
The same one that had
Young:
[no verbal
the mill built?
response]
Yates: When
did ...
they
always live
there, or did they live on the land?
Young:
They lived on
But the old
in
the
house
over
the land, the house has been torn down.
kitchen to the house still remains.
Yates: Over where your mother's place is,
across the road?
Young: That's right.
Father tore the rest of the old
house
down and they built the
present house that's there, but
he
left the old
kitchen.
There was
a dog
trot between
the
kitchen and the house.
They
cooked out there but they
had
to tote the food into the house.
Yates: Are you the
the ...
... You're the
third generation
to
Young: That's right.
And I'll be the last.
Neither one
my brothers wanted it and I have no children.
So I plan
leave it to the Geozgia Sheriff's Youth Ranch.
Yates: For several
years there
was a
recreation
that was with the dam or the mill pond?
own
of
to
area
Young: Neither one.
It was
above, up the creek, it was
my
dad's sanctuary.
He dug a swimming pool out of the side
of
a hill
with a
solid
rock, ******
rock
bottom.
He
put
concrete steps around it
up to a height
of about 12
feet,
and put a
spring board in
there where you
could dive
off
into the water.
Piped the water, spring water, in from
the
hillside with
a
wooden trough,
that
way *******
out
of
natural spring water.
It was about the only recreation area
we had here in
LaGrange and Troup County
at the time,
and
that was in the twenties.
I left in '26 and it was still in
operation.
Left in
'27, because I camped
over in '26
and
went out to Missouri in '27, and it was still in operation.
A-25
Yates: When you came back, had they closed up the recreation
Young: No, it was still operating.
my father's death in '39.
Yates:
When
property?
did
he
build
the
I did not cise it until
recreation
part
on
the
Young: Well, in the early twenties he was in the process of
building on it until he died.
He never
did get
through
because he was still adding to
it.
Better water, and more
water, and trying to build some accomodations for people
to
spend the week, away from town.
Yates:
Sounds sort of like an early vacation *
Young:
An early day campground.
Yates: Was this known as the "Young's Mill" back then?
Young:
Well
uh,
he
called
it
"Little
Lake
Lahleet,"
L-A-H-L-EE-T, for a preference
that he had
for a tribe
of
Indians up in the Pacific Northwest somewhere.
He had
read
about, apparently they had a lake they called Lahleet and he
named this one Lahleet. There's a rock still standing
over
there right
now at
the entrance
that he had old Charley
Dawson build to the place, where he painted on that
rock,
"To The Boys and Girls of Today and Tomorrow."
He wanted
that swimming
pool
maintained
for the
enjoyment
of
the
children.
For today and tomorrow.
Which is one reason
it
prompted me to
leave it
to the Georgia
Sheriff's Youth
Ranch, and
I hope
they continue to
use and
improve
the
property, so long as they keep it.
Yates: Here in the house where we're sitting now, this
always been part of
the Young family also, along with
has
the
Young: The land was.
The land was given to me by my folks
after I started doing my house on it,
in 1928. I had
open
house in May,
1929, there was over 200 cars
and over
700
people out here the first summer that I opened it.
You
saw
me standing
by that
chimney ********
people
coming
all
through ... I lived in the garage until I got through
with
the house.
People
come out here all hours of the day
and
night.
So I just had to put a chain up and then when I got
through with it why I had open house and invited
everybody.
In May, 1929.
Yates: They probably were impressed ********.
Mr. Young, do
you have any more comments about the mill, or about the time
range in particular you might want to make *****
A-26
Young:
I dug
Nothing that I know of except that
it out of
it was run by
me.
the wilderness.
Yates:
Young:
Washed
from the gutter
Yates: When did, when was
lived in?
Young:
1930.
I started
...
the house built that your
on this one
in the
mother
fall of
1928
Yates: You were the,
you
were considered one of the
first
breeders of Morgan horses in
Georgia?
One of the
pioneers
of Angus cattle in this area also?
Young: Well,
I've got
the oldest
registered Angus,
Black
Angus herd
under
continuous
ownership
in
the
state
of
Georgia.
Today.
Back in horsedrawn days there were
Morgan
horses in
this country
but
there hadn't
been any
for
a
number of years until I brought some back when I got out
of
the Army in November
1946.
I bought
a stallion and
three
mares.
I raised them ******
Yates: Going back, when you was just a young man, Mr. Young,
how many, say,
farm employees worked
for your father,
and
was he a **** farmer also in *
Young: Well, he lost his arm
when he was fifteen years
in an accident
with a threshing
machine.
He
went to
University of Georgia and
graduated in Law.
The farm
leased from then on.
He didn't do any actual farming.
Yates:
old
the
was
He lost his arm working on, at the mill?
Young: Yes, he lost his arm way
up on the back side of
the
place, and they had to
put him in a
wagon and haul him
to
the house which
is about a
mile away, then
they laid
him
down at the house and they
had to send a little nigger
boy
to town on a
mule to get
old Doctor Ball
to come out
and
look at it, and poor Doctor
Ball came out in his buggy
and
looked at it, examined
it and saw he
was going to have
to
take his arm off, so he
sent the little nigger boy back
to
town to get
the necessary
equipment to take
his arm
off,
and my dad said that about 5 o'clock that evening they
laid
him down on the
front porch and
took his arm
off.
And
I
have out there
the monument
that ...
he told
me that
he
found him a flat rock, he held a nail, and the little nigger
hit it, and he carved "R.M. Young's right arm" and the
date
on it.
I have it out in the office somewhere.
I don't know
what I'll do with it.
Yates:
He put this
over where they buried his arm?
A-27
Young: He
put this
over where
they buried
his arm
right
north of the mill
house down next to
the creek.
The
mill
pond.
But when the government took over I didn't ... I took
a dim view of leaving it
there for the government to
cover
it, so ...
Yates: He practiced law, and leased the
did you decide to be a farmer?
have
no recollection,
Young: I
started milking cows.
Yates:
I
farm ... Well,
don't remember
when
when
I
Just always, always done it.
Young: Well, with my job in town, and milked; that's the way
I got my spending
money was to sell
milk up and down
Hill
Street.
I'd get up and milk, take the cows to the
pasture,
and deliver milk, then change my clothes and walk about
two
miles to the school.
Never was tardy a day in my life.
The
last nine years I never missed a day.
This day and age
the
kids don't walk across the street.
Yates:
Then
aft'r
high
school,
you
went
to
Auburn
and
graduated in Agriculture?
Young:
Right.
Yes.
Yates: When you came back
after you graduated
you went on to the University of Missouri, and
Young: Majored
Yates:
in Poultry and minored
You came back
... This
from
... ?
Auburn,
in *******.
has not always been known
as
Pineland *******..
Young:
No,
I got that
from my mother-in-law.
She
these pines ******* ...
Some
of the pines along the
there are 4,000 board feet of lumber.
Yates: Your grandmother was the
more or less built up the place
...
...
she and your
loved
drive
grandfather
Young: Well my grandfather died
when my father was quite
a
young man,
not
more
than
a
boy.
Left
it
up
to
my
grandmother to keep together the place and raise the family.
Yates:
How many people did she employ, Mr.
Young: I have no idea.
50 or 100 slaves.
Yates:
Young?
But I think my great-grandfather had
Your great-grandfather.
A-28
What was
his name?
Young:
Young.
I don't know.
All
I know is Colonel.
They
called him Colonel Young.
Yates:
Did he ever participate
Young:
Maybe, possible.
Yates: Yes
the farm,
in
the Civil War?
sir.
How was ... growing
were they ****** ... ?
up, with the Blacks
Young:
That's beyond me, before my day.
Yates:
Well,
then we'll
if you
don't have any
just have to ******
[short discussion of
more comments to
on
make,
...
regional farmland conservation follows]
Yates: This concludes an interview of Mr. Joseph L.
Young.
We've been
talking
about,
primarily
about
Pineland
and
Young's Mill located on Beech Creek... Thank you.
A-29
APPENDIX B
1880 U.S.
CENSUS
SPECIAL CENSUS OF MANUFACTURES
TROUP COUNTY, GEORGIA
rrV-
~
ti~;.
II
'-
-4
I______
:t
0
c
r
C,4
C;.±
~ ~
j.I0
su~
-,:-r
_
___
I .
_
-
~i~~..z-
C)
--.-
+3rEt
_____
st9
-
C.N
CCC)
_
_
_
I-
/
4'
--
-4
.1
.11
0I,T
__
cCI0
_
_
_
__
_
N
-
I~
'o
L
ou
ZTGDJ
AO
UT
8pm
AS-.
OM1
r-
v
co
'O
4T
011'9-I
-,
-
I
to
5
g2
7
,
'-I
''*cK'
:3-.y
C.0
c
i-
c(-
-aSam,. v
CpoAOR
*:
'-
*-0~~
0o:-~
o1
---
*
~~F
46-
19;
_4_
o=~
*Ul
X
____~JVI~gig
U9
V*C
0
*
0
140
1
i
B-2
~-cO
-o:
-
--
T-
*
:
-e
--
I
p
I
-
-
__,Z7_1
I
42
_____
u
0
I
El
UT
A
L!L
--40-vPE
TE
_______
aCsJ7*A.01
~
*
a
-
~~~
__
am!;
___
o~
.C--.
i:ecaz
--
n
I
-
BIP,-
GAI
10OA
-
aiuoszm
Sa
0
-0
-
t
0
1-
.
C)
u c
C:
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~
r
C;
00~fts~e
14
ii
I~
M;
__
-4 4)N
cl 4-
C
I
s__________
-o.
a
cv
00
.01:
a-o~
C.rq
I
C-c
c.aaT
c
Iu~z'
A
0
54
utfl
IO
-i-,
I
-
*o:
alo)
zc
j~S.
&
3_
-o
__
_
6
_
_
V
BP
_
_
z77_
I~e-1
-
.04
_
tp~-
0
_
_
o~~~~
o~~o~~~~~~
_
_
_
P
_
_
_
_
r0 O~-..
_
_
tcytS
.
-CY4
>~-___________
OO
C
-4
co
t~no;
I
050
C\
-rr -4I
n'
--
--
-4 -
cvm
-N -
-T
-M
C,-7- .;
00
Ir
.1
-
m-ST~
E -
0
ar*E
-L
oz-
I
-;
(4C
-<
_
-4
,__
___
?5 1~04
W,__
.4
__
4
-4 0
*
E..
___
~
-4~
-
___
~
'
-
-'
-
V)
_
0
-
-a
4I
I- -V
L~If
,
-
.0 >
-.
1.
6
--
.4)R
oE
*o
06
*
0
C
-4
0. 0
iisii
r
1
-Cw
II
-o :
n
C.
_~~-
_
_~
___
0~P
__
N'
LC
-ni~
C)
-'
-.
S5de
_
C-Z46___
0-.
1 r,
ats._
_
_
-
rr
0
=0I
i-Z
f
10!
~-
~
C'41
ac
c4j
-
C
1-4
$4
C4
Ln
000-0
Lrmnoz
I______
S-l~~ -1-U01-
AO!-
00
L-I
I-
.
-4-4
(D
C)
I
ho
'-
0~o-
-
I
-
aL
GOL4 I
v
'q~
0
C 4cz~
S
4f
ztZ0
Ln
-)
cz
7
I
1
___41__
-4,
*
-4-
z
_rTr
pC
uo~
0
-l
-
0
---
__
_
__
_
.-
_
__
_
I
C,-
I
C
Jl
irL-
_
a IPI
.9s
4J
O
-C
a=-
o~
C)
0
.10
n
C
Lr-
to
Ao::-LL.4
-
~~~~~~
n ~ ~~
-4
L..
N-
3_
c~*~
_
.~4~
u~ c
0 f..
-~-4
41 __
')l
-Z
I
0
r0 14u
.l~~
B-7
saI-:
_
_
-
_
II
I~-
K
<
I
-L
~
. aC
C
0
o
a).,
st>t
' 1
01
N I
C- :
bo. C.
;do
_______
a
.1eC)a
C.)
U 4JoVAT
-
a
3AT~Ir
-
-14~
-4 -4,
0
C
0
-~~
o
I
1l
m
CIDo
_I_
-M 7
CI
,
~
-
___________________________ T9
----
aZ.-
Q
2
4 To
-~
-I
a74
1- 8
1
11
-
S114es
r Idj0-*
I ~*D
-4
~~~101CA
ITC,1 -4 r C-'4-1
01'
-~
o
_
_
_
_
a
F__
_
t__
_
_z__
%.00
o
I.-
4-a
joC>~__
S20'Io
:.v
c)l
-4
4
Ll
jr_ _
Izz4V
-a
~
:?
L
sa -a a
,.~
-e
t:7
a=,;
04
-
>~_
-
E
-
~
It
N
c
cy-___
~$
_
aOr.L
,
-I ~ ~
-
_
_
_
_
_
_
_ _ _ _ _ __L
__
O -.VZ
1
:or
_
_
SF8
I
-
..
IF-s.'e~
T_
4a
H
U O__
'~
-
"
_
~
-no..:.~
>-II
Ar_
-
---
_
_
_
_
_
_
IL
_
_
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ __a
l.
1
Chris Espenshade