The Project Gutenberg eBook of Green Spring Farm, Fairfax County, Virginia
    
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: Green Spring Farm, Fairfax County, Virginia

Author: Ross De Witt Netherton
        Nan Netherton

Release date: July 27, 2010 [eBook #33272]

Language: English

Credits: Produced by Katherine Ward, Mark C. Orton and the Online
        Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net


*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK GREEN SPRING FARM, FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA ***




Produced by Katherine Ward, Mark C. Orton and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net







  GREEN SPRING FARM
  Fairfax County, Virginia

  by
  ROSS AND NAN NETHERTON

  June 1970

[Illustration: Map of COUNTY OF FAIRFAX VIRGINIA]




TABLE OF CONTENTS


                                                                  Page
  ILLUSTRATIONS                                                     iv
  PREFACE                                                            v
  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS                                                   vi
  INTRODUCTION                                                       1
  HISTORICAL NOTES
    I. Gentleman Freeholders: The Moss Family (1770-1835)            3
   II. Orchard and Dairy: Fountain Beattie (1878-1917)              19
  III. The End of the Farming Era: Michael Straight (1942-1969)     31
  ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION: THE MANSION HOUSE          36
  ASSOCIATED BUILDINGS
    I. The Tobey House                                              51
   II. The Barn                                                     55
  III. The Log Cabin                                                57
   IV. The Spring House                                             59
  APPENDIXES
    A. Fairfax County Historic Landmarks Survey Form                63
    B. Summary of Ownership                                         64
    C. Will of John Moss, 1809                                      66
    D. Inventory of Personal Estate of William Moss, April 15,
           1835                                                     68
    E. Affidavit of Thomas Love and Alfred Moss, October 29,
           1839                                                     74
    F. Inventory of Personal Estate of Thomas Moss, December 2,
           1839                                                     76
    G. "A Visit From Mr. Polevoy," _The New Republic_, July 16,
           1956                                                     77
  LIST OF SOURCE MATERIALS                                          81




ILLUSTRATIONS


  Figure                                                          Page
       1 John Warner Survey Map, 1740                                4
       2 John Halley Survey Map, 1840                               12
       3 R. R. Farr Survey, 1874                                    12
       4 Hopkins' Atlas Map, 1879                                   20
       5 Fountain Beattie and Annie Hathaway Beattie, c. 1885       22
         The Mosby and the Beatties, c. 1890                        22
         The Old Stone Spring House, c. 1885                        22
         The Lane to Green Spring Farm, c. 1885                     22
       6 John Singleton Mosby                                       24
         Reunion at Manassas                                        24
       7 Front View of Green Spring Farm, 1936                      30
         Side View of Green Spring Farm, 1936                       30
       8 Berry Survey Map, 1941                                     30
      10 Floor Plans, Mansion House                                 38
      14 Three Views of the Tobey House, c. 1960                    50
      15 Floor Plans of the Tobey House                             52
      19 Spring House Floor Plans                                   58
      20 Fairfax County Property Map, 1969                          62




PREFACE


In the beginning was the land. It drew human life to our rich area of
Fairfax County, and sustained us for centuries before we became so
self-conscious about it as to make household language of words such as
ecology and bio-degradable waste. This is where we are at, however,
and thus it is thoroughly appropriate that the publication of
historical research reports in this format, a new program for Fairfax
County, should commence with a study of the Green Spring Farm. There
is no better site for an example, probably, to illustrate the early
patterns of life on the agricultural land of Fairfax County as well as
to follow the changes and pressures that have come about through war,
depression, boom, and technological change down to the present. Anyone
familiar with the history of this parcel of land, the Green Spring
Farm, will be familiar with a great deal of the history of Fairfax
County--told not so much in terms of its famous and powerful people as
in terms of those who drew sustenance directly from the land.

This report is published under authority of the Board of Supervisors
of the County of Fairfax. It is one result of a program of historical
site survey and research carried on by the Fairfax County Division of
Planning in cooperation with the Fairfax County History Commission.
The original selection of Green Spring Farm as a research topic was
made by the Fairfax County Historical Landmarks Preservation
Commission, Bayard D. Evans, Chairman, the predecessor of the present
History Commission as the chief historical agency of the County
Government.

Reproduction of the material in this report is invited, subject to the
customary credit to author and publisher.

  John Porter Bloom
  Chairman
  Fairfax County History Commission

  April 1970




ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


These notes are part of a series of research reports on the historic
and architectural landmarks of Fairfax County, Virginia, prepared
pursuant to a resolution of the Board of County Supervisors calling
for a survey of the county's historic sites and buildings.

Green Spring Farm was selected in 1967 by the Fairfax County
Historical Landmarks Preservation Commission as a subject to be
researched, and was later incorporated into a successor research
program sponsored by the Division of Planning in cooperation with the
Fairfax County History Commission.

The authors of this report wish to acknowledge with special thanks the
assistance of the following: Mr. and Mrs. John Mosby Beattie, Admiral
Beverly Mosby Coleman, Mr. and Mrs. Michael W. Straight, Mr. and Mrs.
John Quast, Mrs. Victor Fahringer, Mrs. Gwen Hempel, Mrs. Don Ritchie,
and Mrs. Edith Moore Sprouse.

The authors also extend their thanks to the Honorable Thomas P.
Chapman, former Clerk of the Fairfax County Circuit Court, and the
Honorable Franklin Gooding, present Clerk of the Fairfax County
Circuit Court, for assistance in making available court records of the
clerkships of various members of the Moss family. The Honorable George
R. Rich, Clerk of the Virginia House of Delegates and Keeper of the
Rolls of the State, furnished information on Robert Moss's term as a
Delegate from Fairfax County. Thanks are extended to the staff of the
National Archives who located and made available for examination the
military and civil service records of Fountain Beattie.

Many helpful suggestions on the interpretation of data concerning the
history of agriculture in Northern Virginia were provided by C.
Malcolm Watkins, Chairman of the Department of Cultural History, and
John T. Schlebecker, Curator of the Division of Agriculture and Mining
of the Smithsonian Institution's Museum of History and Technology.

Details of the architectural history of the mansion house were
furnished by Walter Macomber, who was in charge of the 1942
renovation, and David Condon, AIA, who designed the additional work
done in 1960. Mr. Condon also provided both information and
architectural plans for the Tobey House and the Spring House. The
authors' sincere thanks are extended to both these gentlemen.

Finally, the authors wish to acknowledge the efficient and valuable
help that they, as part of the county's historical research project,
received from the staff of the Fairfax County Headquarters Library.

  N.N.
  R.D.N.

  Fairfax, Virginia
  April 22, 1970




INTRODUCTION


The land has always had a special value to Virginians. Land was the
first form of wealth which the colonists knew; and it was through
cultivation of the land that Virginians first enjoyed the heady
feeling of prosperity that came with the rise of their tobacco
empire. Ownership and cultivation of the land were the goals of
those who indentured themselves to come to the New World, and they
were the foundations on which Jefferson placed his reliance for the
perpetuation of political freedom and economic strength for the
infant republic which emerged from the Revolution. For more than
three centuries, Virginians have associated the land with values
which are both physical and spiritual.

Against this background, the history of Green Spring Farm serves not
only as a chronicle of the lives of three families who resided there
but also as a reflection of the history of agriculture in Northern
Virginia. Green Spring Farm was not one of the great estates of
Tidewater Virginia. By the mid-eighteenth century, most of the
original Northern Neck proprietary grants had been broken up and
replaced by a pattern of smaller farms whose owners owed no allegiance
to the tobacco empire and were willing to experiment with diversified
crops. Green Spring Farm illustrated this emerging pattern of
agriculture; and its first owners, John Moss and his heirs, who
assembled the acreage in the 1770's and occupied it until 1839, were
typical of the freeholder classes who took pride in their land and in
regarding themselves as farmers. Their farming raised Virginia to its
position of preeminance among the colonies and in the new nation after
the Revolution.

Farming remained the foundation of Virginia's economy through the
nineteenth century, although changes in the methods of husbandry and
transportation, together with the opening of farmlands in the Ohio
Valley and the prairie states, had important consequences in Virginia.
These impacts were followed by the devastating years of war from 1861
to 1865. Agriculture in Northern Virginia reached its low point in the
1870's.

The period of rebuilding in Northern Virginia--the "Energetic
Eighties," as one historian has called these years--brought a revival
of agriculture. Farmers who could no longer compete in one agriculture
market shifted to another where they enjoyed natural advantages. Thus,
Green Spring Farm, under the ownership of Fountain Beattie from 1878
to 1917, became chiefly an orchard and dairy farm.

Under the ownership of Michael Straight, from 1942 to the present
(1969), Green Spring Farm came under assault from new economic forces
which drastically affected farming in Northern Virginia and ultimately
brought an end to the agricultural era there. Unlike the changing
times of earlier centuries, there was no compromise with the forces of
expanding urbanization; and, eventually, even stock farming was ended.
Yet, in the twentieth century, as in the eighteenth and nineteenth,
the farm continued to represent values which were social as well as
economic. The alert eye of a Russian writer catches some of this value
in "A Visit from Mr. Polevoy," reproduced in the appendix, just as the
inventories of the estates of earlier owners of the farm suggest the
social values which were held in their times.

Green Spring Farm therefore offers insight into the lives of Virginia
gentlemen of the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries. Its
owners were men of learning according to their times, and men of
affairs. The history of the farm records many references to occasions
when it was a gathering place for colorful and talented people whose
names were notable in the arts, literature, sciences, and politics of
their day. Throughout the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth
centuries, its owners were sought for public service and held
positions of trust and responsibility in county, state, and national
governments.

The architectural history of Green Spring Farm parallels its chain of
title. Both the structure and interior design of its buildings have
undergone numerous alterations and remodelings. None of these changes,
however, has destroyed the simple dignity of the house, and it stands
today as a symbol of the traditional strength of spirit of the
Virginia freeholder-farmer in an area which is undergoing the
transition of America's urban revolution.




HISTORICAL NOTES

I. GENTLEMAN FREEHOLDERS: THE MOSS FAMILY (1770-1835)


When Green Spring Farm came into being in the middle years of the
eighteenth century, it represented the second generation of Virginia's
agriculture. By 1750, the great plantations of the proprietor and his
grantees, laid out on land cleared from the virgin forest and planted
with as much tobacco as the owner's supplies of manpower and London
credit would allow, were disappearing. In the evolution of farming,
another generation of farms and farmers was taking over the Tidewater.
Smaller in size than the great tobacco plantations, these farms
utilized a larger proportion of their acreage for crops and cultivated
a greater diversity of crops than before. For these second-generation
farms, wheat and corn for export to England and the West Indies became
the principal income crops.

The men who assembled and worked these new farms were themselves part
of a new generation of Virginians. Many belonged to families which
in 1750 could look back on more than a century of residence in
America, and they were more attuned to the problems and potentials
of the New World than those of the Old. They were the generation
that successfully brought forth a new nation in their own times and
added new dimensions to both its spirit and substances. John Moss
was one of this new generation of Virginians.

Precisely when and how John Moss assembled the acreage that comprised
Green Spring Farm is not certain. Fairfax County land records show a
purchase of land by John Moss in September 1777, but, although this is
the first connection of his name with the land of Green Spring Farm in
these records, there is reason to believe that he may have occupied
and farmed the land prior to that date. For him to have done so would
have been consistent with the practice of his times and also would be
in accord with the tradition of his present-day descendants which
holds that John Moss built the mansion house at Green Spring Farm in
or about 1760.[1]

John Moss lived in this house until his death in 1809. Here he raised
four sons--John, Samuel, William, and Thomas--the last two of whom
successively inherited and worked the farm from 1809 until 1839. On
the death of Thomas Moss in 1839, the farm was sold and the proceeds
of the sale were divided among his heirs.

[Illustration: Figure 1. John Warner Survey Map, 1740. Northern Neck
Grants, Book E, 1736-1742, pp. 216-17.]

In the case of John Moss, more is known of his activities in the
community than of his life as a farmer. In particular, he was a leader
of the early Methodist church in Virginia. The well-known itinerant
Methodist preacher, John Littlejohn, records several visits to the
home of John Moss in Fairfax County, beginning in May 1777. Many
Methodist meetings were held at Green Spring Farm in the 1770's and
1780's. One, held on April 29, 1778, led to the following interesting
note:

  At B^r Jn^o Mosses, met with M^r afterward Lord Fairfax we found
  our trials as to preach^g were very similar, he is very serious
  but his religion is a mystry to me. Lord help us both.[2]

And, in 1787, Francis Asbury noted in his journal:

  Preached at Brother Mosses on 2 Chronicles XV, 12-13 on the
  peoples entering into a covenant with God.[3]

It seems evident that during these years, John Moss's home served as a
meeting place for a Methodist congregation which lacked a church
building and was served by the occasional visits of itinerant
preachers. That the congregation grew and prospered also seems evident
from the fact that in June 1789 John Moss served as a trustee of a
Methodist Episcopal church to be built in Alexandria "just north of
the Presbyterian Meeting House" (Duke and Fairfax Streets) for the use
of Reverend Thomas Cooke and Reverend Francis Asbury.[4]

In the county community, John Moss also was one of the group of
gentlemen freeholders in whom the responsibility of power was reposed.
He enjoyed the friendship and trust of Bryan Fairfax to the extent
that he witnessed and served as coexecutor of the latter's will,[5]
and he was a party to several land sales and leases which involved
Fairfax.[6] By these transactions, he acquired extensive lands in
Loudoun County as well as land on Dogue Creek in Fairfax County.[7]

In colonial times, he served the Crown as Commissioner of the King's
Revenue in Fairfax County and also as a justice of the County
Court.[8] In the War for Independence, he served as a captain and
afterward took an active part in organizing the new government--in
particular, serving on a commission to supervise the Presidential
election of 1788. Under the new State Government, he continued to
serve as the Commissioner of Revenue for the county and a justice of
the County Court. In 1796, in a law suit in Prince William County,
John Moss, then 72, was able to state that he was the oldest justice
of the court in commission at that time.[9]

Service as a justice presumably involved John Moss in a wide range of
decisions affecting the life of the county. The business of the County
Court in this period was both judicial and administrative. Minor
crimes were disposed of monthly, while major crimes and civil cases
were handled in quarterly sessions.[10] At these sessions, the
justices also acted on appointments, licenses for mills and
ordinaries, road construction and repair, and the levying of taxes.
Most of the justices were not trained in the law, and law books were
scarce; therefore, the quality of justice and the transaction of
public business were frequently leavened by reliance on common sense
and experience.[11]

If gentlemen freeholders held the power of government in colonial and
post-Revolutionary Virginia, they also paid much of the cost of
government. In 1786, John Moss and James Wren, Gentlemen, were
appointed Commissioners of the Land Tax, the large counties in
Virginia being allowed to have two such officials.[12] They were
responsible for maintaining the tax book, personally calling on every
person subject to taxation, and making four lists of taxable property
in the county. (One was for the Clerk of the County Court, one for the
sheriff, one for the Solicitor General, and one for the commissioner.)
Annually, they submitted a list of changes in land ownership, by sale
or inheritance.[13]

For his service as a justice and as Commissioner of the Land Tax, John
Moss's compensation came in the form of fees; he received no salary
but under certain circumstances he was reimbursed for out-of-pocket
expenses connected with his duties.[14]

As one of the results of the American Revolution, the Anglican church
was disestablished, and many of the welfare functions formerly
performed by the parish vestry were assumed by the Overseers of the
Poor. John Moss served as an overseer, and the powers and duties he
had in this unusual office were set forth in detail in the revision of
the state laws in 1792.[15] Overseers could prevent the poor from
moving from one county to another and could get a warrant from any
magistrate ordering the removal of a pauper back to his former county,
with a court hearing to determine residence in case of a dispute. On
the other hand, each county was obliged, through its overseers, to
look after its own poor; and if the overseers refused to provide
needed relief, there could be an appeal to the County Court.[16]

Further, they could bind out dependent children placed under their
care as apprentices, appoint collectors-for-the-poor rates, have a
paid clerk, and be paid for attending meetings. They had power to
control vagrants, force fathers of bastards to contribute to their
support, and operate the county poorhouse. In 1806, they were given
the power to take over funds and endowments left in the charge of the
vestries, accounting to the court annually.[17]

John Moss served as justice of the County Court until his death, and
so saw the time come when the county courthouse was moved from
Alexandria to its present site. His view of the history of his county,
state, and nation saw more than mere physical change, however, and he
was sensitive to the changing spirit of the time and place in which he
lived. As to the depth of this feeling, there is no evidence in the
form of public document or speech; but eloquent testimony comes from a
simple, personal act he performed in 1795. As recorded in a deed of
manumission issued to his slaves, he wrote:

  I, John Moss ... being fully satisfied that it is contrary to our
  bill of rights as well as to our principles and sentiments as a
  free people and also contrary to common justice to hold and keep
  in a state of slavery any part of our fellow men ... [release and
  set free at various specified times from the date of this deed]
  Sarah, Nan, Harry, Maria, Hannah, Nero, Abram, Fox, Nat, David,
  John, Sam, Milla and Sal....[18]

The tradition of public service which John Moss commenced was carried
on by his son, William Moss, who was appointed Clerk of the County
Court in 1801. The duties of the clerk at this time differed somewhat
from those of the clerk in colonial times. As enumerated in the
general revision of the law in 1792,[19] the clerk must be a resident
of the county and keep his office in the courthouse, unless ordered to
do otherwise. He received his compensation in small fees charged for
performing small acts, but in a growing county this produced a
substantial income. His chief functions involved issuing licenses,
warrants, writs, and orders connected with litigation. He also took
inventories, recorded legal instruments, and kept vital statistics.
Frequently, the clerk was the only officer of the court who was in any
way learned in the law, and thus his advice on the law was regularly
sought by the court. As the information he gave frequently was
seasoned with experience, he became sought after for advice on many
issues and problems which reached beyond the technical terms of the
law, and his importance in the county's government was substantial.

William Moss served as Clerk of the County Court for 32 years, until
1833. In 1831, he was appointed Clerk of the Circuit Court, when that
body was created by the General Assembly, and he served in that
position until 1835, the year of his death. At this time, William
Moss's brother, Thomas, who had served as a Delegate from Fairfax
County to the Virginia General Assembly in 1828, was appointed to fill
the vacancy left by William's death. When Thomas Moss died in 1839,
his son, Alfred, was appointed Clerk but served in that office only
one month. Later, however, Alfred Moss moved from Alexandria to
Providence [Fairfax] where in 1852 he was again appointed Clerk of the
Circuit Court. He served in this capacity until 1861, at which time
Civil War activities in the area disrupted the normal conduct of
county business.[20] It was at this time that Alfred Moss removed
George Washington's holographic will from Fairfax Courthouse to take
it to Richmond for safekeeping for the duration of the war. Because
there was considerable risk in getting it to Richmond, Alfred's wife,
Martha Gunnell Moss, hid it for a time in her daughter's home,
"Evergreen," in Fauquier County. Alfred Moss was captured and sent to
Capitol Prison, and when he was released by exchange, he took the will
to a safe place. Shortly after the war, the Fairfax County Court sent
a private citizen, O. W. Hunt, to Richmond where he found the
Washington will, some other papers, and the County Seal, which he
returned to the Fairfax Courthouse where they may be seen during
regular hours of business.[21]


AGRICULTURE IN COLONIAL VIRGINIA. The lands which were assembled by
John Moss to comprise his farm were quite different from the virgin
forest land that was being opened up for cultivation in the western
part of Fairfax and in Loudoun County at about the same time. Like
most of the open land below the fall line, the tract which Moss
assembled had first played a part in the tobacco civilization that had
dominated the life of Northern Virginia from 1650 to 1750.[22] During
the eighteenth century, tobacco planters of the Virginia Tidewater
had turned inland, clearing the forested area of the Piedmont to bring
virgin land into production of their crop. Their actions were the
result of many contributing causes--the tendency of tobacco to wear
out the soil, the need for timberland to supply the rising demand for
barrels and hogsheads, the introduction of new implements of
husbandry, the plentiful supply of enslaved or indentured labor, and,
of course, the presence of cheap land in the western part of the
county.[23]

Expansion required capital, however, and many of the Tidewater tobacco
planters whose holdings had been created through proprietary grants
obtained the necessary funds by selling off portions of their
Tidewater holdings. By the middle of the eighteenth century, few of
the large land grants remained intact and what remained to the
original owners was interspersed with smaller farms and old fields
gradually being taken over by scrub pine.[24] At the same time, the
increase of warehouses and riverside facilities, the growth of roads
overland between the principal river landings and the gaps in the Blue
Ridge Mountains, and a steadily rising number of tradesmen and
artisans setting out for themselves upon completion of their indenture
periods all combined to offer a prospect of success, if not affluence,
to one who was willing to work the land diligently and prudently.

Many of the small farmers of the Tidewater remained as committed
to tobacco as the great planters had been. Others turned to
diversification of crops. Corn (maize) was grown in conjunction with
tobacco from the beginning of settlement in Northern Virginia and
diversification simply called for increasing its role. In the
eighteenth century, wheat was introduced as a substitute for tobacco
to restore the land and gradually became adopted in place of tobacco
as a farm staple. As commercial relations with England became more
difficult after 1750, and were completely disrupted during the War
for Independence, tobacco planters in great numbers shifted to
production of foodstuffs to meet domestic demands. The description of
Washington's experience at Mount Vernon, only a few miles distant
from Green Spring Farm, may be taken as typical of that of his
neighbors:

  On the thin topsoil that overlay the clay slopes at Mount Vernon,
  George Washington grew wheat that sold in Alexandria, made ship's
  biscuit that was famous the world over--and rye that supplied his
  less celebrated distillery. The increasing number of cattle
  accounted for the introduction of mangel-wurzels, turnips, and
  other root crops in the rotation. The soil-building virtues of
  peas were discovered. Beef cattle grew in increasing numbers, and
  began to appear prominently in inventories and wills. Orchards and
  vineyards were planted more widely. With these developments,
  simultaneously with the decline of the tobacco trade, a lively
  business sprang up in shipping corn, wheat, and livestock to the
  West Indies....[25]

In his efforts to develop methods of husbandry which would restore the
fertility of the land, Washington reflected a concern which was
widespread among Virginians of his time and the first half of the
nineteenth century. Organized efforts to promote better husbandry
through exchange of practical experience and dissemination of the
results of experimentation and invention began in the 1770's.[26]
Between 1790 and 1830, hundreds of publications on agriculture were
produced[27] and more than 100 inventions of agricultural devices were
patented to Virginians, among them Cyrus McCormick's reaper, the most
influential mechanical factor in the development of American
agriculture in the nineteenth century.[28] National leaders such as
Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, and John Marshall actively worked in
societies which encouraged experimentation and study for improvement
of agriculture through what was called "scientific farming."

With the effort to establish scientific farming came experiments in
crop rotation, with use of clovers and grasses interspersed between
other crops, increased use of manure and artificial fertilizers,
better plows and methods of soil preparation, and more attention to
control of erosion. Interest in improving farm animals during this
period led to introduction of merino sheep and new breeds of mules.

Despite this active element in Virginia's agricultural system, and
notwithstanding the substantial amount of intelligent and successful
experimentation and publicity of results which this element inspired,
many farmers in Virginia persisted in traditional ways. "Book
farming," as the new methods were called, was decried in favor of the
familiar ways of cultivating which were passed from father to son.
This skepticism was strengthened, also, when experiments failed--as
they did in many cases--and when Virginia agriculture suffered from
economic depression along with the rest of the nation--as it did in
the years following the War of 1812.[29]

While Virginia agriculture had an equivocal or only moderately
successful record of growth from 1750 to 1830, the proponents of
scientific farming could and did argue that its value was measured in
political as well as economic terms. Men like Thomas Jefferson, James
Madison, John Taylor, James Garnett, and others sincerely believed
that the survival of their way of life and that which they sought for
Virginia depended on restoring the farmer to preeminence. One
historian has described their philosophy thus:

  The sincerity of their belief in the corruption of urban and the
  virtue of rural living is unquestionable. They practiced as they
  preached. And as they looked about them, at the long line of
  Virginia leaders of the early republic and at their own modest
  pleasant way of life, which some of them believed extended all the
  way down to their slaves, they felt they had incontestable
  evidence of the rightness of their convictions. As their soil
  became depleted, the hold of their state on preeminence in
  everything was weakening. Restore the soil and Virginia would be
  restored to her rightful preeminence. Simple, primitive, noble,
  limited yet grand, thus went the conception.[30]


THE MOSS FAMILY AS FARMERS. Whether John Moss and his descendants who
inherited and worked Green Spring Farm were "scientific farmers"
according to the standards of the time is not certain. Presumably they
were aware of the organizations which espoused this cause since they
were active in the public life of their state and community. They may
well have read the writings of some of the scientific farming leaders
of the time, such as John Taylor, who wrote under the pseudonym,
"Arator," and whose articles on agriculture were published in a
Georgetown newspaper commencing in 1810.[31]

An inventory of the personal property of William Moss, made in
connection with an auction to settle up his estate in 1835, offers
indirect evidence of the farming methods of the Moss family. (A copy
of this inventory is contained in appendix D.)

The lack of tobacco and tobacco processing equipment suggests that the
Mosses had abandoned this crop for production of cereal grains--wheat,
oats, rye, and corn--and possession of a mechanical wheat fan (for
blowing chaff away from the grain during threshing) indicates use of
some of the most advanced labor-saving equipment of the day.[32] The
number of horses, plows, and other farm machinery seems large for the
size of the farm and suggests that its cultivation must have prospered
over a period of time. Particularly significant is the number of
livestock in the inventory and the types of animals--horses, cattle,
hogs, sheep, and bees. These, plus other entries, indicate that the
farm must have regularly produced beef, bacon, lard, wool, soap,
honey, and beeswax, all in quantities sufficient to provide market
income. Mention of quantities of hay, oats, and corn in the inventory
suggest that in addition to cultivating cereal grains the Mosses had a
major interest in raising meat animals and in dairying.

Strong evidence of dairying comes from the presence of a spring house
at the farm and mention of tubs, churns, jars, crocks, strainers, and
the like. They point to active dairying, with the sale of milk,
cheese, and butter in the nearby neighborhood, in Alexandria, and
possibly even points beyond.[33]

The listing of hogsheads and barrels of vinegar in the sale inventory
suggests still another facet of Green Spring Farm's diversification.
Both apple and peach orchards existed at the time and apparently
produced well.[34]

The will of John Moss and the inventories of William Moss and Thomas
Moss give the impression of a farming family which was successful in
more than ordinary measure as compared with most other Northern
Virginia farmers. Their farm was described in the notice advertising
the court sale in 1839 as follows:

  Brick dwelling house, 8 rooms, brick kitchen, meat house,
  servant's house, new barn and stables and other convenient
  outbuildings. Apple orchard, peach orchard, also, stone spring
  house.[35]

More revealing, perhaps, is the affidavit of Alfred Moss and Thomas
Love (son and son-in-law, respectively, of Thomas Moss) offered in
connection with the court proceedings to sell the farm as part of the
settlement of Thomas Moss's estate. They said:

  This tract of land is naturally a thin soil, but from a careful
  course of husbandry for a number of years is now in a good state
  of cultivation, the fields well enclosed by good and substantial
  fencing, the land not in cultivation well taken with grass (clover
  and timothy), and that in cultivation just sown down in winter
  grain, and the buildings in a good state of repair, the barn and
  stables having been erected in the last two or three years.[36]

Although the history of Green Spring Farm during its ownership by the
Moss family does not contain evidence of agricultural experimentation
and leadership in scientific farming, it seems clear, on the other
hand, that John Moss and his descendants advanced with the progress of
their times and, indeed, may have been among the most progressive
husbandmen of their day. They had broken away from the pattern of
farming that typified the colonial tobacco era, and they exemplified a
new and successful type of agriculture based on careful management of
the land and production for a diversified market. They were certainly
aware of the new developments and new philosophy which were growing
out of the search for the principles of scientific farming, and they
accepted and used some of those that applied to their situation.[37]


GREEN SPRING FARM AND THE TURNPIKE ROAD. The successful operation of
Green Spring Farm, like the success of numerous other farms in
Northern Virginia and the Shenandoah Valley, was closely linked to the
transportation system of these areas. Tidewater Virginia in the
seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries relied mainly on coastal
waterways and rivers as avenues of commerce and travel. When roads
appeared on maps of Virginia in this period, they followed trails laid
down by Indians who, in turn, had taken over the game trails along the
ridges of the land. Therefore, by 1750 there was only a basic network
of roadways running east-west to the passes in the Blue Ridge and
north-south to the colonial capital of Williamsburg along the
Tidewater and to the Carolinas through the Piedmont. The eighteenth
century development of roads in Northern Virginia emphasized east-west
travel for the obvious reason that residents of this area saw their
future prosperity more closely linked to the rich resources and
fertile lands of the Shenandoah Valley (and through it, perhaps, to
the Ohio River) than through connection with the political capitals of
the state or the great plantations of the James and York Rivers.[38]

[Illustration: Figure 2. Survey Map, John Halley, 1840. Fairfax County
Deed Book H-3, p. 227.]

[Illustration: Figure 3. R. R. Farr Survey, Fairfax County Deed Book C-8,
p. 448.]

As Colchester and Dumfries yielded leadership in commerce to
Alexandria and as Loudoun and Fauquier Counties developed centers of
commerce and seats of government at Leesburg and Warrenton, the desire
for better overland connections with Alexandria gained strength.
Public roadbuilding in this period was treated with indifference by
both public officials and the public at large. Theoretically carried
out by levying a certain amount of labor or materials from the
freeholders of the community, the system never produced good roads in
Northern Virginia; and, in the early nineteenth century, overland
travel generally had permitted them to deteriorate to the point where
both foreign and domestic travelers commented unfavorably on them in
their travel memoirs.[39] Moreover, in the 1800's, the new state
governments were in no position to provide financial support for local
public works and could offer nothing more than their moral support
through legislative approval of private roadbuilding by private
turnpike companies which raised their capital through the sale of
stock and obtained their income by charging tolls for use of the
road.

The earliest private turnpike company charter issued by the Virginia
Legislature was in 1795 for the "Fairfax and Loudoun Road" from
Alexandria to the ford of Little River. This company was never
organized, but, in 1802, a somewhat more liberal charter was given to
the Little River Turnpike Company. This company's road was completed
in 1806 and immediately led to enactment in 1808 of further
legislation authorizing extensions to Fauquier Courthouse.[40]

The Little River Turnpike was located so that Fairfax Courthouse stood
approximately half way between Alexandria and the western terminus at
Aldie. The courthouse thus served as a logical landmark dividing the
upper and lower segments of the road. The turnpike traversed Green
Spring Farm at a point about midway in its lower section. Throughout
the history of the road, the Moss family appears to have been deeply
involved. In 1809, William Moss was appointed and served as one of
three commissioners to advertise and receive subscriptions for stock
in the company constructing the road from the Little River Turnpike to
Fauquier Courthouse.[41]

Thomas Moss served as a director of the Little River Turnpike Company
and also acted as superintendent of the lower district of the road.
Financial statements of the company, which were given in the annual
reports of the State Board of Public Works, regularly carried accounts
for both the salary paid to Thomas Moss and the funds spent by him for
repair of the lower section of the road.[42]


THE MIDCENTURY YEARS. 1840-1880. The Moss family's ownership of Green
Spring Farm ended in 1843 with the sale of the farm and division of
the proceeds among the eight heirs of Thomas Moss.[43] Under the
supervision of the County Court, the farm was sold to one Thomas
Sheriff, lately of Barbados. On his death, it descended to his son,
James Sheriff, who kept it until 1855 when he transferred it as part
of a settlement for a debt. Its next owner was James Benton, who held
it in trust for one Hannah O'Brien of Baltimore. In the first half of
this period the times were generally good. Virginia agriculture grew
to new levels of prosperity, aided by the introduction of new
labor-saving machinery through inventions and the opening up of new
markets for farm produce through improvements in transportation. In
such circumstances, James Sheriff's loss of Green Spring Farm for
debts in 1855 seems likely to have been due to exceptional misfortunes
or else exceptional neglect and waste on the part of the owner.
Although records of the County Court during this period suggest that
Thomas Sheriff and his son, James, were before the Bar of Justice on
numerous occasions, these references do not suffice to explain all
that occurred.

During the second half of this period, when title to the farm was in
James Benton for the use of Hannah O'Brien, the fortunes of its owners
were dictated mainly by the fortunes of war. During the four years of
hostilities, Green Spring Farm stood in the disputed ground outside
the perimeter of permanent defenses of the capital where patrols from
both sides ranged regularly by day and night. While the records of the
war do not report any major engagements at the farm, they indicate
that military activity in the neighborhood frequently placed its
safety in jeopardy and obviously prevented any regular farming
operations.

The ultimate loss of the farm in 1878--again to be sold for
debt--appears to have been the result of imprudence in business
dealings (according to local tradition, Hannah's husband, Matthew
O'Brien, was a gambler), and inability to bring the farm back from the
low state to which it was reduced during the war years.

Hannah O'Brien's interest in the farm enjoyed the special protection
of a deed which specified that the land should be free from debts,
liabilities, and control of her husband, Matthew O'Brien, and that she
had power to dispose of the property by deed in her own right.[44]
Subsequently, however, through ignorance or bad advice, she signed as
guarantor of a note issued by her husband; and, when default on the
note occurred, she lost the farm through court proceedings which
ordered it sold for the debt.[45] Thus, in 1878 the farm was bought by
Fountain Beattie.


I. GENTLEMEN FREEHOLDERS: THE MOSS FAMILY (1770-1835)

    [1] Mrs. Don Ritchie, Arlington, Virginia, Moss family genealogist;
        Vernon Lynch, Annandale, Virginia, a lifelong resident of
        Fairfax County, now in his eighties; interviews.

        Walter Macomber, interview on July 16, 1968, at Green Spring
        Farm. In the opinion of Mr. Macomber of Washington, D.C., who
        planned and supervised the 1942 renovation of the mansion
        house, the original part of the house was built between 1750
        and 1775.

    [2] _The Journal of John Littlejohn_, MS., Louisville, Kentucky,
        April 29, 1778.

    [3] Elmer T. Clark, J. Manning Potts, and Jacob S. Payton (eds.),
        _The Journal and Letters of Francis Asbury_ (Nashville:
        Abington Press, 1958), I, p. 531.

    [4] Fairfax County Deed Book R-1, p. 413, contains a deed in 1789
        from William and Mary Bushby to John Moss, William Adams,
        William Waters, Samuel Adams, James Morrison, William Rhodes,
        and William Hickman, and their survivors, in trust, conveying
        a lot in the town of Alexandria, northward from the
        Presbyterian meeting house, westward parallel with Duke
        Street, southward parallel with Fairfax Street, and eastward
        parallel with Duke Street to Chapple Alley "to build and
        forever keep in good repair a house for the worship of God for
        the use of the Reverend Thomas Cooke and the Reverend Francis
        Asbury for the time being of the Methodist Episcopal
        Church...."

    [5] Fairfax County Will Book I, p. 150.

    [6] Fairfax County Deed Book AA-2, p. 29, a lease for three lives to
        John Moss, dated May 29, 1798.

    [7] Fairfax County Deed Book R-1, p. 397.

    [8] Mrs. Don C. Ritchie, letter dated October 17, 1969.

    [9] _Ibid._

   [10] William W. Hening (ed.), [Virginia] _Statutes at Large_, 1823,
        reprint edition (Charlottesville: University Press of
        Virginia, 1969), VII, p. 32.

   [11] Albert Porter, _County Government in Virginia_ (New York:
        Columbia University Press, 1947), p. 186.

   [12] Fairfax County Court Minute Book, March 23, 1786, p. 191.
        Subsequently John Moss was reappointed Commissioner of the
        Land Tax in 1787, 1792, and 1793.

   [13] Hening, _Statutes_, XII, p. 243.

   [14] Fairfax County Court Order Book, 1787 (February 20 and October
        15, 1787): "John Moss, Gent., Commissioner for Fairfax
        district produced on oath an account against the Commonwealth
        for his service in that capacity amounting to Twenty-five
        pounds thirteen shillings and six pence, which being examined
        by the court is allowed and ordered to be certified."

   [15] Shepherd, _Code_, I, p. 114.

   [16] Porter, _County Government_, p. 211.

   [17] Shepherd, _Code_, III, p. 262.

   [18] Fairfax County Deed Book Y-1, p. 69.

   [19] Shepherd, _Code_, I, p. 11.

   [20] F. Johnston, _Memorials of Old Virginia Clerks_ (Lynchburg: J.
        P. Bell, 1880), p. 172.

        _Alexandria Gazette_, October 4, 1839. The obituary notice for
        Thomas Moss states that he died on October 2 after a long
        illness, having been a Justice of the Peace for many years,
        and also having served as a member of the State Legislature
        and as county court clerk.

        The Archives of the Virginia House of Delegates show that
        Thomas Moss was a Delegate from Fairfax County for the
        1828-1829 biennium. (Honorable George Rich, January 2, 1970;
        personal communication.)

   [21] K. M. Willis, "Old Fairfax Homes Give Up A Secret," _American
        Motorist_, May 1932, p. 16; Johnston, _Clerks_, p. 174.

   [22] M. Herndon, _Tobacco in Colonial Virginia_ (Williamsburg:
        Virginia 350th Celebration Corp., 1957), pp. 7-8, indicates
        that tobacco was introduced into Northern Virginia by the
        settlers who moved into the Rappahannock and Potomac areas
        around 1650. By the end of the seventeenth century, Herndon
        states, tobacco farming dominated the lowlands all along the
        Rappahannock and Potomac Rivers below the fall line.

        F. Harrison, _Landmarks of Old Prince William_ (Berryville:
        Chesapeake Book Co., 1964), pp. 148-150. Also to be noted is
        the fact that settlement above the fall line was not permitted
        prior to 1722 because of treaty provisions with the Iroquois.
        By the Treaty of Albany in 1722, the Iroquois withdrew west of
        the Blue Ridge.

   [23] Herndon, _Tobacco_, pp. 14-16, cites introduction of plant
        bedding practices, use of animal-drawn plows instead of hand
        hoes, and improved methods of curing tobacco as responsible
        for increasing the yield of the tobacco farm.

   [24] _Ibid._, p. 10.

   [25] Frederick Gutheim. _The Potomac_ (New York: Grosset & Dunlap,
        1968), p. 98.

   [26] R. B. Davis, _Intellectual Life in Jefferson's Virginia_ (Chapel
        Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1964), p. 167, notes
        that in 1773 the Society for the Advancement of Useful
        Knowledge was formed in Williamsburg, followed by the
        Philadelphia Agricultural Society in 1780, and the Richmond
        Society for Promoting Agriculture in 1810, all dedicated to
        working for the improvement of farming.

   [27] A list of these writings on agriculture was compiled by E. G.
        Swern in 1913 and published by the Virginia State Library.

   [28] Davis, _Intellectual Life_, pp. 159-160, 167. Among the
        inventions of the McCormick family were threshing machines,
        hydraulic machines, a hemp-brake, blacksmith's bellows, and
        self-stoppers for grist mills. Other patents issued to
        Virginians dealt with plows, grain screens, rice hullers, hemp
        and flax breakers, corn shellers, beehives, clover seed
        cleaners and gatherers, tobacco presses, and corn grinders.

   [29] _Ibid._, p. 156. See also "Status of Virginia Agriculture in
        1870" in _Report of the Commissioner of Agriculture, 1870_
        (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1871), pp.
        267-268.

   [30] Davis, _Intellectual Life_, p. 151.

   [31] _Ibid._, pp. 154-156.

   [32] Dr. John Schlebecker, Curator, Division of Agriculture and
        Mining, Museum of History and Technology, Smithsonian
        Institution, Washington, D.C., interview. Dr. Schlebecker was
        of the opinion that the price which this blower brought
        suggested it might be animal-powered by a treadmill or
        overhead sweep. Wheat fans were relatively new types of
        equipment in 1835, but not uncommon among successful farmers.

   [33] _Ibid._ Schlebecker discussed the possibility of dairying as
        follows: "It's very likely he was in the business. Now whether
        it was butter or cheese--butter would pay better, and he is
        pretty close to Alexandria and Washington, and, for that
        matter, by sea to Baltimore. Butter would have been the more
        attractive of the commodities; cheese would keep better, could
        be shipped farther and find a greater variety of markets, but
        wouldn't pay quite as well. But I don't see evidence he was in
        the cheese business, and I'd be happier if I saw more churns
        on the list, or if the churn were better described. One churn
        would be enough if it were big enough. And it could very well
        be run by a sheep or a dog. You see, he's certainty got enough
        cows to be in the dairy business, willy nilly." (Transcription
        of tape-recorded interview with John Schlebecker, February 26,
        1969, p. 6.)

   [34] _Ibid._ See also inventory in appendix B.

   [35] _Alexandria Gazette_, November 6, 1839, notice of sale.

   [36] Alfred Moss and Thomas Love, affidavit of October 29, 1839, in
        proceedings to sell the farm owned by Thomas Moss, deceased.

   [37] The wills and property inventories of members of the Moss family
        reveal much information that helps reconstruct the activity on
        their farm. Considering the equipment used, the products grown
        and processed, and the number of slaves reported, it is
        possible that between the 1820's and 1850's the farm was also
        engaged in breeding slaves for export to the rice and indigo
        plantations of South Carolina and the cotton plantations of
        Alabama and Mississippi. A certain amount of this traffic was
        also carried on locally.

        U.S. Census population records compiled from 1810 through 1850
        show that slaveholding continued at a high level relative to
        other changing circumstances in agriculture and in the Moss
        family. See census records for Fairfax County in National
        Archives, Microfilm Division, Microcopy Roll 68 (1810), 137
        (1820), 201 (1830), 558 (1840), 942 (1850).

   [38] These roads were the Dumfries and Falmouth Roads via Ashby's
        Gap, the Colchester Road via Williams' Gap, and the Alexandria
        Road via Vestal's Gap. Their origins and early history are
        given in Harrison, _Landmarks_, pp. 466-484.

   [39] Davis, _Intellectual Life_, p. 152, and A. Hulbert, _The Paths
        of Inland Commerce_ (New Haven: Yale University, 1921), pp.
        44-55. The situation appeared to improve little during the
        nineteenth century, for in 1894 the Virginia Good Roads
        Convention called the American rural roads "far below the
        average" and "certainly are among the worst in the civilized
        world and always have been largely as a result of permitting
        local circumstances to determine the location with little or
        no regard for any general system, and haste and waste and
        ignorance in building." Virginia Good Roads Convention,
        _Programme_ (Richmond: Stone Printing Co., 1894), p. 24.

   [40] The act incorporating the Fairfax and Loudoun Turnpike Road
        Company authorized construction and operation of an
        "artificial road from Alexandria to the Little River." Laws,
        1795, c. 31 (December 26, 1795). Shepherd's _Statutes_
        (Richmond: Shepherd, 1836), I, p. 378. The successor company,
        known as the Little River Turnpike Company, was incorporated
        by legislation enacted in 1802 and 1803. Laws, 1801, c. 83
        (January 28, 1802) and Laws, 1802, c. 52 (January 19, 1803),
        Shepherd's _Statutes_, II, p. 383, 452. The extension into
        Fauquier County was authorized by the incorporation of the
        Fauquier and Alexandria Turnpike Company, designed to build
        "an artificial turnpike road from Fauquier Court House to
        Buckland farm, or Buckland town, and thence to the Little
        River Turnpike road, at the most suitable point for affording
        a convenient way from Fauquier Court House to Alexandria."
        Laws, 1807, c. 27 (January 27, 1808), Shepherd's _Statutes_,
        III, p. 379.

   [41] _Alexandria Gazette_, May 23, 1809. The extension was built by
        the Fauquier and Alexandria Turnpike Road Company, and was
        constructed from the Little River Turnpike at Fairfax
        Courthouse, through Centreville and Buckland, to Fauquier
        County Courthouse (Warrenton).

   [42] Annual Report of the President and Directors of the Board of
        Public Works to the General Assembly of Virginia, Richmond,
        1818, p. 34; 1819, p. 33; 1820, p. 76.

   [43] Fairfax County Deed Book H-3, p. 226, May 28, 1843.

   [44] Fairfax County Deed Book W-3, pp. 424-425, September 10, 1855.

   [45] Hannah C. O'Brien v. John W. Green, et. al., Fairfax County,
        Virginia County Court, Suspended File No. 10, 1878.


II. ORCHARD AND DAIRY: FOUNTAIN BEATTIE (1878-1917)

NORTHERN VIRGINIA'S AGRICULTURE IN THE 1870'S. By 1870, Virginia
farmers were beginning to recover from the recent war which had
completely disrupted normal agricultural activity. The effects of
the war had been felt keenly in Northern Virginia where the
conflict had not been marked by many of the major battles but had
nevertheless afflicted the area with four years of constant
raiding and skirmishing. The resultant toll of horses, mules, cattle,
and livestock and the dearth of farm machinery were major handicaps
facing the farmer, as were his lack of capital with which to purchase
supplies and equipment from outside his area and the general
shortage of labor.[46] These shortages were overcome slowly. Some
materials for beginning to rebuild the war damage were readily
available from military supplies immediately after the close of
hostilities; and, in this respect, Northern Virginia was fortunate
to be within a few miles of the Union Army supply depots in
Alexandria and Washington, D.C. But, as the confused era of
reconstruction set in, the farmer was thrown mainly on his own
resources of land and labor to rebuild his fortunes.

Poor as his prospects might seem to be, the Northern Virginia farmer
had certain advantages that farmers in other parts of the state
lacked. The farmland was by no means barren or exhausted, although it
had been worked steadily during the previous decade when all efforts
turned to producing the maximum amount of food for subsistence and no
thought could be given to maintaining or enhancing the fertility of
the soil.[47] Also, Fairfax County farmers had relatively easy access
to the produce markets of Washington and Baltimore, both by water and
overland transportation.[48]

[Illustration: Figure 4. Hopkins' Atlas Map, 1879.]

Moreover, agriculture in Northern Virginia had not been dominated by
the plantation system since the mid-eighteenth century. By 1870, even
the great landholdings which had been carved out of the original
proprietary grants had given way to a third generation of farms, still
smaller in size and more diversified. While the owners of these
Northern Virginia farms had, in many instances, owned slaves before
the war, their dependence on this source of labor was not as critical
as in other parts of Virginia--notably, the regions where tobacco was
king. Thus, when the "great political convulsion which culminated in
the disruption of the labor system of the State"[49] compelled
Southern farmers generally to rebuild their system with different
forms of labor and land tenure, Fairfax County farmers found
themselves able to adjust to the new circumstances with relative ease
once they were able to acquire tools and livestock. At this time, as
before the war, they benefited greatly from the presence among them of
a group of thrifty and industrious farm families who migrated from New
York and New Jersey, bringing with them new energy, new capital, and
new methods of farming from the diversified agricultural regions of
the North.[50]

In addition, there was abroad in Virginia in 1870 a strong spirit for
revival of its agriculture, looking not only to securing the
advantages which scientific husbandry could bring through restored
fertility of the soil but also to realization of the Jeffersonian
dream of a strong, stable, and independent class of American yeomanry
owning and working its own land.[51] Soon after the commencement of
reconstruction, organizations patterned after the various scientific
farming societies of the 1830's began to appear and agricultural
newspapers, such as _The Southern Farmer_, resumed publication and
circulation in Northern Virginia. These two sources called strongly
for Virginia farmers to change their traditional ways of farming for
modern methods and modern farm implements.[52] As the 1870's
advanced, these sources were joined by the State Government, which
provided a certain amount of assistance for modernization of
Virginia agriculture.[53]


MOSBY'S LIEUTENANT. It was in this setting that Fountain Beattie
became the owner of Green Spring Farm in June 1878 when he purchased
the 339-acre tract through a commissioner's deed approved by the
County Court.[54]

Fountain Beattie was the son of Colonel Robert Beattie and Pauline
White Beattie of Chilhowie in Washington County, Virginia. In 1861, he
enlisted in the First Virginia Cavalry at Abingdon and there made the
acquaintance of John S. Mosby. They became good friends, and when
Mosby received his separate command, he took Beattie with him.[55]
During the next three years, Beattie rode with Mosby in campaigns that
crossed and recrossed Northern Virginia.[56]

[Illustration: Figure 5. c. 1885, Fountain Beattie and Annie Hathaway
Beattie.]

[Illustration: The Mosby and Beattie Families, c. 1890]

[Illustration: The Old Stone Spring House]

[Illustration: The Lane to Green Spring Farm]

Whether Fountain Beattie saw or visited Green Spring Farm during these
rides with Mosby's battalion is not certain. There is reason to think
he may have been in the neighborhood because of references to
engagements at such places as "Billy Gooding's tavern on the Little
River Turnpike, 10 miles from Alexandria."[57] Moreover, he may
have heard of the farm from one of the descendants of its owners,
since on one occasion he escaped imminent disaster only through the
intervention of one Thomas Moss of Alexandria.[58]

Be that as it may, the region must have made a strong impression on
him because, after moving several times in the years following the
war, it was in Fairfax County that Fountain Beattie and his family
finally settled. Money for the purchase of Green Spring Farm in 1878
came from Mrs. Beattie's inheritance following the sale of "Western
View," the homestead of her deceased parents, located in Fauquier
County.[59] At that time, Green Spring Farm was available for purchase
through the County Court, which had ordered it sold to satisfy the
judgment for debt against Matthew O'Brien.[60]


ORCHARD AND DAIRY. Fountain Beattie's selection of Green Spring Farm
appears to have been made with an eye to its proximity to the Little
River Turnpike and the old Columbia Turnpike (now Route 712).
Increasingly, the farmers of the Piedmont region of Virginia were
feeling the competition of farmers in the Shenandoah Valley and
outside the state in the production of wheat and corn. This
competition was made possible when railroads connected the Valley of
Virginia and the farmlands of the great midwestern prairie states with
the markets of the eastern cities. Farmers in the middle and Northern
Virginia no longer enjoyed the advantages they once had in shipping
wheat and corn to these markets.[61] More and more in the last quarter
of the nineteenth century, Northern Virginia farmers planted corn,
wheat, and other grains for use as livestock feed rather than sale in
the grain market.

[Illustration: Figure 6. John Singleton Mosby.]

Like many other Fairfax County farmers, Fountain Beattie found that he
was better off to abandon diversified farming in favor of crops with
respect to which he still enjoyed natural advantages. Thus, during the
last quarter of the nineteenth century, Green Spring Farm is
identified with dairy products and orchard and garden produce--all
commodities which had to be marketed the same day they were produced
or picked or which could be made into derivative products which could
be easily transported to market and sold at prices which reflected
value added by processing. Transportation, however, was a key factor.
Virginia's country roads were publicly acknowledged to be in a
"lamentable condition," and over even the best of them travel often
was impossible in wet seasons of the year.[62] In this respect, the
Little River Turnpike was one of the best of Virginia's rural roads,
having been laid out and constructed by professional engineers and
maintained by hired labor with even more care and regularity than the
public roads. In Beattie's day, as in Moss's time, the turnpike was
the main road between Alexandria and Fairfax, the county seat, and
thence to the Valley.

All these considerations led Fountain Beattie to direct his main
effort to expansion of the orchards and herd of dairy cattle as
rapidly as it was feasible. Year around, the farm was a busy place,
with work enough for all of the Beatties' 12 children--six boys and
six girls--as well as their parents and hired hands. Daily chores,
including milking and churning, went on all year, for the farm
generally had numerous cows, horses, and mules. There was also a
certain amount of grain to be raised each year for livestock feed, and
a large vegetable garden. Fruit trees included pears, cherries, and
apples in two 25-acre orchards--one located on each side of the
Turnpike--which provided the principal produce of the farm. Farm
produce was regularly marketed in Washington, Alexandria, and local
grocery stores, as well as at a roadside stand during the harvest
season.[63]

[Illustration: Reunion at Manassas: Colonel John S. Mosby visits Bull Run
for the first time since the war. Pictured are (left to right) Fountain
Beattie, Lycurgus Hutchison, John Mosby, and George Turberville.]

The markets of Washington were only about nine miles from Green Spring
Farm, but on market days it was customary for the farm wagons of the
neighborhood to be loaded and on the road well before dawn. The
Washington city wholesale market opened at 3 A.M. each weekday, and
farmers who came there sold directly from their wagons or from stalls
to a milling crowd of brokers, wholesalers, retail grocers, hotelmen,
and boardinghouse keepers. Most produce was sold by 7 A.M. and the
farmer who did not sell out by that time generally had to sell at a
sacrifice price or else remain in the market throughout the day,
selling at retail to customers who attended the market later in the
day.[64] With luck, therefore, the market produce farmer from Northern
Virginia might expect to be on his way home by noon.

Not all of Fountain Beattie's orchard produce, however, went to the
market in this way. The spring house on the farm contained presses,
storage facilities, and other equipment needed to make apple cider,
applejack, and apple and peach brandy. Apples picked in the ripening
season were stored in large barrels until the fall and winter months,
at which time they were made into fermented or distilled beverages.
According to his descendants, Beattie operated a licensed distillery
and made brandies at the farm.

Beattie's livestock operations at the farm ended in tragedy one day
when he returned home to find that his barn had caught fire and been
completely destroyed. The contents of the barn, which included all of
his livestock and much of the farm equipment, were also lost. Only the
horse he was riding at the time remained to start rebuilding the farm.
As matters turned out, too much had been lost; Fountain Beattie never
did more than acquire a few horses to perform the most necessary
tasks. The dairy herds and field crops were never developed to the
thriving level of activity which typified the 1880's and 1890's.[65]


POLITICS AND PUBLIC SERVICE. The close association of Fountain Beattie
and John S. Mosby during the war years (1861-65) lasted through the
years of peace that followed. The two men apparently thought alike in
political matters; and, in the election of 1872, they campaigned for
General Grant. Shortly afterward, Beattie was appointed Deputy
Collector of Internal Revenue for the Sixth District of Virginia.
Following Hayes' election as President, Mosby received an appointment
as Consul in Hong Kong where he served until 1885.[66]

Fountain Beattie's record with the Internal Revenue Service shows that
he served from 1875 to 1914 and suggests that he settled in or near
Alexandria several years before he purchased Green Spring Farm.[67]
He was reappointed in 1885 following the brief return of the
Democratic Party to power under Grover Cleveland's administration.
Beattie's official file in the Treasury Department's personnel records
is a resume of basic statistics--dates of appointments, promotions,
oaths of office, and salaries.

Although Northern Virginia seemed to be little affected by events on
the national and world stage at this time, it was on the move in its
own way. In Beattie's time this region became linked to other major
regions by the coming of the Southern Railway system; and the advent
of the high-speed electric commuter train and its network of tracks
commenced the inexorable process of creating the interdependent
economic unity of Northern Virginia and Washington, D.C. These were
also the years of "Jackson City" in Arlington, and the crusade of law
enforcement aimed at cleaning up this center of gambling, drinking,
and general sinfulness.[68]

For Fountain Beattie, these years of Federal service must have brought
back memories of his war years with Mosby. Although he carried on his
duties as tax collector from an office in the Alexandria Post Office,
he continued to live at Green Spring Farm and he regularly traversed
roads and places he had visited as a soldier. When Mosby returned from
his tour as Consul in Hong Kong and became an attorney for the Justice
Department, he and Beattie apparently saw a great deal of each other
and their friendship extended to their families who also frequently
exchanged visits. Beattie named one of his sons after his friend, and
John Mosby Beattie recalls these times with feelings of fondness.


GREEN SPRING FARM AND ANNANDALE. When Beattie purchased Green Spring
Farm, the activity on the farm was oriented toward the markets of
Georgetown, Alexandria, Washington, and Baltimore. The community of
Annandale, a little over two miles up the Little River Turnpike to the
west, had not yet become a center of commerce. In 1879, the map showed
a post office, a toll gate, a store, a Methodist church, and a few
residences clustered at a crossroads.[69] This crossroads location
became increasingly important during the last quarter of the
nineteenth century; and, like other perceptive people of the area,
Fountain Beattie and his family began to swing the orientation of
their activities around from an exclusive focus on Alexandria and
Washington to take part in the growth of Fairfax County.

At the turn of the century, Annandale had a population of 50 people.
In addition to the toll house, church, post office, and store, the
community now could list a hardware store, lumberyard, blacksmith,
farm machinery store, and sawmill.[70] The sawmill was owned by
Beattie's son and namesake, Fountain Beattie, and presumably was
operated as a family enterprise in the same manner as the farm.


II. ORCHARD AND DAIRY: FOUNTAIN BEATTIE (1878-1917)

   [46] A. W. Moger, _The Rebuilding of the Old Dominion_ (New York:
        Columbia University, 1940), p. 46. Citing census data, the
        thesis notes that "the value of farm implements and machinery
        on farms in Virginia and West Virginia combined was only
        two-thirds of what it was in Virginia in 1860, while the value
        of livestock in the two states was only four-fifths of that in
        Virginia in 1860. Not until 1880 did the number of cattle and
        not until after the turn of the century did the number of
        swine in Virginia and West Virginia equal the number in the
        Old Dominion before the war."

   [47] "Status of Virginia Agriculture in 1870," in _Report of the
        Commissioner of Agriculture_, 1870 (Washington, D.C.:
        Government Printing Office, 1871), pp. 267-291, 273, 291.

   [48] Virginia Good Roads Convention, _Programme_ (Richmond: Stone
        Printing Co., 1894). While railroad and water transportation
        were available from Alexandria to major metropolitan markets
        for farm products, the farmer faced the obstacles of
        traversing Virginia's notoriously poor farm-to-market roads.

   [49] _Report of the Commissioner of Agriculture_, 1870, p. 268.

   [50] R. H. Abbott, "Yankee Farmers in Northern Virginia: 1840-1860,"
        _Virginia Magazine of History and Biography_, v. 76, No. 1,
        pp. 56-66 (January 1968).

        See also the _Report of the Commissioner of Agriculture_,
        1870, p. 291, which states "a striking mark of progress is the
        change of the policy of the planters toward the outside world.
        Formerly they were indisposed to encourage immigration from
        other States. There was, therefore, no accession to the
        population of the rural district from abroad. The same
        traditions and habits descended from father to son through
        successive generations. Now all this is altered. Strangers
        from every State and every country are cordially welcomed
        whenever they show any disposition to become permanent
        settlers and industrious citizens. The consequence is that in
        many counties a strong tide of immigration is setting in,
        bearing with it improved stock and better implements, which
        cannot fail to impart a healthy impulse to improvement."

   [51] Moger, _Rebuilding_, p. 45. See remarks of Governor Henry Wise
        in 1867 and A. H. H. Stuart in 1866, cited therein.

   [52] W. Fullerton, _Address to Piedmont Agricultural Society_,
        October 18, 1876. Speaking to the Society in 1867, William
        Fullerton of New York chided Virginians by asserting that
        "there is no other calling in life in which there is
        manifested such an indifference to new discoveries, as is seen
        among the tillers of the soil. If a mechanic or manufacturer
        should in like manner fail to avail himself of improved
        implements or machinery, he would be compelled to relinquish
        his business. It is the farmer alone who resists anything new
        appertaining to his calling. This arises mainly from a
        deep-seated prejudice to what is called scientific or book
        farming."

        See also Moger, _Rebuilding_, p. 54, citing the fact that
        farmers in the area of diversified agriculture, such as
        Northern Virginia, had the highest number of agricultural
        clubs, farm newspaper subscriptions, etc., of all areas in
        Virginia.

   [53] Main steps to assist agriculture taken by the state in the
        1870's are summarized in Moger, _Rebuilding_, p. 54.

   [54] Fairfax County Deed Book W-4, p. 271.

   [55] J. S. Mosby, _Mosby's War Memoirs and Stuart's Cavalry
        Campaigns_ (New York: Pageant Book Co., 1958), p. 10. Mosby
        records in his memoirs that in Richmond, before being sent to
        the Shenandoah Valley, the men were issued uniforms of very
        rough quality from the state penitentiary. There was almost a
        mutiny as the men piled them up in front of the captain's tent
        and refused to wear them--all except Mosby and Beattie. Mosby
        then states, "I do not think any clothes I ever wore did me
        more service than these. When I became a commander, I made
        Beattie a lieutenant."

        This story is corroborated in Charles W. Russell (ed.), _The
        Memoirs of Colonel John S. Mosby_ (Boston: Little Brown,
        1917), p. 30.

   [56] Beattie is mentioned frequently in histories of Mosby's
        campaigns. In addition to the references noted above, see V.
        C. Jones, _Ranger Mosby_ (Chapel Hill, 1944), and James
        Williamson (ed.), _Mosby's Rangers_ (New York: Sturgis &
        Walton, 1909).

        From 1861 to July 1864, Beattie served as an enlisted man. In
        July 1864, a new company was organized, and Beattie was
        elected first lieutenant. Such regards as still exist
        regarding Beattie's service with Mosby relate to this period.
        See _Compiled Service Records of Confederate Soldiers Who
        Served in Organizations from Virginia_. Microcopy 324, Roll
        207 (National Archives, Washington, D.C.).

   [57] Williamson, _Mosby's Rangers_, p. 87.

   [58] _Ibid._, pp. 242-3. Reprints a letter from Thomas Moss to
        Captain Walter Frankland describing a fight near Front Royal
        as follows: "We charged and routed the guards, and I was
        fortunate in saving Beattie's life by shooting a man who had a
        pistol within 12 inches of Beattie. I then caught a horse ...
        [and] Beattie and I ran down the road a short distance and
        went up into a piece of pine woods."

   [59] John Mosby Beattie, August 22, 1968, interview. Fountain
        Beattie's wife, Annie Elizabeth Hathaway, was the daughter of
        James Henry Hathaway of "Western View" in Zula, Virginia,
        between Rectortown and Middleburg in Fauquier County. Annie
        Hathaway was born and married at this home place. Her son,
        John Mosby Beattie, states that his father bought Green Spring
        Farm with money realized from the sale of "Western View" on
        the death of Mrs. Beattie's parents.

   [60] Fairfax County Deed Book W-4, p. 271. Also see Hannah C. O'Brien
        v. John W. Green, Fairfax County Circuit Court, 1878,
        Suspended File No. 10.

   [61] Moger, _Rebuilding_, p. 51.

   [62] Virginia Good Roads Convention, _Programme_, p. 8.

   [63] John Mosby Beattie, August 22, 1968, interview. John Beattie
        recalls that his father, Fountain Beattie, sold garden produce
        to the local grocery store of one John Carter, located on the
        Little River Turnpike (Route 236) approximately where it now
        crosses Shirley Highway (I-95).

   [64] W. C. Funk, "An Economic History of Small Farms near
        Washington, D.C.", U.S. Department of Agriculture Bulletin
        848 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1920),
        pp. 16-17.

   [65] John Mosby Beattie, August 22, 1968, interview. Mr. Beattie does
        not recall the date of this fire, but remembers the event
        vividly from his boyhood days.

   [66] Mosby served as Consul in Hong Kong from 1878 to 1885. He was an
        attorney in the U.S. Department of Justice from 1904 to 1910.

   [67] _Official Register of Officers and Employees of the Civil,
        Military and Navy Service_, issued biennially, lists Fountain
        Beattie as an employee of the Internal Revenue Service in the
        registers issued during the years 1875 to 1913, inclusive.
        Beattie's Service Record Card (Treasury Form 426) shows the
        first employment record date as 1872. His appointment was
        discontinued in 1914.

   [68] E. L. Templeman, _Arlington Heritage_ (Arlington, 1959), p. 74.

   [69] _Atlas of Fifteen Miles Around Washington_, 1879.

   [70] "Fairfax County as Portrayed by the Virginia Business Directory
        and Gazetteer--1906. Published by the Hill Directory Company,
        Richmond, Virginia," _Yearbook of the Historical Society of
        Fairfax County, Virginia_, v. 10 (1969), pp. 92-104.


[Illustration: Front View]

[Illustration: Side View (West). Figure 7. Green Spring Farm, 1936.
Photos by Delos Smith, HABS.]

[Illustration: Figure 8. Berry Survey Map, 1941. Deed Book P-15, p. 147.]


III. THE END OF THE FARMING ERA: MICHAEL STRAIGHT (1942-1969)

Fountain Beattie sold Green Spring Farm in 1917. Annie Hathaway
Beattie had died the year before, after they had moved from the farm
to a house in Alexandria.[71] Beattie's deed to George R. Sims of
Florida is dated January 23, 1917, and conveyed the entire tract of
339 acres.[72] Ownership changed again in 1922, 1924, and 1931,[73]
and ultimately led to the subdivision of the tract into smaller
parcels. In 1942, one of these parcels, containing the farmhouse and
the principal related buildings, was purchased by Michael and Belinda
Straight.[74]

The Straights did not occupy the main farmhouse immediately but set
about having certain changes made in the interior design and
structure. These were completed late in 1942, and the family moved
from the cottage to the main house.[75] A few months later, in January
1943, their occupancy was interrupted as Michael Straight was called
to service in the U.S. Army Air Force; and, during World War II, the
house was occupied by tenants. The Straights returned to Northern
Virginia in 1948 and took up residence at the farmhouse from that time
until they moved to Georgetown in 1965.

Upon their return to the farm in 1948, they also began to restore
and redesign the grounds surrounding the farmhouse. During the
1920's, when the farm was owned by Frederick Segesserman, a great many
boxwoods had been planted. They had been raised for sale, and in
1948 the pattern of their location on the grounds was erratic.
Therefore, in 1948, a new landscape plan was worked out by Mrs. Max
Farrand, a friend of the Straights and the designer of the gardens
at Dumbarton Oaks in Georgetown. Under her supervision, the
boxwoods were transplanted into a great semicircle behind the
house, the level of the lawn was raised, and retaining walls were
placed at several points. This area comprised the farm's only formal
garden; but, in addition, extensive plantings of white pine were
placed as a screen between the house and the road, and the grounds
surrounding the house were planted with a variety of trees and shrubs,
including hemlocks, cherries, and crabapples, and later, lilacs,
azaleas, and rhododendron.

During the years the Straights lived at the farm, farming operations
consisted of the raising of Hereford cattle. Purchasing yearlings in
the markets of the lower Shenandoah Valley near Winchester, they kept
this stock at the farm for fattening and resale as two-year-old beef
cattle.[76]

A variety of other animals were kept on the farm, but these were
mainly pets of the children.[77] In addition to their horses and
dogs, certain of the Straights' animals acquired reputations of
extraordinary extent. In particular were a goat which was presented to
the Straights by the author and journalist Eric Sevareid,[78] a
mule acquired from the Alexandria SPCA, and a flock of Canada
geese which eventually became the subject of a special bulletin by
the Audubon Society to prevent local naturalists from erroneously
reporting them as migrants.[79]

During these years of residence at Green Spring Farm, Michael
Straight served as editor and publisher of _The New Republic_
magazine, wrote three books, and served on the governing boards of
several organizations active in international affairs.[80] These
activities brought to the farm many visitors whose accomplishments in
politics, literature, science, and the arts were nationally and
internationally recognized. Some of the distinguished visitors to
Green Spring Farm during these years included scientists Julian
Huxley and Leo Szilard, authors Aldous Huxley and Saul Bellow, poet
Dylan Thomas, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, and political
leader Hubert Humphrey. The farm also was a visiting place for
distinguished journalists from all parts of the United States and
many foreign countries, including Soviet Russia, when they came to
Washington. An account of one of these visits, written by one of the
foreign journalists, is set forth in appendix G.[81]

The farm became well known in the community of which it was a part as
it was the scene of numerous festive community gatherings when the
neighbors from the immediate area joined the Straights and their
guests to celebrate such special events and holidays as the Fourth of
July and to enjoy dinner, games, and discussions under the trees.

With the departure of the Straights, active farming operations ceased.
During their occupancy, fundamental changes in the character of
Northern Virginia's development brought the era of farming to an end
and ushered in an era in which this region became part of the social
and economic system centered in Washington. Intensive subdivision and
establishment of commercial service facilities became the highest and
best uses of the land as population growth in the National Capital
area rose at a rate which led other parts of the United States.
Outsiders moving into Northern Virginia and Washington residents
seeking to move from the central city into the outskirts filled up the
open spaces of Fairfax County at a rate of over 1,000 new residents
per month.[82]

Along with the temptation of high land prices, rising taxes added to
the pressure on the farmer to "sell out" to the land developer. It was
said, with much truth, that one could not afford to be a farmer in
Fairfax County as the 1950's ended and the 1960's began. For the 33
acres and buildings on Green Spring Farm, as for many other
residences, taxes rose sharply. In 1943, the farm was evaluated at
$7,819, and the tax bill was $194.69; by 1960, the evaluation was
$36,050, and the taxes $1,351.88.[83]

So, gradually, Green Spring Farm became an island of open space in a
sea of houses and highways. The Little River Turnpike (Route 236) was
widened and modernized in 1959. In 1948, this road had been an
18-foot-wide, two lane black-top roadway. Twenty years later, it had
been transformed into a 106-foot-wide, four-lane dual highway, much of
which was lined with concrete curbs and gutters to accommodate
roadside commercial or residential development. The old turnpike had
been redesigned and, in the late 1960's, carried over 26,000 vehicles
per day.[84] Its function as a major interregional artery of
transportation had been taken over by others, leaving to it a new role
as a major connector in the network of roads and streets serving
primarily local traffic. In contrast to earlier times when proximity
to the road was to be desired, the attractiveness of the farmhouse in
the 1960's was enhanced by its surrounding space which furnished a
shield from the highway and a setting for its activity.


III. THE END OF THE FARMING ERA: MICHAEL STRAIGHT (1942-1969)

   [71] John Mosby Beattie, March 1969 interview. Annie Beattie,
        afflicted with arthritis, died in 1916, after she and family
        had moved into Alexandria to a house on Peyton Street owned by
        her husband, Fountain Beattie, and Walton Moore.

   [72] Fairfax County Deed Book C-8, p. 446.

   [73] Fairfax County Deed Book Y-8, p. 50; J-9, p. 23; X-10, p. 413;
        V-11, p. 586; C-12, p. 509.

   [74] Fairfax County Deed Book P-15, p. 145.

   [75] Michael and Belinda Straight, interview December 8, 1968. During
        the remodeling, the Straights lived in the spring house, which
        they called "The Cottage."

   [76] _Ibid._ Aberdeens were also brought to the farm, but did not
        thrive as well as Herefords. The Straights' herd ranged from
        15 to 25 at any one time. Bought at weights of about 500
        pounds, these cattle were held until they weighed 1,100 to
        1,200 pounds and then were sold for beef.

   [77] _Ibid._ The fondness of the Straight children for animals drew
        pets from field and pond, including rabbits, birds, snakes,
        spiders, and the like. These were housed mainly in the
        enclosed side porch.

   [78] _Ibid._ The gift goat was the subject of one of Mr. Sevareid's
        columns entitled "It is More Blessed to Give Than to Receive."
        During his stay at Green Spring Farm, the goat established a
        reputation for eating various valuable articles (such as a
        canvas automobile top) and ringing a number of the fruit
        trees.

   [79] _Ibid._ The flock of Canada geese started from a pair that was
        attracted to one of the farm ponds, which in earlier times had
        been used to furnish ice for the farm. As the flock of geese
        grew, it ceased to migrate, and frequented the Straights' pond
        and nearby Lake Barcroft.

   [80] _Who's Who in America, 1966-1967_, contains the following
        information on Mr. Straight: In 1943, he wrote _Make This the
        Last War_; in 1954, _Trial by Television_; in 1960,
        _Carrington_; and in 1963, _A Very Small Remnant_. In 1943, he
        also served as Vice President of the Fight for Freedom; and in
        1946-1947 as Secretary of the Emergency Committee of Atomic
        Scientists.

   [81] Michael and Belinda Straight, interview December 8, 1968. This
        visit occurred when Mr. Straight was actively engaged in
        editing and publishing _The New Republic_ and had occasion,
        from time to time, for journalistic contacts in the Soviet
        Embassy. From one of these contacts the suggestion was made
        that a group of Soviet Russian journalists touring the United
        States might be interested in visiting Green Spring Farm.

   [82] Fairfax County Division of Planning, August 1969.

   [83] Fairfax County Tax Books, 1943, 1960. The 1968 evaluation, at 40
        percent of market value, was $93,415, and the total tax was
        $4,016.85. In 1923, when the property consisted of 332 acres
        and was owned by J. M. Duncan, it was valued at $8,240, and
        the taxes were $20.60.

   [84] Resident Engineer, Virginia Department of Highways, Fairfax,
        Virginia. August 1969.




ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION: THE MANSION HOUSE


GENERAL SETTING. Green Spring Farm is located in Mason Magisterial
District, approximately one-eighth mile north of Little River Turnpike
and one-eighth mile east of Braddock Road. Via the Little River
Turnpike, the farm is approximately six miles west of Alexandria and
approximately two miles east of Annandale.

The terrain in the vicinity of the farm is mainly flat, with some very
gentle rolling areas. It is well watered, being crossed by Turkey Cock
Run. During 1946-50, three ponds were dug in back of the house. They
are spring-fed, and their runoff drains into Turkey Cock Run. With the
original forest cover cleared off at least 200 years ago, the present
clusters of pine and oak, and the incidence of hemlock, cherry,
crabapple, and other flowering species, represent a reforestation
several generations removed from the original, and, in other
instances, the landscaping done by the Straights in the late 1940's.


HOUSE SITE. The mansion house faces south and is connected with the
Little River Turnpike by a black-top (asphalt-surfaced) road which
passes on the west side of the house and runs north to Braddock Road.
Inside the post and rail fence, alongside this road, the driveway up
to the house is lined with trees, and the yard in front of the house
is open and flat. Between the lawn and the road, a line of cedars in
the fence row serves as a screen.

The back (north side) of the house faces a semicircular open grass
lawn, bordered with hedges which provide both a screen for the lawn
and a background for several stone carvings and cement castings which
decorate a lawn approximately 1,500 square feet in size. At the
northeast corner of this open space is located the log cabin; beyond
the log cabin, approximately 110 feet in a northeasterly direction, is
the barn, which is converted into living quarters.[85]

Northwest of the main house, facing on Green Spring Road, is the
spring house. Originally built over a series of natural springs in
order to have water for cooling dairy products, this stone house was
converted into a small dwelling house by the Straights in 1942.


GENERAL ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AND HISTORY. In its present condition,
the mansion house at Green Spring Farm cannot be considered to
represent any particular period of American architecture. The original
core of the building illustrates a design which was typical of the
colonial era in Tidewater Virginia. This portion of the house is of
brick construction, two stories plus attic and cellar, with the rooms
in each end of the house separated by a center hallway. Large chimneys
at each end of the house made possible heating by fireplaces in each
room.

It seems probable that this structure formed the core of the mansion
house when it was occupied by the Moss family (1770's to 1835). To
this core, various outbuildings and dependencies were added; a
separate cookhouse or kitchen annex to the main house was one of these
related structures, as were the family's sanitary facilities. Clothes
washing, churning, candlemaking, and various other household tasks
were also performed in separate buildings. No direct evidence of the
appearance of the main house or the various related outbuildings has
been discovered; some inferences about these matters may be drawn from
the inventory of personal property sold from the farm at auction in
1835 and a drawing of the house on an 1840 survey (figure 2).

Photographs of the south side of the house show the building as it
appeared in 1885 (figure 5). At this time, a one-story porch had been
built across the entire length of the front. The entry into the house
across this porch was open, but on each side of the front door the
porch was enclosed, making small rooms approximately 9 by 12 feet in
size. From each room a door opened out onto the porch. The porch was
roofed with sheet metal, and carved wooden brackets were in the
corners of the center section (figure 5). A sidewalk led from the
entrance in the center of the ivy-covered front porch straight across
the spacious, shaded lawn.

Photographs in 1936 show the front porch removed but with clear signs
of its recent presence showing in the whitewash on the front wall of
the house (figure 7). At this time, the roof of the main house was
sheet metal in place of the earlier use of shingles. However, shingles
still constituted the roofing of the dependency on the east end of the
house.

The 1885 photographs show a one-story brick addition on the east end
of the house. This was a kitchen, built sometime after the main
portion of the house but still probably in the first half of the
nineteenth century. The notice of sale of the farm following Thomas
Moss's death in 1835 speaks of "a Brick Dwelling, containing eight
rooms, Brick Kitchen, Meat House, Servants' House, ..." and other farm
and outbuildings.[86] Of all the buildings mentioned in this notice,
the kitchen appears to be the most logical and appropriate use for
this addition. Later occupants of the house (1880-1917) used this wing
for a kitchen and describe it as not only the center for preparation
of food but for numerous other household activities, such as
candlemaking.[87]

The arrangement of rooms during the nineteenth century is not known
with certainty. The 1839 reference to eight rooms suggests that as
originally built the house had four rooms on each floor, with perhaps
no effort to use the attic as living space, at least until the time of
Fountain Beattie who added dormers to the attic and used this top
floor to help accommodate his large family. This inference is
strengthened by the fact that prior to the 1940's the central core of
the house was laid out in this manner.

[Illustration: Figure 10. GREEN SPRING FARM MANSION HOUSE, Floor Plans,
1969]

The major renovation of the house in the early 1940's was planned and
carried out by Walter Macomber and resulted in the addition of a wing
on the west end of the central block (in which a new kitchen was
installed), conversion of the old kitchen wing on the east end of the
central core into a living room with a small sunporch attached,
rearrangement of the stairways and central hallway, and certain other
interior changes. This involved removal of substantial amounts of the
original materials in the house and replacement by material considered
to be suitable in terms of age and texture. These changes are
reflected in the exterior appearance and interior room arrangement of
the house at the present time.

Further structural changes were made in 1960. At this time it was
discovered that the second floor was sagging because of the removal of
bearing walls in 1942 when the first floor was converted from four
rooms into two.[88] This situation was corrected by pouring concrete
footings in the basement and setting in them a series of steel
columns. These columns ran up through the wall on the west side of the
central hallway and were topped by a steel beam running the width of
the house. The joists for the second floor were anchored in this new
beam.[89]

At the same time this structural reinforcement was being added,
several closets, cabinets, and bookcases were built into the rooms on
the second floor and attic, making use of space under the eaves.

The remodeling done in 1960 was designed and supervised by Keyes,
Lethbridge & Condon, Washington architects.

At the present time, the exterior fabric appears to be sound and well
maintained. On the interior, a certain amount of deterioration is
evidenced in the looseness of the joints in the flooring and stairs
and in the uneven settling of door frames in the original portion of
the house. The grounds adjacent to the house are in good condition and
appear to be well maintained.


TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION--EXTERIOR.

_Overall Dimensions._ Width: 78 feet by 25 feet in central section,
and 20 feet in wings. Height: central section, two and one-half
stories; wings, one and one-half stories; sunporch, one story.

_Foundations._ The central section of the house stands on brick
foundations which are carried up through the basement walls.

A brick wall extending upward to the second floor divides the basement
into two sections and served as part of the original foundations. In
the basement, a series of arches in this wall permitted passage
between the two sections. In 1960, the upper portions of this wall
were found to have deteriorated to the point that it was necessary to
pour concrete footings in the basement and erect a series of steel
columns up through the wall to relieve it from bearing the weight of
the second-floor beams and floor joists.

The east wing (present living room, former kitchen) rests on brick
foundations, with the present wooden flooring laid over the original
cobblestone floor of the old kitchen. The west wing (present kitchen)
rests on concrete footings and slab at grade.

_Wall Construction._ Walls are constructed of medium red brick (3
by 9 by 12 inches), using the following bonds: central block
front--Flemish bond; central block rear--English bond; central block
end walls--English bond; east wing--American or common bond, with
seven courses of stretchers to each course of headers; west
wing--American or common bond, with six courses of stretchers to
each course of headers.

_Chimneys._ Interior brick chimneys are located in the center of the
east and west ends of the central block. These chimneys have separate
flues for four fireplaces (two each on the first and second floors)
and measure 5 feet by 2 feet 8 inches. Three courses of brick are
corbelled to make the capping of the chimneys.

The end walls of the east and west wings of the house also each have
an interior chimney centered in the wall. The chimney in the east
wing, measuring 3 feet by 1 foot 8 inches and having three courses of
brick corbelled for a capping, was used for the fireplace in the old
kitchen which occupied that part of the house prior to 1942.

_Doors and Doorways._ The front doorway is inset (1 foot 8 inches) in
an entrance faced with white painted wooden panels. The entrance is
framed by a plain triangular pediment and pilasters without
decorations on either shafts or capitals. The front door is a
six-panel door, designed to harmonize with the interior doors which
are originals. Over the door is a four-light rectangular transom.

The rear entrance is a 6 by 8-foot portico, built up three steps from
ground level. Along the sides of the portico are 3-foot railings,
inside of which are wooden boxes which serve both as storage boxes and
as seats. The portico roof is supported by wooden Doric columns set at
its outer edges, and the front end of the roof is a plain triangular
pediment. The rear doorway has a transom and door similar to the front
doorway.

The kitchen door opens onto a 4 by 4-foot wooden porch with railing
and three steps to ground level.

The sunporch door has interchangeable screen and glass panels for
winter and summer use and opens on the front of the house at ground
level.

_Windows and Shutters._ In the central block, the front doorway is
flanked by French windows, with 12-over-9 lights in double-hung wooden
sash. The rear windows on the first floor are 9-over-9 lights in
double-hung wooden sash. Windows on the second floor front and rear
sides are 6-over-6 lights in double-hung wooden sash, as are the
dormer windows and gable end windows. The windows on the first and
second floors of the central block have 2-foot 10-inch wooden sills
and full-length louvered shutters hung on pintles (two on each side of
the window frame). Window frames, sills, and muntins are painted dark
green.

In the east and west wings of the house, the front windows are
6-over-6 lights in double-hung wooden sash. The rear window in the
east wing (living room) has a dead-light picture window (6 by 4 feet)
flanked by windows with 6-over-9 lights in double-hung wooden sash.
Window frames, sills, and muntins are white, and full-length wooden
shutters are dark green.

In the brickwork of the house, flat arches have been laid over all of
the windows on the first floor, except over the windows on the rear of
the central block.

The sunporch on the east end of the house is of frame construction and
has nine windows (2-1/2 by 5 feet) on three sides.

_Roof._ Photographs taken about 1900 show the house with an enclosed
porch across the front and a sheet metal roof on the porch. In
contrast, the central block of the house and the kitchen (east) wing
have shingled roofs (figure 5). Photographs in 1936 show the central
portion of the house with a sheet metal roof (figure 7). In 1942, the
roofing on all parts of the house was replaced with specially made
concrete shingles, which are still in place.[90]

The roof is a simple medium-pitched roof with plain gable ends.
Interior chimneys are centered in each end of the center section and
in the east end of the living room (former kitchen) wing.

Full-length copper gutters are incorporated into the eaves and project
approximately six inches above and beyond the cornice.

Cornices on the front and rear of the center section of the house are
composed of dentils, running approximately three segments per foot.
Identical plain wooden cornices are used on the front and rear of the
two wings of the house.

Each wing has one dormer centered in the front and two on the rear
sides of the roof. The center section of the house has three dormers
on the front side of the roof. All dormers have a single window,
consisting of 6-over-6 lights, set vertically in the front face. All
dormers have beaded ship-lap siding laid parallel to the pitched roof.
This latter feature appears to be a change made in 1942 since
photographs of the house in 1885 and 1936 show the siding on the
dormers laid parallel to the ground.

_Enclosures._ A post and rail fence stands at the edge of the front
lawn and, together with a line of hemlocks growing immediately inside
the fence, forms a screen between the house and the entrance road
leading in from the Little River Turnpike. In the rear, a semicircular
screen of boxwood frames the lawn.


TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION--INTERIOR.

_Central Block._ The central block of the house, comprising the
portion which was built first (possibly as early as 1760), is laid out
on the traditional pattern used by many colonial Virginia homes--a
central hallway with one or two rooms on each side, with chimneys at
each end serving fireplaces in each room. In the case of Green Spring
Farm, a narrow (4-foot 6-inch-wide) central hallway runs straight
through from the front door to an opposing rear door. Floor boards are
of random width (5 to 6 inches), and walls are paneled 3 feet 6 inches
up from the floor, with wallpaper above. Doorways open off the central
hallway into a library (east side) and a dining room (west side).

Prior to 1942, the rear portion of the center hallway contained
stairways to the second floor and to the basement, while still
allowing access to the rear door. In 1942, however, the stairway to
the basement was shifted to the west (new kitchen) wing, which was
built at that time; and the stairway to the second floor was shifted
into the library.[91]

In the library, at the rear of the room a narrow (2-foot 6-inch-wide)
stairway rises from the corner nearest the hallway to the second floor
hallway above (figure 13). This stairway extends over the hall doorway
and, together with a panel-and-spindle partition, forms a covered
entryway into the room. A small closet utilizes the space underneath
the stairs.

The present library is a designed room, created in 1942 by Walter
Macomber. The design utilizes the full width of the house and thus
replaces two rooms (approximately 12 by 12 feet) which originally had
comprised the first area east of the central hallway. This original
room design had had a fireplace in each of these two rooms, and in
1942 both were replaced. The one serving the rear room was taken out
entirely as the doorway into the living room wing was cut through at
that point. The one in the former front room was replaced by another
fireplace, specially designed by Mr. Macomber, and built of materials
from a late eighteenth century tavern near Peace Cross, Maryland.[92]

Built into the east wall of the library on each side of the fireplace
are identical cabinets, the lower parts of which are enclosed and the
upper parts are open shelves. The overmantel area is wallpapered, as
are the portions of the room's wall occupied by the window facing the
front yard and the wall between the library and central hallway. Open
shelving for books occupies part of this latter wall, to a height of
eight feet.

The entire room has a cornice molding of stained wood, matching the
paneling used for the stairs, the fireplace, and the built-in
cabinets flanking the fireplace. Across the central hallway, the
present dining room was designed and created in 1942. As in the
case of the library, brick interior walls separating two smaller rooms
(approximately 12 by 12 feet) were removed to allow the dining room to
utilize the full width (25 feet) of the house. The fireplace
serving the rear of the original rooms was replaced by a doorway
into the new kitchen wing through a butler's pantry. The fireplace
serving the front of the original rooms was retained in the present
dining room. Beside this fireplace and extending to the front wall is
a butterfly cupboard specially designed for that location. Chair
rail, baseboard, and door trim in the room are thought to be original;
but the ceiling cornice was added in 1942 and consists of double-ogee
design over beaded plasterboard which is typical of the period of
the house.[93] A cupboard by the doorway to the butler's pantry is
of modern design and was installed as an added convenience in the
dining room.

The doors to the central hallway and to the butler's pantry are
thought to have been originally on the second floor of the house.[94]
The hallway door has six panels, with beaded edges and quarter-round
molding in the panels. A fillet molding (4-1/2 inches) surrounds the
doorway frame. The door has been drastically trimmed to fit the frame.
The door to the butler's pantry has four panels but with a flat raised
panel and no quarter-round molding at the panel edges--a style typical
of the later nineteenth century.

The second floor of the central block of the house originally was laid
out identically with the first floor--that is, two rooms on each side
of a central hallway. In the 1942 renovation, this same room
arrangement was retained for the west side of the central hall (above
the dining room), while on the east side of the hall a single bedroom
(12 by 25 feet) was created using the full depth of the house. In this
bedroom, cabinets with louvered double doors were installed on each
side of the fireplace and painted white to match the fireplace mantel.
This fireplace is one of the features retained from the original house
and has a mantel which is plain except for a denticulated molding.
Chair rail, also thought to be original, is installed on all exposed
areas of wall in the room.

Across the central hallway, the two bedrooms retain the same basic
design of the original house. Both are approximately 11 by 11 feet and
have random-width flooring and chair rail on two sides of the room.
The original fireplaces have been retained in these rooms. In the
front room, the fireplace mantel is entirely plain; in the rear room,
the mantel has two supporting columns and has three diamond shapes
carved in the wood. Both rooms have built-in cabinets, shelves, and
closets, some of which were installed in 1942 and some which were
added in 1960. Also added in 1942 is the door connecting the front
bedroom with the staircase from the first floor of the west wing.
Through the passageway at the head of these stairs, there is access to
the second floor of the west wing.

The third floor (or attic) is entered by a stairway in the central
staircase. At the head of this stairway is a hallway connecting
bedrooms in the east and west ends of the house and providing access
to closets at the rear of the house and a small bathroom (7 by 7 feet)
at the front of the house. The bathroom has a dormer window to the
front of the house, and each of the bedrooms has a dormer window to
the front and a window in the gable end wall. The gable end windows
are set in plaster arches, flanked in each case by a 4-foot-high
candle shelf. Both bedrooms have built-in closets, cupboards, and
shelves. Bedroom walls have plain plaster finish and plain wooden
baseboards, no cornices, and no chair rail.

_East Wing._ The east wing of the house presently includes the living
room and a sunporch. The floor level of this wing is 1 foot 8 inches
lower than the floor level of the central block; and the connecting
doorway has three steps, with double doors at the top step.

The date when the east wing was built is not certain, but it is
probable that the basic structure comprising the wing was constructed
around 1840 and thereafter used as a kitchen or combination
kitchen-dining room until the renovation of the house in 1942.
Photographs taken about 1900 and in 1936 show this wing with a door
opening to the front of the house at ground level. The floor of the
old kitchen was laid with cobblestones, and the east end of the room
had a great hearth and Dutch oven. Food was cooked here and taken up
the stairs into the main part of the house. Many other household
chores (such as soapmaking) were performed here.[95]

When the house was renovated in 1942, the cobblestone floor of the
room was overlaid with wooden flooring and pine wainscotting was added
to the walls. On the north side, looking out onto the semicircular
lawn, a picture window was installed. On the south side of the room,
the outside door was replaced with a window similar to the one already
in that side (figure 9). The large hearth and fireplace were replaced
with a smaller one similar to what had been installed in the library
(with the unusual wooden lintel).

According to the renovator, the paneling for the doorway connecting
the living room and library came from Lancaster, Pennsylvania. The
overmantel and paneling around the living room fireplace and over the
doorway connecting the living room and sunporch came from a tavern
near Peace Cross, Maryland, where it had been used as shuttering.[96]
The architraves around the fireplace and pilasters were designed by
the renovator from materials obtained in Pennsylvania.[97] The cornice
in the living room is of cypress wood.

Entrance to the sunporch from the living room is through a doorway
trimmed in material from an old building in Pennsylvania.

Wrought iron H hinges are used on the built-in cabinets in the east
wall (next to the fireplace). The sunporch door has wrought iron
hinges and a brass box lock.

The sunporch, added to the east wing in 1942, is frame construction on
a concrete slab floor. When built, it was a screened porch, but later
was converted to glass window panels to accommodate plants and pet
animals in all seasons.

On the second floor of the east wing is a bedroom and bathroom suite,
entered from the central block of the house on the second floor level.
Dormer windows are on the north (rear) and south (front) sides of the
bedroom, and the bathroom has a dormer window on the north side. The
bedroom has built-in closets, shelves, and cupboards, the hardware of
which is wrought iron. Doors have box locks and small brass door
knobs. Two steps are built into the doorway connecting the east wing
with the central block of the house on the second floor level.

_West Wing._ The west wing of the house was added in 1942, and was
designed by the renovator, Walter Macomber.

The first floor contains a modern kitchen, a butler's pantry, and a
staircase containing stairways to the basement and to the second
floor, together with storage closets. An exterior door in the end wall
provides direct access to the outside.

The second floor of the west wing contains a bedroom and bathroom
suite similar in layout to the suite on the second floor of the east
wing. The bedroom contains built-in closets, shelves, and cupboards,
and wrought iron hardware (thumb latches and H and L hinges).

_Basement._ The basement is beneath the central block of the house,
and its design is basically unchanged from the original except for the
concrete footings and steel columns placed there in 1960 to strengthen
the deteriorating brick interior wall. The basement was not extended
underneath either of the two wings of the house when they were
constructed.

Entrance to the basement originally was by a stairway located at the
end of the central hallway, where also was located the stairway to the
second floor and attic. In 1942, however, the stairway to the basement
was shifted to a new staircase located in the new west wing of the
house, where it is at the present time. The basement currently
contains gas heating equipment for the house, a water heater, and
storage space.


ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION: THE MANSION HOUSE

   [85] Mrs. Michael Straight, interview December 1969. Certain pieces
        of the garden sculpture are from Peking, China. Others include
        "Frog Girl" by Willi Soukop.

   [86] _Alexandria Gazette_, November 6, 1839.

   [87] John Mosby Beattie, interview April 17, 1969.

   [88] David Condon, AIA; interview December 11, 1969. The earlier room
        layout of the central block of the house had two rooms, each
        about 12 by 12 feet, on each side of the central hallway which
        ran through the house widthwise. Each of these four rooms had
        its own fireplace located in the end wall. This pattern was
        duplicated in the four rooms on the second floor.

        A somewhat unusual feature of this building was that the
        joists for the first and second floors ran lengthwise rather
        than across the house. They were anchored in the brick outer
        wall and in a brick bearing wall running the width of the
        house in the basement and extending up to the second floor. In
        1960, it was found that this wall was crumbling and in danger
        of allowing the second-floor joists to pull out of their
        sockets. The installation of a series of steel columns holding
        up a steel beam had the effect of taking all bearing weight
        off this original segment of brick wall.

   [89] _Ibid._ The location of this masonry wall in the basement and
        its extension upward to the second floor made it possible for
        the original house to have the floor joists set lengthwise
        with the house instead of front-to-back. The joists were thus
        anchored in the outside walls at each end of the house and in
        the center wall running midway through the house.

   [90] Walter Macomber, interview held July 16, 1968, at Green Spring
        Farm. Mr. Macomber's description of these shingles is as
        follows: "This shingle is something I helped develop for
        Williamsburg. We never did use it extensively, but it was made
        ... in Richmond [by] a man named Hendricks.... It's made of
        concrete reinforced with two or three wires to the length of
        it."

   [91] _Ibid._ This stairway was also reversed when it was moved into
        the library. As it originally stood in the hallway, the
        stairway ran upward from front to rear of the house, and a
        stairway to the basement was constructed underneath so as to
        run down to the basement from the rear to the front of the
        house.

        A second stairway between the first and second floors was also
        installed in a new staircase constructed in the new kitchen
        (west) wing built in 1942.

   [92] _Ibid._ Transcript of Mr. Macomber's description of the library
        is as follows:

          _Mr. Macomber_: Now this room--the library--is a designed
          room.

          _Mr. Netherton_: By you, do you mean?

          _Mr. Macomber_: Yes.

          _Mrs. Netherton_: Do you know what the room was before?

          _Mr. Macomber_: Well, it was really plain.

          _Mrs. Netherton_: Is this an Adam mantelpiece?

          _Mr. Macomber_: You could call this an Adam mantel,
          although it's not truly. It's a mantel of about 1790....
          This wood came from an old tavern near Peace Cross in
          Maryland. The building was torn down to make way for a
          large shopping center. This is all designed. This is a
          design of my own with the little dovetails which are a
          little affectation of mine. [Pointing to the entryway
          between the library and central hall.] At least part of
          this stair was original. The newel post and the balusters
          and the paneling under the first run of the stair are
          original, and the sheathing from that point up into the
          hall is a design, and was made right on the job by our
          carpenters.

          _Mrs. Netherton_: Did you lengthen these windows to the
          floor?

          _Mr. Macomber_: They were this way when we got the house,
          but they had been changed some time prior to 1942.

            *       *       *       *       *

          _Mrs. Netherton_: The cupboard was part of the design, was
          it not?

          _Mr. Macomber_: Yes, it was, and I think this is one of
          the panels that came from Pennsylvania.... [Also] the
          paneled jamb from the library down into the living room
          came from this old building in Lancaster County
          [Pennsylvania]. And also the trim around the opening.

        The renovator's description of the dining room included the
        following comments:

          _Mr. Macomber_: The mantel is a mantel of the period, and
          I'm quite sure it was in this room. The butterfly cupboard
          beside it is a design that was added to the room, and
          designed and built and installed for this particular
          location. The dining room, being a small room, we planned
          the recess beside the fireplace for the sideboard and also
          to give a little more space in the room and in the pantry.
          The chair rail I'm sure is original and the door trim, but
          the cornice I installed. The base is original, in most
          cases, I believe the doors are original, although the
          bottom rail has been cut off on this to such a degree, it
          looks as though it might have been for another opening.
          And that's true on the door into the library.

   [93] _Ibid._

   [94] _Ibid._ Mr. Macomber's recollection is that "I'm quite sure it
        came from the second floor because it's the same as the door
        into the nursery room...." As to the door into the hallway, he
        notes that it originally had been painted dark blue-green.

   [95] Michael and Belinda Straight, interview of December 8, 1968.
        John Mosby Beattie recalls when animal fat was cooked in the
        fireplace of the old kitchen to make soap.

   [96] Walter Macomber, interview July 16, 1969.

   [97] _Ibid._ According to local tradition, the tavern near Peace
        Cross originally was a residence, then a tavern, a gambling
        house, and a bawdy house. While a gambling house, it was
        robbed, and shots were fired after the fleeing burglar. One of
        the shots went into the shutters, and the hole made by this
        shot is still visible in the portion of the shutter used as
        paneling in the living room.




[Illustration: Tobey House Approach, Green Spring Farm]

[Illustration: Tobey House, Patio and Fountain]

[Illustration: Tobey House, Interior. Figure 14. Photos by Robert
Lautman, c. 1960]

ASSOCIATED BUILDINGS


I. THE TOBEY HOUSE

HISTORY. The Tobey House is located approximately one-quarter mile
east-southeast of the main house on Green Spring Farm. It was built in
1954 as a residence for Mrs. Charles W. Tobey, the mother of Mrs.
Michael Straight and widow of the late distinguished United States
Senator from New Hampshire. Prior to that time, Mrs. Tobey had resided
part of the time in Washington and part of the time in Concord, New
Hampshire, where she owned a spacious, gabled New England mansion
built about 1750. In order for her to be nearer her daughter and
grandchildren, arrangements were made by Michael Straight to have a
small, modern, open-design house built for Mrs. Tobey on Green Spring
Farm.[98]

Architectural plans were completed in the fall of 1953, and
construction was completed in 1954. Here Mrs. Tobey lived with her
housekeeper, Miss Frances McFall, from 1954 to 1968.[99]

The house originally was comprised of a living-dining room, kitchen,
two bedrooms, bath, and utility (heater) room. In 1957, however, it
was expanded by the addition of another living room, bathroom, and
utility room. At this time, also, the carport was relocated, and
terraces were created on the east and west sides of the house. The
result was to enlarge the living space within the house and to create
an arrangement whereby a living room, bath, and utility room could be
partitioned off (by a folding door) to make a guest suite. The
addition of the semienclosed areas adjacent to the house, with their
flagstone terraces and fountain pool, made for the enjoyment of
outdoor activities.

Inside the house, the design and decor encouraged the feeling of
closeness to the outdoors by the location of window space and the use
of floor-to-ceiling glass walls at points where the landscaped
surroundings of the house could be seen from the inside; and paneled
walls provided a neutral yet sympathetic background for many fine
pieces of antique furniture and other artifacts which Mrs. Tobey
brought from New Hampshire. Also, use of horizontal ship-lap siding
for the exterior gives a suggestion of New England clapboards.

Following her residence in the house from 1954 to 1968, Mrs. Tobey
moved to Washington, D.C., and the house was occupied by tenants.

[Illustration: Figure 15. Tobey House Floor Plans, 1957]

[Illustration: First Section, 1954]


GENERAL SETTING AND SITE OF THE HOUSE. Located in the southeast corner
of Green Spring Farm, the Tobey House enjoys a setting of generally
open, slightly rolling countryside.[100] This setting is preserved on
the land which comprises the farm. Beyond these limits, however, the
neighborhood of the farm has experienced a rapid and drastic
transition in the 1950's and 1960's. As a result, its predominantly
rural character has been largely replaced by tracts of subdivisions
composed of single-family dwellings on lots ranging from one-fifth to
one-half acre of land. At the same time, the Little River Turnpike
(Route 236) has attracted extensive roadside commercial development,
resulting in increased highway traffic generated by the intensified
density of land use. This has accentuated the importance of the farm's
buffer space in preserving the tranquility and natural beauty which
the owner and architect sought for the Tobey House.

The site of the house is set back from the Little River Turnpike
approximately one-eighth mile and is connected with the pike by its
own driveway. The driveway approaches the house from the southwest
where the view first is of the carport and the 1957 addition. The
immediate vicinity of the house has been left relatively open to
provide a feeling of spaciousness when viewed from inside the house.
Landscaped trees and shrubs located around the house preserve this
feeling of an open natural setting while providing cover for the house
and terraces.


ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN. Since it was Mrs. Tobey's desire to enjoy the
site as well as the house, the general design of the house contains
features specifically aimed to permit this. On the east side, the
flagstone terrace and fountain pool are partially covered by the
overhang of the flat roof and a trellis. On the west side of the
house, a covered flagstone walkway from house to the carport runs
between a hedge and fence on one side and a small courtyard with
flower beds and trees on the other. In the living room added in 1957,
the only opening is a large picture window set in a bay which contains
a planter box with living plants.

Architecturally, the house is of particular interest because its basic
objective of facilitating an indoor-outdoor style of living is
achieved with simple, open lines and harmonious materials.[101] Set
upon a concrete slab, the wooden walls of the house are overlaid with
wooden beams placed so as to intersect and create the appearance of
squares and rectangular modules on the ceiling. A flat wooden deck
roof rests on these beams. No prefabricated units were utilized in the
construction of the house, and all pieces were individually specified,
cut, and fitted together.

The architect for the Tobey House was David Condon, AIA, of Keyes,
Lethbridge & Condon, Washington, D.C. The landscape architect was Eric
Paepcke of Washington, D.C. Interior design was done by Top Recker and
Patricia Holsaert. Construction was performed by Hayes Brothers of
Herndon, Virginia (figures 14 and 15).


EXTERIOR FEATURES. The overall dimensions of the house are 70 by 25
feet; the carport measures 11 by 21 feet. Exterior walls are gray
stained cypress, laid on horizontally in ship-lap style, with white
trim. Full-length glass panels serve as walls in the section of the
house called "the gallery," facing the terrace on the east side of the
house.

The fountain pool in the east side terrace measures 6 by 13 feet. The
pool water does not recirculate but is piped from the house water
supply and can be controlled by a faucet.


ENCLOSURES. A wooden post and rail ranch fence encloses the field
where the house is located.


LANDSCAPING. Pine and plane trees are planted for shade near the house
and screening from the highway on the west side. Wisteria is planted
for the trellis over the terrace on the west side of the house to
shield it from the afternoon sun. In the immediate vicinity of the
house, vinca minor (periwinkle) is used as ground cover.


INTERIOR FEATURES. The Tobey House contains 2,062 square feet of floor
space.

Room arrangements for the original structure and following the
addition in 1957 are shown in figure 15.

Interior walls are of vertical cypress paneling, and floors are wooden
parquet. Ceilings have exposed beam and plank construction.

Interior features when Mrs. Tobey was in residence included wood
carvings from a Scandinavian sailing ship salvaged when it sank off
the New England Coast.

Woodburning fireplaces are located in the living room of the original
portion of the house (now used as a study) and the living room of the
1957 addition.

The house is centrally heated with radiant heat from the floor. No
central air conditioning was provided in the original portion; but,
when the addition was built in 1957, central air conditioning was
provided for it and ducts were extended into the living room of the
original portion. Window air-conditioning units were installed in the
bedrooms.


II. THE BARN

Located approximately 200 feet northeast of the main house is a
two-story frame barn. Its date of construction is not certain, but it
is known to have been present when the Straights acquired the farm in
1942. During the occupancy of the farm by the Straights, the barn was
converted into a laundry and a maid's apartment. As renovated for this
purpose, the first floor of the barn contained space and equipment for
the laundry, a kitchen, and a bathroom. The second floor contained
living quarters and a bathroom. Access to the second floor was by an
exterior stairway (figure 17).

Overall dimensions of the barn are 14-1/2 by 24-1/2 feet. Its
construction is frame with eight-inch siding laid on vertically and
two-inch battens used to cover and seal the joints. The exterior is
stained brown with no trim. The exterior stairway is constructed of
wood and leads to a second floor entrance in the center of the east
end of the building. The stairway is in two segments. One, on the
south side, reaches from the ground to a landing at the corner of the
building; the other, on the east side, reaches from the landing to the
entrance door. The peak of the roof is approximately 17-1/2 feet from
the ground.


III. THE LOG CABIN

Located approximately 90 feet northeast of the main house is a small
one-story house of log construction. Its date of construction is
uncertain, although it is possible that this building is the
"Servants' House" referred to in the notice of the commissioner's sale
of the farm following the death of William Moss in 1835.[102]

During the Straights' occupancy of the farm, the cabin was renovated
and converted into a guest house. During the later years, their son,
David, lived in the cabin.

The renovation carried out by the Straights resulted in enlargement
and reframing of the windows, reconstruction of the existing door on
the west side, and reconstruction of the brick chimney at the north
end of the building. At the same time, another doorway was added on
the east side (figure 18).

[Illustration: Figure 19. Spring House Floor Plans, 1960]


IV. THE SPRING HOUSE

HISTORY. References to a spring house appear frequently in descriptions
of Green Spring Farm during the nineteenth century.[103] The well
watered character of the farm, possessing springs of its own and
traversed by Turkey Cock Run, was an advantage of great value to all
its owners. Quite possibly the presence of the springs was decisive in
enabling both the Mosses and Fountain Beattie to make dairying a
substantial part of the farm's operations. In the 1830's, many of the
types of equipment and utensils typically used in making and preserving
butter, cheese, and fresh milk were listed in inventories of personal
property at the farm. During this period and later, the presence of the
Little River Turnpike would have made it feasible to sell dairy
products regularly in Alexandria, six miles away, and in the
District of Columbia, nine miles away.[104] It is equally likely that
a spring house was also one of the focal points of the farm's cider
and brandy-making activities at those times when the orchards
flourished.

After the sale of the farm by Fountain Beattie in 1917, the level of
its operations gradually decreased. By 1940, the spring house stood
unused, as neither dairying nor orchard activities were carried on.
Therefore, when the Straights ordered the renovation of the main house
in 1942, it was suggested that the spring house be converted into a
residence for the farm's caretaker.

Conversion of the spring house into a residence was carried out under
the direction of Walter Macomber of Washington, D.C., who also had
been in charge of remodeling the main house. Using the basic stone
shell of the house, which was structurally sound, a two-story house
was designed with living room, bedroom, kitchen, and utility (heater)
room on the first floor and a bedroom, bathroom, and storage area on
the second floor.[105] (See figure 19.) In this work, new materials
were used, except that slate shingles taken from the main house (where
the roof was being replaced) were used for roofing the spring house.

In 1961, the second major remodeling of the house enlarged it and
attempted to reduce the dampness due to its location in the midst of
the springs. The architects for this work were Keyes, Lethbridge &
Condon of Washington, D.C. As a result of this work, the roof was
raised to permit construction of a new bedroom and storage room on the
second floor. On the first floor, enclosure of a porch permitted the
addition of a bathroom and closet to the downstairs bedroom.
Substantial remodeling of the kitchen was also undertaken, in which a
closet was converted into cabinets, new flooring was laid, and new
kitchen fixtures were installed.


EXTERIOR. The original portion of the spring house is constructed of
stone, with stucco exterior finish. The frame addition is covered with
rough-sawn redwood lap siding over half-inch vapor-sealed sheathing.
The roofing for this portion of the house is slate shingles, matching
the slate roof of the original portion which used shingles taken from
the mansion house when it was renovated in 1942. Copper gutters and
downspouts were installed in 1961, as was copper flashing at the base
of the chimney.


ASSOCIATED BUILDINGS

I. THE TOBEY HOUSE

   [98] Title to the property on which the house was built remained in
        Michael and Belinda Straight.

   [99] "A New House with Young Ideas," _House and Garden_, December
        1958.

  [100] David Condon, AIA, interview December 12, 1969. Initially it was
        proposed to locate the house with its back to a line of trees
        separating the upper and lower portions of the pasture west of
        the main farm house. This would have taken advantage of the
        view to the west of the house, considered to be its best view.
        Ultimately, however, the house was located in the lower
        pasture, closer to the Little River Turnpike but screened from
        the highway by a line of trees planted for that purpose.

  [101] _Ibid._ This is the opinion of David Condon, who served as
        architect for both the original building and its subsequent
        addition. He notes that the building's style was rare in the
        Eastern United States, although it had appeared and was
        popular on the West Coast.


III. THE LOG CABIN

  [102] _Alexandria Gazette_, November 6, 1839, advertisement.


IV. THE SPRING HOUSE

  [103] _Alexandria Gazette_, November 6, 1839, advertisement; John
        Mosby Beattie, interview April 17, 1969.

  [104] John Schlebecker, Curator, Division of Agriculture and Mining,
        Museum of History and Technology, Smithsonian Institution,
        Washington, D.C. Interview held February 26, 1969.

  [105] Walter Macomber, interview July 16, 1968. It appears that no
        drawings were made of the spring house as it appeared before
        its conversion into a caretaker's residence, and no plans have
        been preserved to show the construction undertaken for the
        conversion.

[Illustration: Figure 20. Fairfax County Property Identification Map,
1969, Green Spring Farm, Quadrant 72-1.]




APPENDIX A

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
  COUNTY OF FAIRFAX
  HISTORIC LANDMARKS SURVEY


  Name of Property:                Green Spring Farm (Moss House)

  Owner:                           Michael W. Straight et ux.

  Location (Street Address):       4601 Green Spring Road, Alexandria, Va.

  Mailing Address:                 c/o Mudge, Stern, Baldwin & Todd,
                                   20 Broad Street,
                                   New York, New York 10005

  Other Locational Data:           One block east of Braddock Road, on
                                   Little River Turnpike.

  Acreage:                         31.688

  Property Identification Number:  72-1-001-24

  Deed Book Reference:             Deed Book P 15, page 145.

  Location of Title:               Fairfax County Courthouse

  Assessed Value:                  $93,415 ($17,365 buildings)
                                   January 1969 listing.

  Zoning Status:                   RE-0.5

  Present Use:                     Residence

  Restrictions:                    ----

  Magisterial District:            Mason

  Planning District:               Annandale

  Open to Public:                  No

  Setting:                         House itself is well screened from
                                   the road, and the garden in back has
                                   been well designed.

  Additional Material Available:   See Virginiana Collection files,
                                   Fairfax County Public Library: HABSI
                                   form 1969; photographs; color slides;
                                   clippings; research notes.

                                   Nan and Ross Netherton,
                                   _Green Spring Farm_, manuscript, 1969.

                                   F. Johnston,
                                   _Memorials of Old Virginia Clerks_,
                                   Lynchburg, Va., 1888

  Date: 10/13/69                   Recorder: Mrs. Ross D. Netherton
                                   Division of Planning




APPENDIX B

GREEN SPRING FARM HISTORY OF OWNERSHIP


1706    Grant from the Proprietors, LADY MARGARET CULPEPER, THOMAS
(5th) LORD FAIRFAX and CATHERINE his wife, to JOHN WEST, WILLIAM
HARRISON, THOMAS PEARSON and THOMAS HARRISON. For 4,639 acres on Great
Hunting Creek and Indian Branch.

Northern Neck Grants 3, December 23, 1706, p. 153.


1739    Survey by John Warner for GEORGE HARRISON and JOHN SUMMERS
ordered by William Fairfax, Agent for THOMAS (6th) LORD FAIRFAX for
about 500 acres of waste land joining on West, Pearson and Harrison's
land and Summers' land.

Northern Neck Grants Book E, November 21, 1739, p. 72.


1740    Grant from the PROPRIETOR'S OFFICE to GEORGE HARRISON and JOHN
SUMMERS, of 834 acres surveyed by John Warner, located on Indian and
Turkey Cock Runs. (George Harrison was the brother-in-law of Hugh
West, the elder.)

Northern Neck Grants Book E, May 10, 1740, p. 216.


1777    Conveyance from JOHN WEST (son of Hugh West, the elder)
deceased, to HUGH WEST (his son and grandson of Hugh West, the elder),
of about 400 acres adjoining John Summers.

Fairfax County Will Book D, February 7, 1777, p. 4.


Deed from DANIEL and REBECCA SUMMERS to JOHN MOSS, a parcel of land
for 300 pounds. (Two pages have been torn out of the deed book here.)

Fairfax County Deed Book M, September 11, 1777, p. 324.


1788    Deed from BALDWIN and CATHERINE DADE to JOHN MOSS for 310
pounds current money of Virginia, for part of the Turkey Cock tract on
Indian and Turkey Cock Branches, being the land Baldwin Dade purchased
from a certain Hugh West relation. (Note: George Harrison, uncle of
John West, willed all his property to John after the decease of his
wife Martha.)

Fairfax County Deed Book R, October 20, 1788, p. 256.


1789    Lease from BRYAN FAIRFAX to JOHN MOSS for 7,000 acres on the
west side of Difficult Run, and Towlston.

Fairfax County Deed Book R, April 2, 1789, p. 397.


1794    Deed from WILLIAM HENRY and AMELIA TERRETT and MARGARET WEST
to JOHN MOSS for 180 acres, 1 road and 14 perches for 421 pounds 10
pence, current money of Virginia. Property on both sides of the
Turnpike road, abutting Summers, Norris, Scott, and West, Pearson and
Harrison.

Fairfax County Deed Book Y, December 2, 1794, p. 198.


1795    Survey by John Moss, 3 acres on Indian Branch, involved in a
dispute over boundary line with neighbor Hepborn.

Fairfax County Deed Book X, April 24, 1795, p. 488.


1809    Conveyance of will from JOHN MOSS: to sons WILLIAM and THOMAS
the residue of the lands purchased from Summers and Dade to be divided
between them; to son JOHN the plantation whereon he lived which was
leased by John Moss from the late Bryan Fairfax; to daughters PATTY,
MARY and ANNE, all of the lands he bought from William H. Terrett and
houses; the last third of his property to be divided by sons ROBERT,
WILLIAM and Thomas after the decease of his wife ANN. Also mentioned
in his will are his daughter FRANCES MIDDLETON and grandchildren
GIDION and ELIZABETH. (See appendix C.)

Fairfax County Superior Court Will Book I, p. 1, October 25, 1809.


Gift by JOHN MOSS to WILLIAM MOSS and ROBERT MOSS, sons, of 1/3 of two
tracts purchased from Baldwin Dade and Daniel Summers.

Fairfax County Deed Book J-2, April 14, 1809, p. 272.


1835    Public sale for infant heirs of WILLIAM MOSS, deceased.
Advertised in _Alexandria Gazette_, June 12, 1835. Inventory and sale
account.

Fairfax County Will Book R, March Court, 1835, p. 353; Will Book S,
pp. 7, 298.


1843    Sale by THOMAS R. LOVE and ALFRED MOSS, parties of the one
part, to THOMAS SHERIFF, party of the other part, formerly of Barbados
but now of Fairfax County, 341 acres, one road and 25 poles. From
estate of Thomas Moss who died intestate; Final 62, Chancery Court
Proceedings. (See figure 2.)

Fairfax County Deed Book H-3, p. 226, May 28, 1843.


1855    H. W. Thomas, Commissioner, gives grants, bargains and sells
as a settlement on an unpaid debt land owned by JAMES SHERIFF known as
Green Spring purchased by Thomas Sheriff from Thomas Love and Alfred
Moss in 1843, to JAMES BENTON to have and to hold in trust for sole
and separate use of HANNAH O'BRIEN, of Baltimore, free from debts,
liabilities and control of husband Matthew O'Brien and power on her
part to dispose of same by deed or will as though she were a femme
sole.

Fairfax County Deed Book W-3, p. 424, September 10, 1855.


1878    Sale by H. O. Claughton, Commissioner, for SARAH GREEN and L.
M. SAUNDERS, parties of the first part, and FOUNTAIN BEATTIE, party of
the second part, of the land formerly owned by Hannah O'Brien
concerned in a Chancery Court case. (See Suspended File 10, with
O'Brien plaintiff and Green, defendant.) Acreage--339. (See figure
3.)

Fairfax County Deed Book W-4, p. 271, June 25, 1878.


1917    Sale by CAPTAIN FOUNTAIN BEATTIE, widower, to GEORGE SIMS of
Florida, 339 acres.

Fairfax County Deed Book C-8, p. 446, January 23, 1917.


1922    Sale of 339 acres by GEORGE R. SIMS and WALTER KAHN to JAMES
M. DUNCAN of Alexandria.

Fairfax County Deed Book Y-8, p. 50, June 12, 1922. (See figure 3.)


1924    Sale of 332 acres divided into 48 parcels by MARY V. DUNCAN
and CARROLL PIERCE to FREDERICK SEGESSERMAN.

Fairfax County Deed Book J-9, p. 23, June 23, 1924.


1931    Sale of 28 acres "on State Highway 6, a new concrete road from
Alexandria to Virginia" by CAROLINE and FREDERICK SEGESSERMAN to
MINNIE WHITESELL.


1942    Sale of 33.128 acres by MINNIE WHITESELL to MICHAEL and
BELINDA STRAIGHT. (See figure 8.)

Fairfax County Deed Book P-15, p. 147.




APPENDIX C

WILL OF JOHN MOSS, 1809

Fairfax County Superior Court Willbook No. 1, pp. 1-3.


"In the name of God Amen I John Moss of the County of Fairfax and
State of Virginia do hereby make and Ordain this my last will and
testament in manner and form following to wit I give to my son John
Moss the plantation whereon he now lives which was leased by me of the
late Rev^d Bryan Fairfax and the service of my Negro man Nat until the
period arrives when he is to go out free agreeable to a Deed of
Manumition Recorded in Fairfax County Court upon his paying his sister
Frances Middleton Fifty Dollars which with what I have heretofore
given him I consider as his full part of my estate. Item having
already given my daughter Frances Middleton a lease I held under the
said Bryan Fairfax Deceased known as Buck Spring and a negro woman by
the name of Maria as long as she has to serve under the before
mentioned Deed of Manumition I now give and bequeath unto her as her
full part of my estate the sum of Fifty Dollars to be paid her by her
brother John Moss in twelve months after my Decease provided the said
negro man Nat given him shall survive me and come to the actual
possession of my son John Moss. Item I give and bequeath unto my son
Robert Moss and his heirs forever the plantation whereon he now lives
so as to include one third part of the lands I purchased of Daniel
Summers and Baldwin Dade agreeable to the deed I have made him also
two acres on the south side of the Turnpike to be laid off along the
line of West and to join the land I have before given him. In order to
afford an outlet to the Turnpike Road, and as the word (also) may be
understood to imply my Intention is to give him those two acres more
than his third part before-mentioned I declare it is not but that they
are to be included in the same. Item I give and bequeath unto my
grandson Gideon Moss and my grand Daughter Elizabeth K. Moss two
hundred Dollars each to be paid them or their heirs in eighteen months
after my Decease which with what I gave their father in his lifetime I
consider and hereby declare to be their full part of my Estate. Item I
give to wife Ann Moss during her natural life the use of all the rest
and residue of my Estate real, personal and mixed for the support of
her and such of my daughters as may be at the time of my Death
unmarried and after her decease I give and bequeath unto my Sons
William Moss and Thomas Moss and their heirs forever the residue of
the lands purchased by me of the aforementioned Summers and Dade to be
divided between them as follows: Beginning on the Turnpike road
adjoining the two acres given my son Robert Moss for an Outlet thence
down the said road opposite to my gate thence a southerly course to a
small Drain about fifteen poles from the Turnpike road by the name of
Crumps Branch thence down the said Branch and bending therewith to the
intersection of the Dividing line of the lands purchased by me of the
before-mentioned Summers and Dade thence with the said line eastwardly
to where it crosses the Turkey Branch thence up the said branch with
the Several Courses of my deed from the said Summers to the
Intersection of West's line thence with the line to the beginning
which several courses include that part of my land I wish my son
Thomas to enjoy all but the houses where John Powell now lives with
four acres adjoining it I add to the lands I intended for my daughters
Patsy, Mary and Anne and in case it should exceed one third part of my
purchase from the said Summers and Dade then I direct that my son
Thomas Moss do pay to his brother William Moss at the rate of Twenty
five Dollars for every acre that may be included in his said lott over
and above one third part of the said two purchases of Summers and
Dade. Item I give and bequeath to my three daughters Patty Moss, Mary
Moss and Anne Moss and their heirs forever after my wife's Decease the
whole of the lands I purchased of William H. Terrett to be equally
divided including the homes and four acres adjoining (as mentioned
before) between them and two thirds parts of the whole of my personal
estate be divided between them and their heirs forever. Item the rest
and residue or the One third part of my personal estate after my
wife's decease I give and bequeath unto my three sons Robert Moss,
William Moss and Thomas Moss to be equally Divided between them and
their heirs & lastly I appoint my wife Ann Moss executrix and my sons
Robert Moss, William Moss and Thomas Moss executors of my last will
and testament hereby revoking all other and former wills by me
heretofore made In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and
affixed my seal this fourteenth day of November Anno 1808 Present

John Moss    SEAL    "

The will was presented by William Moss on October 25, 1809. William
Moss, George Mason, Joseph Powell and Reezen Wilcoxen set a bond of
$22,000 to guarantee that William Moss make a true and perfect
inventory of all goods, chattles, and credits of the deceased and do
well and truly pay and deliver all legacies specified in the will.




APPENDIX D

SALES ACCOUNT OF THE PERSONAL ESTATE OF WILLIAM MOSS--1835


The following list contains the items comprising the personal estate
of William Moss, entered at a sale at auction held April 15 and 16,
1835.

The original list appears in Fairfax County Will Book S-1, pages 7-18,
and shows the name of the purchaser for each item. In listing the
items here, the names of the purchasers have been omitted and the
items listed by categories for convenience.


FURNITURE

  1 pine Table                              .50
  2 Washstands, Bowl & pitchers            2.25
  1 Bed weighing 70 lbs at 34 cts         23.80
  1 ditto--58 lbs at 39 cts               22.62
  1 ditto--78 lbs at 27 cts               27.06
  1 ditto--58 lbs at 26 cts               15.08
  1 ditto--70 lbs at 32 cts               22.40
  1 ditto--58 lbs at 29 cts               16.82
  1 Pair Card Tables                      10.50
  1 Set Dining Tables                     10.50
  1 Breakfast Table                        4.00
  1 Portable Writing Desk                  4.00
  1 Mantle Clock                          26.00
  1 Stool                                   .37
  1 Tester Bedstead                        2.50
  1 Mahogeny Bedstead                      3.30
  1 Bedstead                               2.00
  1 Bedstead                               4.00
  1 Mahogeny Bedstead                      5.65
  1 Maple Bedstead                        12.00
  1 Mahogeny Bedstead                      6.25
  1 striped carpet                         3.40
  1 striped carpet                         4.10
  1 striped carpet                         1.55
  1 figured carpet                         3.25
  1 large carpet                          17.00
  1 striped ditto (new)                   28.00
  1 piece stair carpet                     5.50
  1 Striped Carpet                         8.75
  1 Striped Carpet (small)                 5.00
  1 passage carpet                         1.00
  1 arm chair                              1.00
  1 Dozen red chairs                       1.25
  1/2 Dozen cream coloured chairs          4.00
  1/2 Dozen cream coloured chairs          4.00
  1/2 Dozen rush seat chairs               9.00
  1/2 Dozen rush seat chairs               8.75
  1/2 Dozen Black Chairs                   4.25
  1/2 Dozen Black Chairs                   2.00
  1 Side Board                            21.00
  2 waiters                                 .37-1/2
  1 Breakfast table                        2.25
  1 Walnut Safe                            6.25
  1 Book Case                             16.00
  1 Pair Andirons Shovel & Tongs           1.75
  1 Safe & contents                        2.25
  1 Pair And Irons & Fender                 .75
  1 Bureau                                 4.80
  1 Dressing Glass                         3.50
  1 Pair And Irons brush &c                1.30
  1 Dressing Glass                         1.37-1/2
  1 Bureau                                 7.50
  1 bureau                                 5.10
  1 dressing glass                         1.50
  1 gilt looking glass                     3.50
  1 pair andirons                          2.85
  1 bed weighing 80 lbs at 24 cts         19.20


HOUSEHOLD FURNISHINGS

  1 Pair Decanters                               4.00
  2 Glass Pitchers                                .87
  2 Latts                                        1.00
  22 Wine Glasses                                3.87
  10 Gelly Glasses                                .75
  1 Dozen Jelly Glasses                          1.15
  9 Glass Caps                                   1.37-1/2
  1 Celery Glass                                 1.00
  3 Bottles & 1 Decanter                         1.50
  1 Mire Filler                                   .25
  1 Glass Stand                                  2.00
  1 toaster                                       .50
  1 Waiter, tea Pot &c                            .25
  1 Cork Screw                                    .25
  1 Pair Waiters                                 2.00
  1 Waiter and contents                          2.80
  1 Large Bowl                                   4.00
  2 Pair Brass Candlesticks & Snuffers           1.50
  1 Waiter & 4 Glasses                            .50
  1 pair Tureens                                 1.00
  11 Small Plates                                 .87-1/2
  6 Soup plates                                   .75
  7 dishes                                       1.50
  1 bowl and Mustard Pot                          .25
  1 Pitcher                                       .25
  2 Plated Baskets                               9.50
  1 Pair Plated Candlesticks                     8.75
  1 Pair Plated Snuffers & Tray                  6.25
  1 Lot dishes & crocks                           .95
  1 Kettle                                        .76
  1 bag of Corks                                  .15
  2 casks & contents                             1.50
  a parcel tins                                   .25
  1 Oven, Kettle & Hooks                          .62-1/2
  1 Cake Moulds & pot                             .50
  1 Strainer, print & Bowl                        .55
  1 Pewter Basin, Tin &c                          .55
  1 Gun & apparatus                              7.75
  1 Fire Sett (complete)                        16.00
  1 Fire Set (in Dining Room)                    4.90
  1 Bucket, tub & Griddle                         .50
  1 Shovel & Tongs & sifter                       .50
  1 old safe and contents                         .40
  1 tin safe and basin                           2.00
  2 Jugs, 4 Crocks & 1 jar                       1.25
  5 Large stone crocks                           1.35
  3 earthen and stone jar                         .30
  1/2 Dozen jars                                 1.00
  1/2 Dozen old crocks                           1.15
  2 pewter basins                                1.00
  1 China diner set                             11.25
  5 Large Dishes                                 3.00
  5 pieces Brittania Ware                        5.00
  1/2 Dozen silver spoons                        5.00
  1/2 Dozen silver spoons                        5.12-1/2
  5 Silver Spoons                                2.25
  1/2 Dozen Silver Table Spoons                 16.00
  4 Silver Table Spoons                          8.50
  2 Salt Spoons & toddy ladle                    5.00
  1 Pair sugar tongs                             1.75
  1 Soup ladle                                   9.00
  2 Silver tumblers                              9.50
  1 Sett Tea ware                                 .50
  1 Large bowl                                    .60
  1 Sett Castors                                 6.00
  1 Lot Wood ware                                1.50
  1 Lage pots & hooks & 1 Lage oven              2.00
  1 Large oven                                    .76
  1 oven and Pot                                 1.80
  1 Frying pan & Grid Iron                        .75
  3 pots                                          .62-1/2
  1 Furnace, Kettle & pot                         .25
  1 Spice Mortar & Pestle                         .75
  1 Brass Kettle                                 3.00
  1 Reel &c 2 Spinning Wheels Basket & Contents  5.85
  2 Smoothing Irons                               .87-1/2
  1 Quilting frame                                .12-1/2
  4 pairs Cards                                   .55
  1 Lot frames & Brushes                          .75
  2 Dozen Knives & forks                        13.00
  1 chest                                         .37-1/2
  1 pair Round Tables & Bellows                  2.00
  1 Writing Desk, Slate & Inkstand               1.25
  1 basket of Chambey                            1.12-1/2
  1 Table, Desk & five mp & contents             1.45
  1 pair pillow cases                             .80
  3 pair pillow cases                            1.55
  1 pillowcase                                    .35
  3 pair cotton pillow cases                      .84
  1 Table Cloth                                  1.30
  1 ditto ditto                                   .35
  1 Table Cloth                                   .63
  1 ditto                                         .50
  1 ditto                                         .70
  1 ditto                                        1.75
  1 ditto                                        2.00
  1 Pair Diaper towels                            .42-1/2
  1 Ditto Ditto                                   .30
  1 Ditto Ditto                                   .28
  1 Ditto Ditto                                   .28
  1 Ditto Ditto                                   .26
  1 Ditto Ditto                                   .15
  1 Ditto Ditto                                   .26
  1 Ditto Ditto                                   .28
  3 Toilet Covers                                1.43
  1 Toilet Cover                                 1.37-1/2
  1 Toilet Cover                                  .16
  1 Box, Boot Jack & old Stool                    .30
  1 Lot Cake Moulds                               .15
  1 Shovel & Tongs & Warfel Irons                 .31
  1 Driping Table
  1 ditto--3 fire screnes & Lot old tin          1.25
  1 Pair Blankets                                4.05
  5 pair Blankets                               10.62-1/2
  1 ditto Ditto                                  2.75
  1 White Counterpane                            2.55
  1 striped ditto                                 .75
  1 pair Blankets                                3.12-1/2
  1 white Counterpane                            4.55
  1 calico Ditto                                 1.68
  1 ditto Comfort                                2.00
  1 Ditto Ditto                                  1.55
  1 White Counterpane                           10.00
  1 Figured Ditto                                1.91
  1 White Counterpane                            1.75
  1 ditto ditto                                  2.80
  ditto ditto                                    3.50
  ditto ditto                                    1.50
  ditto ditto                                    2.75
  2 Counterpanes                                 2.25
  2 tablecloths                                  9.00
  8 pair Sheets                                 22.30
  2 pair sheets                                  3.80
  4 ditto ditto                                  9.12-1/2
  2 ditto ditto                                  6.87-1/2
  1 Pair Blankets $4.25--1 ditto $3              7.25
  1 clothes brush                                 .31


PICTURES, BOOKS AND PAPERS

  2 Maps U. States              8.80
  1 Print of Thomas Jefferson    .25
  5 volumes Washington life     5.00
  1 Vol. Gordons Digest          .25
  1 Vol. Guthries Geography     2.25
  1 Vol. biography dictionary   1.75
  6 Vol. paper work at 25 cts   1.50
  1 Vol. Life of Napoleon        .62-1/2
  1 Vol. Olive Branch            .51
  1 Vol. Memoirs of Napoleon     .35
  1 Vol. Tuckers History         .26
  4 Vol. Modern Europe          2.00
  10 Vol. Encyclopedia          3.00
  1 Vol. Burns Work              .16
  1 Vol. Christianity           1.10
  1 Vol. Classes Cookery         .14
  1 Vol. Haies Pleas             .40
  1 dictionary                  1.00
  1 Book on Farriery             .30
  1 lot old Books               1.30
  1 lot old books                .51
  1 vol. History of Rome         .37
  1 vol. Dridens Tour            .20
  1 vol. Strong Bow              .17
  1 vol. Political Enquiries     .50
  1 vol. Ewells Discourses       .37
  2 vol. Sydney on Government   1.75
  5 vol. Shakespeare             .95
  1 vol. Montagues Reflections   .42
  1 vol. Gambler                 .15
  1 vol. History U. States       .85
  1 vol. Snodens America         .26
  1 vol. Astronomy               .22


NEGROES

  Negro Isaac                      800.00
    "   Jacob                      800.00
    "   Aaron                      660.00
    "   Cornelius, Betsey & Child  800.00
    "   Edward                     550.00
    "   Maria                      528.00
    "   Mary Ann                   600.00
    "   Kitty                      620.00
    "   Ann                        630.00
    "   Cornelia                   500.00
    "   Jane                       240.00
    "   Ellen                      205.00
    "   Daniel                     175.00
    "   Massa                      131.00
    "   Jenny                       40.00
    "   Emanuel                     40.00
    "   Chloe                        0.50
    "   Charles                    250.00


FARM PRODUCE

  1 Stack Hay                      29.50
  1 pacel of Hay                    8.65
  1 Stack of Oats                  35.00
  1  "         "                   43.00
  1 lot Wheat Straw                 1.25
  1 Beehive 1st choice              1.25
  1    "     2nd   "                 .75
  5 Barrels Corn at $4.10          20.50
  10   "      "   at $4.12         41.20
  5 Barrels Corn at   4.05          20.25
  5    "      "       4.10-1/2     20.50
  4    "      "       4.12-1/2     16.50
  3    "      "       4.12-1/2     12.37-1/2
  1 Hogshead of Vinegar             2.62-1/2
  1 Beehive 3rd choice               .62-1/2
  5 empty Bee gums                   .12-1/2
  1 barrel soap                     1.60
  105 lbs Bacon at 12-1/2 per lbs  13.12
  103  "    "    "  13      "      13.39
  100  "    "    "  13-1/2  "       13.50
  100  "    "    "  13-1/2  "       13.50
  257  "    "    "  13      "       32.60
  61   "    "    "  10              6.10
  1 Barrel vinegar                  1.65
  1   "        "                    1.55
  1   "        "                    1.90
  1 barrel vinegar                  3.30
  1 barrel vinegar                  3.30
  1 Hogshead of Vinegar             5.00
  1 bag Wool 45 lbs at 32          14.40
  1 ditto    25-1/2 at 25           8.92
  1 ditto     5     at 26           1.30
  1 bag yarn 35 lbs at 54 cts      18.90


ANIMALS

  1 Dun mare                                    52.50
  1 Sorrel Horse                                78.00
  1 Bay Horse                                   40.00
  1 ditto do                                    48.50
  1 Sorrel Horse                                57.00
  1 Bay Horse                                   88.00
  1 Stud Colt                                   62.50
  1 ditto (Sir James 6 years old)               111.00
  10 and 10 lambs (Jno Washington 1st choice)   42.00
  73 Ewes & Lambs at $2. each (Jno Washington)  146.00
  1 cow                                         10.12-1/2
  1 White and Red Cow                           15.00
  1 cow and Bell                                10.00
  1 Black Cow                                   17.12-1/2
  1 Red Heifer                                   7.06-1/2
  1 White and Red Cow                           17.50
  1 ditto ditto                                 14.50
  1 Black and White Cow                         18.00
  1 Buffalo Cow                                 18.25
  2 Breeding Sows                                6.00
  5 shoats 1st choice                            7.50
  4   do   2nd ditto                             5.00
  1 Black Cow                                   14.00
  1 cow                                         14.00
  1  "  heifer                                  13.00
  1 Red Steer                                    6.00
  1 Dark Steer                                  13.00


TOOLS, FARM EQUIPMENT AND IMPLEMENTS OF HUSBANDRY

  1 Lot old gear                                 2.70
  1 Lot old plough gear                          2.55
  Cart gear Harness &c                           2.40
  1 Lot old Carriage irons &c                    4.50
  5 Mowing Scythes                               2.10
  2 Scythes & Cradles                            2.35
  1 Grind Stone                                  3.25
  4 Sacking Bags                                 1.00
  12 old tubs 25 cts--1 cutting box 3.25         3.50
  1 pair saddle bags                             3.50
  3 tubs, barrel &c                               .35
  2 old pots oven &c                              .25
  1 large iron kettle and soap                   5.00
  2 empty barrels and 1 barrels soap             1.67
  3 old tubs                                      .15
  1 Light Cart                                  30.50
  1 Broad Tread Cart                            11.70
  1 Wagon & 2 extra Bodys                       34.50
  1 Sand Sifter                                   .50
  1 Wheat fan                                    9.00
  A pacel Rye and Oat Straw                     18.00
  2 old grain hogsheads                           .50
  1 augur crank &c                                .75
  old harness                                     .12-1/2
  1 box and some glass                            .50
  3 barrels & some salt                           .60
  1 old Saddle                                    .25
  9 old barrels                                   .62
  4 empty stands or Hogsheads                    2.37-1/2
  3 empty Hogsheads & 2 barrels                  2.12-1/2
  2 pair Shears and Keg White Lead               1.37-1/2
  1 Sett Scales & Weights & Jugs                  .51
  1 pair Stirrup                                  .35
  1 parcel Shvel and Spades                      1.75
  2 Forks and Rake                                .50
  1 Lot Swingletrees                             1.80
  2 Wheel Barrows                                1.12
  1 old Cart Body, Shafts, &c                    3.55
  1 Carriage & harness                          35.00
  1 Saddle and Bridle                            8.00
  1 rope                                          .26
  1 Sett Blacksmith's Tools                     20.75
  1 bucket & old iron                             .31
  3 Halter Chains                                 .75
  1 Jack Screw                                   2.00
  1 old boring machine                           1.00
  1 chain and old plough share                    .55
  1 Crow bar and Bar of Iron                     1.37-1/2
  1 Barshear plough                              7.50
  1 Dutch plough                                  .87-1/2
  3 Chopping Axes                                1.15
  1 Lot Carpenters tools $2.25--1 Log Chain $1   3.25
  2 axes                                         2.25
  1 Small Bar Shear plough                       7.50
  1 Large Bar Shear plough                       7.25
  1 Large ditto-old                              1.00
  3 old ploughs                                   .12-1/2
  1 pair Steelyards                              1.00
  5 Hilling Hoes & fork                          1.25
  1 Harrow                                       5.00




APPENDIX E


Transcript of part of an affidavit from Thomas R. Love and Alfred Moss
to Judge John Scott of the Circuit Superior Court.

To the Hon^ble John Scott Judge of the Circuit Superior Court of Law
and Chancery of the County of Fairfax. Respectfully Complaining
Herewith unto your Honor, your Orators Thomas R. Love guardian of
Charles R. and Armistead T. Moss, and Alfred Moss guardian of Edgar
and John Thomas Moss, the three first infant Children of Thomas Moss
dec^d & the last named the infant son of Jno Moss dec^d son of Thomas
Moss--

That Thomas Moss died intestate on the ____ day of October, 1839,
leaving Seven Children and One grand Child in all his Heirs at
Law--viz. Anna R. Love the wife of your Orator Thomas R. Love, Robert
Moss, Alfred Moss, Thomas Moss & the four infant Children just
named--Edgar the Eldest of these infant Children will be 20 years old
in November of the present year. Charles R. will be 18 years old in
the month of March 1840, Armistead 16 in the month of December in the
present year and John Thomas Moss will ____ years old in the month of
____ 18__.

The real Estate of which Thomas Moss died seized in ____ was the tract
of land on which he resided at the time of his death situated on both
sides of the Little River Turnpike Road about Six miles from
Alexandria containing about 320 Acres. This tract of land is the only
real Estate to which the Heirs at Law of said Thomas Moss are entitled
in the said County of Fairfax or Elsewhere--This tract of land is
naturally a thin soil but from a careful course of husbandry for a
number of years, is now in a good state of cultivation, the fields
well enclosed by good and substantial fencing, the land not in
cultivation well taken with grass (clover and timothy) and that in
cultivation just sown down in winter grass, and the buildings in a
good state of repair, the barn and stables having been Erected in the
last two or three years--

Your orators have been advised by persons in the neighbourhood with
whom they have conversed, with the view of getting the best advice and
information on the subject that the tract of land would not now rent
for more than ____ per annum, which would give to each of the Heirs in
the shape of rent Twenty five or Thirty dollars annually--while on the
other hand owing as your Orators believe to the Convenient distance
thence to Alexandria, George Town and Washington and the improved
state of the farm in other respects, it would sell upon the usual
terms of Sales of land for Twenty five dollars per Acre and thus
afford an interest on the sale nearly double the annual rent--In
addition to the fact that the rent would greatly fall short of the
interest on the sale your orators have been advised that the property
in the hands of tenants would in the course of a few years be
excessively injured and lessened in value, the soil impoverished, the
buildings and fencing neglected and suffered to delapidate perhaps
destroyed.

It is obvious that the land cannot be advantageously divided among the
heirs Eight in number it would give about forty acres to each heir,
and this without regard to improvements--And the consideration deeply
affecting the interests of the infant is that this farm must be rented
out all the shares together manifestly--if therefore those now of age
and those that soon will be of age should sell their shares each share
thus sold off, will not only proportionally lessen in value the shares
of the other remaining unsold, but will place the younger children as
they come of age in the power and at the mercy of the person who shall
have purchased the other shares of the co-terminus neighbour. In the
End the consequence will be that the two or three younger children
will not only be forced to sell, being hemmed in on all sides, and not
able to add to their Inheritance but must sell at any price they are
offered. Your orators further state that besides the real Estate
before mentioned in which their wards have as interest One Eighth
each, after the payment of the debts of Thomas Moss deceased so far as
it is practicable to make an Estimate at this time, it is believed
that a surplus will be left for distribution of about fifteen or
sixteen thousand dollars, which will give to each child say two
thousand--

Viewing the present interest as well as the future interests of their
wards your orators are of the opinion from the facts hereinbefore
stated, that the interests of their wards manifestly require a sale of
the real Estate herein before mentioned and that the rights of others
will not be thereby violated. And to that end and in pursuance of the
Acts of the Gen'l Assembly in such cases made and provided, they pray
that said Anna R. Love late Anna R. Moss, Alfred Moss, Robert, Thomas
Edgar, Charles R., Armistead and John Thomas Moss be made parties
defendants to this bill--that the said Anna R. Love the wife of your
orator and Alfred Moss who would be two of the Heirs of either of said
infants if they are dead and that said Anna R. be permitted to answer
for herself as if feme sole. That the said Anna R. Love, Robert Moss,
Alfred Moss, Thomas Moss and all the other infants herein before
mentioned who are over fourteen years of age may be compelled to
answer this bill in proper person or oath--That a Guardian Ad Litem
may be appointed according to Law to defend and answer for those
infants as well those over fourteen years, as those under fourteen
years of age.--That your orators may have a Decree of the Ct
authorizing the sale of the said land in such manner and upon such
terms of credit as to your Honor may seem right--And your orators pray
for all other & further action by your Honor in the premises as may be
right & proper according to the Act of assembly made and provided in
such cases--May it please your honor &c.

(Certified by J. B. Hunter, a Justice of the Peace, 29 October 1839)




Appendix F

Fairfax County (Va.) Will Book T-1, page 223:


December 2, 1839 Thomas Moss' slaves divided among the several heirs.

  Lot 1--To Robert Moss--Jim $75.00, Winney $75.00, Teuton $300
  and, to pay Lot 7 $30                                         $420.

  Lot 2--To John T. Moss--Dominick $425, and, to pay Lot 7 $5    420.

  Lot 3--To Armistead Moss--Sarah $450, and, to pay Lot 7 $85
  and Lot 6 $45                                                  420.

  Lot 4--To Charles Moss--Martha $450, and, to pay Lot 7 $30     420.

  Lot 5--To Thomas Moss Anzau (?)--Laura $350, Frances $450,
  and, pay Lot 7 $30                                             420.

  Lot 6--To Alfred Moss--Carolina $200, Harriet $175,
  and payment from Lot 3 $45.                                    420.

  Lot 7--To Edgar Moss--Susan $200, T. R. Love $280, plus
  others by amount of keeping Louisa, an insane negro $240       420.

  We have valued the advancement made to T. R. Love in negro
  Henry $700, plus bond of a Moss daughter,
  and to pay to Lot 7 $280                                       420.




APPENDIX G

A Visit from Mr. Polevoy

THE NEW REPUBLIC

  Soviet newspapers are bitter about the insincerity of American
  visitors to their country. While in the USSR, they say, Americans
  are lavish with their praise, but on returning home, they speak
  quite differently of Russia to their fellow Americans. Our
  newspapers in turn maintain that Soviet delegations to this
  country wear a mask of friendliness but once back in Russia
  present a hostile and unrecognizable picture of the United
  States.

  Do visiting Soviet delegations present a true picture of their
  travels here to their own people? The editors of _The NR_ have
  been given an opportunity to test this question. A delegation of
  leading Soviet writers visited the United States in October, 1955,
  under the chairmanship of Boris Kampov-Polevoy, a Soviet novelist
  and Secretary of the Union of Soviet Writers. Mr. Polevoy and four
  members of his delegation spent one evening at the house of the
  _NR_ editor-at-large. In the third of his articles on his journeys
  through the US published in the March issue of the Soviet monthly,
  _Oktyabr_, Mr. Polevoy describes the occasion as he remembers it.
  A translation of his article, and our comments follow.


In the evening we were invited to be the guests of Mr. Michael
Straight, editor of the magazine _The New Republic_, at his
out-of-town villa bearing the poetic name of "Green Spring Farm." This
tiny villa was in no way different from the small suburban houses of
well-to-do members of the "intelligentsia" which we already had the
opportunity of visiting. Alone the huge agglomeration of books on long
shelves--quite unusual for an American home--and the beautiful
pictures on the walls revealed that the owners of this house had a
passion for literature and an artistic taste which could enable them
to discriminate between works of genuine art and the militant
flatness, which under the mask of innovationism has impertinently
seized the key positions in American art. There were canvasses and
drawings which not only prompted one to wonder on passing by, but
which induced a desire to stop, to admire and to think.

The people who had gathered at the house were interesting too--journalists
who had traveled a great deal, who had witnessed many events, who were
able to think. A unionist leader was also present--an observing,
aggressive, skeptical man.

At the outset--as it is the custom in the United States--the host
showed us around his house. The five of us were jammed in for quite a
while on the second floor in the tiny bedrooms of his two sons. David,
the eldest, a fair-haired, healthy looking youngster, had his little
room in a state of complete disorder. The radio was roaring, the gay
green parakeets were screaming. Some radio parts together with books,
screwdrivers, tubes of glue, bookbinders and knives were heaped on the
table. The little occupant, apparently ready to go to bed, was sitting
on his bed without his shirt and was reading something. At the sight
of strangers he felt bashful, grabbed his shirt, started putting it on
and when his head eventually emerged through its collar, his face and
his ears were flushed and his brow pearled with sweat. However, having
dressed, he immediately regained his composure and, as though nothing
had happened, stretched out his hand with earnest poise. David--he
introduced himself.

His younger brother, Mikey, had an artistic temperament. His table was
all smeared with water-colors and pictures were hanging on the
walls--fantastic tanks, ships, sinister profiles of Indians,
noble-featured cowboys wearing hats of incredible dimensions. Mikey
was evidently successful in this hobby of his and, after looking at
his drawings, one could tell him without false flattery that he was an
artist of the realist school and that many of his pictures were more
accurate and perfect as to form than whatever is being exhibited by
quite adult "uncles" at the opening of exhibitions of the so-called
"new art."

Mikey dressed, too, and we came down in a group to the living room
where Gribatchov was having an argument with our American colleagues.
The topic was familiar, I should even say a classical one--the freedom
of the press. In the heat of the dispute the _NR_ publisher proposed
to Gribatchov an exchange of articles on important international
topics under reciprocal terms--once a week the editor of _The New
Republic_ would publish an article in the _Literary Gazette_
presenting the American viewpoint on some specific problem and once a
week a representative of the _Literary Gazette_ would give the Soviet
point of view in an article in _The New Republic_. Apparently this
idea seemed very attractive to our American colleague, and he was
attacking Gribatchov with quite a lot of energy.

I did not have a chance to hear the argument to its end. The
fair-haired David, with whom I had become quite friendly, dragged me
away to the next room. We conversed in the manner of cavemen, using
dramatic gesticulations and incoherent sounds, and yet we somehow
managed to understand each other. David even managed to convey that he
had built that radio himself, and that he likes to listen to Russian
music. In proof of this he even sang, with boyish diligence and with a
broken juvenile "basso," a melody taken out of _Swan Lake_. However,
he rendered it with a foxtrot rhythm.

I really liked that lively American youngster with his tall build, his
curly fair hair, his rooster-like voice and his absent-minded
disposition which strongly reminded me of my eldest son.

David showed me his favorite books, and then he suddenly produced a
peculiar-looking magazine printed with a multigraph. He prodded his
chest in a self-satisfied manner to demonstrate to me that this was
his own magazine. He showed me a caricature drawing with his finger
and then pointed his finger at Mikey, thus making clear that his
brother was the artist.

Then the children ran back to the living room and came back dragging
their father with them and M. M. Lopuchin, whom they had literally
abducted out of an interesting conversation with the ladies. It was
then that I came to hear the story of the magazine, which bore the
romantic name _The Green Spring-Menemsha Gazette_.

       *       *       *       *       *

Michael senior, the children's father, evidently liked their
undertaking. He sat down on the carpet next to us and as he was
turning the pages of the magazine, he told us that out of a wish to
imitate their father, the children had decided to start a publication.
They wrote articles and other items, prepared illustrations and
caricatures and arranged the whole material inside a copybook. They
kept quiet so long that their parents wondered what their rowdy boys
were doing. The parents went upstairs and found the boys busy over a
heap of papers; the _Gazette_ was already being "paged up."

David, the editor of the publication, knew from his father's
experience that every printed organ must have readers. The children
begged their father to give them a typewriter and when they got it,
began to type patiently, with one finger, one page after the other,
learning the art of typing in the process of their work.

Seeing that the children's interest did not abate, the father gave
them a present--a cheap toy "Shapirograph"--to print their magazine.
Having secured production equipment, the editorial staff began to work
with renewed energy. David, who up to that time was sharing his
interest among many pursuits, forsook his former preferences. Even the
little green parakeets, whom he loved dearly, were left without food
quite often and sadly chattered in their cage. David had the jobs of
editor, author of articles and typographer. The sturdy Mikey was the
publisher, artist and supplier of funny stories. A neighbor's little
girl, Xandra Babel, was responsible for the news and special
events--indispensable departments of every American editorial unit
worthy of this name.

At any rate, no matter how, the magazine eventually appeared. It was
even printed in 75 copies, diligently bound and, the following year
when the family left for the beach during the hot season, to the
mother's great dismay, the whole issue and even the typographic
equipment consisting of the typewriter and the multigraph as well as
the paper stocks were taken along.

[Illustration: Boris Kampov-Polevoy]

During the summer the children made friends with a certain Mr. Zur, an
original character and owner of the Menemsha store. The old man liked
children and whenever they came to his shop to buy candy, salted nuts
or a bag of popcorn, they always used to stay there for a while and
discuss the weather, politics and all sorts of events with him. Mr.
Zur used to talk to children as though they were grownups, and this
contributed a lot to his popularity. When they arrived at the summer
resort, the first thing the children did was to run to their old
friend's shop and there, as they were eating fresh cracking popcorn,
they told him the staggering news--they had published a magazine.

"A magazine? And how much costs one copy of your magazine, gentlemen?"
inquired Mr. Zur in a businesslike manner.

The children exchanged quick glances. Somehow they had not arrived at
the thought that their magazine could be sold.

"It costs nothing, sir," David started saying.

"No, no, it costs one dollar," the quick-witted Mikey interrupted his
brother as this new aspect of their hobby began to dawn upon him. "One
dollar."

"It's rather expensive, gentlemen. However, I enjoy reading, and so I
will buy one copy," replied the old shopkeeper and handed over a dirty
green bill to the journalists. They were left quite speechless by this
development.

The business was continued. Realizing that there were quite a few
funny people among the dwellers in that summer resort and wishing to
please his little friends, old Zur took over the newsstand sale of
their publication on a commission basis. He even displayed the
magazine in his shop window. To his astonishment, the whole of the
first issue was sold out. Four more followed. By the end of the
summer, the boys' income, after deduction of expenses and commissions,
amounted to roughly $50. The children gave this money--not without
some regret, to be truthful--to the local fishermen whose boats had
been shattered against the rocks of the coast by a passing hurricane.

Inspired by the unexpected success of their first year's operations,
the editorial staff resumed publication in the following summer at
that same resort. It proved even more interesting. It contained
interviews with fishermen and lobstermen and a story told by an old
captain of a fishing schooner, who was spending his declining years in
a dilapidated shack by the seashore. That huge, hoarse, bearded giant
was always drunk. But in his rare moments of sobriety he was kind,
used to give candy to the children and nobody could tell fascinating
sea adventure stories better than he did. Mikey managed to catch him
in such a mood and the magazine was adorned, as a result, with a
powerful story by the old captain about a hurricane that threw ships
around like bits of paper and about the rescue of a beautiful lady
passenger who had been thrown into the ocean by the roaring gale, by
the captain himself, who saved her out of the waves at the risk of his
own life.

       *       *       *       *       *

The children's hobby, which so clearly demonstrated their propensity
toward journalism, greatly interested us. During our visits with
various American families our attention had been drawn more than once
to this good trait--if indeed it is not a tradition--which makes the
children familiarize themselves with the profession of their father,
or their grandfather, or some close relative. In the apartment of an
auto-mechanic we saw a small lathe and a block on which a little
fellow was filing something. In the family of a musician, little girls
played on the violin. The little son of a well-known Hollywood
scenario-creator told us excitedly how he and his little brothers and
sisters were making a film. A child's game gradually develops into an
absorbing interest, and maybe in these games which are treated
seriously, not only by the children but as a rule by the adults too,
the seed of his future profession is planted in the child's brain.

I expressed the wish to become a subscriber to the _Green Spring-Menemsha
Gazette_ for a full year and took out a $5 bill. The editor and the
publisher exchanged glances. They obviously wished to get a foreign
subscriber. But what if this should create trouble of some kind? Were
they entitled to mail their magazine abroad, and moreover, to a country
like the USSR? What would their father and mother say? And how would Mr.
John Foster Dulles react?

[Illustration: Green Spring-Menemsha Gazette]

David carefully pushed the bill away, back to my end of the table. I,
of course, felt offended. Could it be that I had no right to subscribe
to an American magazine? Why such discrimination? The editor whispered
something to the publisher who ran out of the room and came back
dragging Michael senior in once more. The father laughed. He
apparently had no objection to the mailing abroad of the magazine
which was being published under his sponsorship. All the periodical
publications of good standing always have foreign subscribers.
However, Michael senior had objections against any monetary
transaction with countries abroad. It was agreed that the subscription
would be handled on a clearing basis: the _Green Spring-Menemsha
Gazette_ would be mailed to the USSR in exchange for our children's
magazine _The Pioneer_. We shook hands on this transaction, concluded
to the mutual satisfaction of the "high contracting parties."

When we returned to the living room, the debate about the freedom of
the press was still continuing. But the two sides had exchanged
places. Gribatchov was the one who led the attack now; the idea of
exchanging articles with _The New Republic_ had gradually excited him.
Publisher Harrison, on the contrary, was taking a defensive stand: he
was already foreseeing numerous difficulties obstructing the
materialization of his project. The unionist leader was sitting on the
sofa next to them. He was a tall man with a pale face with an ironical
expression, and he was gently mocking the discomfited publisher.
"Really, why shouldn't there be an exchange of articles with a Russian
paper?"

So finally they came to no conclusion at all.

We were taking our seats in the car when David manfully shook hands
with me and suddenly asked: "Maybe you will write from Moscow a
contribution for publication in _The Green Spring-Menemsha Gazette_?
Our magazine will gladly publish it, I can promise you."

My negotiations with the editors of the _Gazette_ appeared to be more
fruitful than the ones Gribatchov had had with _The New Republic_.


JULY 16, 1956

Editors' Note:

There are, of course, some errors in Mr. Polevoy's story. Many are
due, as he notes, to the fact that parts of the conversation were
conducted through dramatic gesticulations and incoherent sounds. Bill
Seward, the youthful proprietor of Menemsha's post office and store,
for example, may not recognize himself as the ancient Mr. Zur, and the
author of Cassandra Bobble, a fictional caricature of society
columnists, will be surprised to see her creation re-emerge in Russian
as Xandra Babel the neighbor's girl reporter. More substantial, in the
editor's opinion, is his view that it was Mr. Gribatchov and not Mr.
Harrison who doubted the practicality of an exchange of articles. And
yet as many errors of detail and interpretation would no doubt be
found were we to describe an evening spent in Mr. Polevoy's villa
outside Moscow. As far as the general tone of Mr. Polevoy's account is
concerned we cannot complain.

Mr. Polevoy, after all, is describing an evening in the home of an
opponent of the political administration in power. Soviet readers learn
that it is a comfortable place, lived in by a family substantially
free from fear. The author refers in a mocking way to the shadow of
John Foster Dulles and mentions the reluctance of the boys to take his
$5 (the reason, lost in translation, was that they would not be
publishing their paper in 1956). But just as Mr. Polevoy seems about
to conclude with a political moral, he demolishes this traditional
ending in favor of the truth. For the discussion which Mr. Polevoy
describes ended with a whispered aside which the host found
startling. "We will put you on the subscriber's list to _The
Pioneer_!" Mr. Polevoy had roared to the boys; then he drew their
father aside: "That is, if it will not hurt you," he whispered. The
host laughed and explained that he and his sons were free citizens,
able to read whatever they pleased and happy to receive literature from
other lands. It seems gratifying to us that this small but memorable
incident has found its way into the Soviet press.

MICHAEL STRAIGHT




LIST OF SOURCE MATERIALS


BOOKS

Clarke, E.; Potts, J. M.; and Payton, J. S., eds. _The Journal and
Letters of Francis Asbury._ Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1958.

Davis, R. B. _Intellectual Life in Jefferson's Virginia._ Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina Press, 1964.

Gutheim, Frederick. _The Potomac._ New York: Rinehart, 1949.

Harrison, Fairfax. _Landmarks of Old Prince William._ Berryville, Va.:
Chesapeake Book Co., 1964.

Herndon, M. _Tobacco in Colonial Virginia._ Williamsburg: Virginia
350th Anniversary Celebration Corporation, 1957.

Hulbert, A. _Paths of Inland Commerce._ New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1921.

Johnston, Frederick. _Memorials of Old Virginia Clerks._ Lynchburg:
Bell Co., 1888.

Jones, Virgil C. _Ranger Mosby._ Chapel Hill: University of North
Carolina Press, 1944.

Moger, A. W. _The Rebuilding of the Old Dominion_ (PhD thesis). New
York: Columbia University, 1940.

Mosby, J. S. _Mosby's War Memoirs and Stuart's Cavalry Campaigns._ New
York: Pageant Book Company, 1958.

Porter. A. O. _Country Government in Virginia._ New York: Columbia
University Press, 1947.

Russell, C. W., ed. _The Memoirs of Colonel John S. Mosby._ Boston:
Little Brown, 1917.

Virginia Good Roads Convention. _Programme._ Richmond: Stone Printing
Co., October 18, 1894.

_Who's Who in America._ 1966-1967. Volume XXXIV. Chicago: A. N.
Marquis Company.

Williamson, James. _Mosby's Rangers._ New York: Sturgis & Walton,
1909.


ARTICLES

Abbott, R. H. "Yankee Farmers in Northern Virginia: 1840-1860."
_Virginia Magazine of History and Biography_, v. 76, No. 1 (January
1968), pp. 56-66.

Funk, W. C. "An Economic History of Small Farms near Washington, D.C."
U.S. Department of Agriculture Bulletin 848. Washington, D.C.:
Government Printing Office, 1920.

"A New House with Young Ideas." _House and Garden._ December 1958.

Straight, Michael. "A Visit from Mr. Polevoy." _The New Republic_, v.
135, No. 3 (July 16, 1956), pp. 12-15.

Willis, K. M. "Old Fairfax Homes Give Up a Secret." _The American
Motorist Magazine_, v. 7, No. 2 (May 1932), p. 16.


OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT RECORDS AND REPORTS

Annual Report of the President and Directors of the Board of Public
Works to the General Assembly of Virginia. 1818, 1819, 1820.

Fairfax County, Virginia. Deedbooks.

______. Minute Books.

______. Order Books.

______. Will Books.

Hening, William W., ed. _Statutes at Large_, 1823. Reprint ed.,
Charlottesville: University of Virginia, 1969.

National Archives, Military Records Division, Washington, D.C.
_Compiled Service Records of Confederate Soldiers who Served in
Organizations from Virginia._ Microcopy 324, Roll 207, "Hounshell's
Bat. Cav. Partisan Rangers, M-Z and Mosby's Bat. Cav. Partisian
Rangers A-D."

_Official Records of the War of the Rebellion._ Washington, D.C.:
Government Printing Office, 1888.

_Official Registers of Officers and Employees of the Civil, Military
and Naval Service of the United States._ (Issued Biennially.)
Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

Shepherd. _Statutes._

"Status of Virginia Agriculture in 1870" in _Report of the Commissioner
of Agriculture. 1870._ Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office,
1871, p. 267-291.

U.S. Treasury Department. Service Record (Form 426), "Beattie,
Fountain." (File in custody of Federal Records Center (GSA), St.
Louis, Mo.)


NEWSPAPER

_The Alexandria Gazette_


MANUSCRIPTS

_The Journal of John Littlejohn_, MS. Methodist Churches, Louisville,
Kentucky, April 29, 1778. (Copy courtesy of Reverend Melvin
Steadman.)

_Truro Parish Vestry Book_, 1732-1803, MS. Library of Congress.


MISCELLANEOUS

Fullerton, W. Address to Piedmont Agricultural Society, October 1876.

Macomber, Walter; Schlebecker, John; and Straight, Michael and
Belinda. Tape-recorded interviews.

       *       *       *       *       *


Transcriber's Notes

Original, sometimes very archaic spellings retained.

Photographs still under copyright on pages 32, 42, 44, and 56 (Figures
9, 11-13, and 16-18) excluded.

Superscripts marked with a carat (i.e. Rev^d).

Passages in italics indicated by _underscores_.








*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK GREEN SPRING FARM, FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA ***


    

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.


START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when
you share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

    This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
    other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
    whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
    of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
    at www.gutenberg.org. If you
    are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
    of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
  
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:

    • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
        the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method
        you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
        to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has
        agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
        Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
        within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
        legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
        payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
        Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
        Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
        Literary Archive Foundation.”
    
    • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
        you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
        does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
        License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
        copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
        all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
        works.
    
    • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
        any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
        electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
        receipt of the work.
    
    • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
        distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
    

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™

Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,
Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.