Franklin County, Pennsylvania

Updated; February 3, 2022

Added: November 8, 2019

General Information about the different pages on this web site:

Pages on this web site contains information and pictures of Irwinton Mill (aka Anderson Mill), the nearby Hays Fording Double Arch Stone Bridge, the Witherspoon "Red" Covered Bridge, working model of a northern grist mill and a working model of a southern grist mill. Web Site also contain information about the Irwinton Historic District and the Hays Bridge Historic District taken with permission from two National Register of Historic Places Registration Forms. Information on these pages is generally about an area on or near Anderson Road and the Conococheague Creek in Montgomery Township, Franklin County, Pennsylvania.

Irwinton Historic District:

This page contains additional historical information about the Irwinton properties taken from a National Register of Historic Places Registration Form.

The form was completed by Paula S. Reed, Ph.D., Architectural Historian and Edie Wallace, M.A., Historian. The organization listed on the form is Paula S. Reed & Associates, Inc., 1 W. Franklin Street, Suite 300, Hagerstown, Maryland 21740. The form is dated as November, 2011.

The office is now closed but the current mailing address is PO Box 3566, Hagerstown MD 21741.

This historical information is listed as Irwinton Historic District, 9717 and 9685 Anderson Road, Montgomery Township, Franklin County, Pennsylvania.

Paula Reed gave permission to selectively use the historic information from her National Register of Historic Places Registration Form for this web site. The following information was taken from her form:

Irwinton Historic District

Anderson Road

Montgomery Township

Franklin County

Pennsylvania

November 2011

Description Summary

Irwinton Historic District, an 18^th and 19^th century mill and farmstead collection lies along the west branch of the Conococheague Creek in Montgomery Township of Franklin County, Pennsylvania, southeast of Mercersburg. The district clusters along Anderson Road at a point where the Conococheague flows due north in its winding path to the Potomac River at Williamsport in Washington County Maryland. The historic district includes a ca. 1778 stone Georgian-vernacular house with extraordinarily high style interior woodwork; an 1856 frame flour mill on stone foundations that likely remain in part from an earlier 1766 flour mill; a frame miller’s house; hog barn; log and frame secondary dwelling, all dating from the mid 19^th century; log smoke house, frame stable; ca. 1850 frame Pennsylvania bank barn; wagon shed/corn crib also mid 19^th century, frame hog barn associated with the barn and three early 20^th century buildings, a car shed, summer kitchen and smoke house associated with the stone house. Finally, the district includes the mill dam withearly 20^th century concrete surface, a sluice gate and its shed covering. The dam crosses the creek. All of the buildings are situated on the west side of the creek. The district is close to the National Register listed Hays Bridge Historic District and is set in a scenic landscape with the deep and slow-moving Conococheague flowing against limestone cliffs on its east edge then cascading over the mill dam on its course toward the Potomac River.

General Description

(see attached table, “Irwinton Historic District Resource Inventory,” to which the resource NR # is referenced)

The collection of buildings and structures that form the Irwinton Historic District began to form when Archibald Irwin established a flour and sawmill along the Conococheague Creek in 1766. He named the place “Irwinton,” and it continued in the hands of the

Irwins until 1849 when the family sold it to John William Henkell. After the original Irwinton Mill burned, Henkell built the present mill in 1856 on the site of the old one. Then in 1866, Henkell sold the stone house and farmland separately to James Whitherspoon, and the mill complex to Adam Kuhn and Jeremiah Witter. After several owners, the mill property transferred to the ownership of Chester Anderson in 1917 and remains in the Anderson family today. Meanwhile the Irwin stone house, agricultural buildings and land stayed in the Whitherspoon family until 1967. The history of the components of the Irwinton Historic District intertwines and provides a landscape that connects both visually and historically. Over time the farming operation on Irwinton continued, as did the flour and sawmilling activity. The mill operated under various names including Henkell Mill, Union Mills and currently as Anderson Mill. Long family ownerships of the Irwins,Whitherspoons and Andersons provide continuity and rootedness that result in a cohesive National Register historic district.

Stone House Complex

Irwinton House (NR #1): The stone house known as Irwinton dates from approximately 1777-1780, and was part of a mill and plantation developed by Archibald Irwin beginning in 1763. The house faces south overlooking the mill. The main part of the house is two stories with four bays across the south (front) façade. The north or back side of the house has three openings at each level with a central rear entrance. A one story, three bay kitchen addition extends to the east. The addition dates from approximately 1790. The entire house with the addition is recorded in the 1798 US Direct Tax.

Irwinton’s main section is tall with unusually large windows for such an early house in Franklin County. Indeed, the house pre-dates the establishment of Franklin County. The form, stonework and woodwork reflect the early construction date. The masonry courses at the front elevation are regular and even, and the original mortar joints were painted with white lines, like striking to further refine the masonry. Typical of many pre-1780 stone houses in the Cumberland Valley, radial (segmental) arches were used above the first story windows. The arches are absent above the second story windows and the front entrance, which show evidence of having had applied architrave surrounds, indicated by wooden nailer blocks that remain in place and stops in the painted mortar joints. Most likely the upper windows had crossettes to match those surrounding the front door. If these second story front windows had decorative wood architraves, they were likely removed along with other Georgian details (pent roof, large cornice, multi-pane window sash and door surround), in the 1860s or ‘70s. All first and second story windows, except for one, now have mid – late 19^th century two over two pane sash. One window in the west bay of the rear elevation has a nine over nine sash, which appears to be a 1960s replacement. The US Direct Tax of 1798 lists the main part of the house with 12 windows and 258 panes, which suggests a combination of 12 over 12 and 12 over 8 light sash originally. In the one story addition, window sash have also been replaced with two over two units, but the original window frames with pegged joints and ovolo trim remain. According to the US Direct Tax, in 1798, the kitchen had four windows and 60 panes, indicating 9 over 6 pane sash. Each gable contains two small attic level windows.

The front entrance is located in the third bay from the west end of the house. Its lintel is set slightly lower than those of the windows. The entrance has a four-light transom above the door and the opening is surrounded with a molded architrave with crossettes and ovolo trim. Wood nailer blocks around the door indicate that there was an additional surround, frontispiece and/or door hood. The door has six raised panels and matching raised panel jambs. The rear door is opposite in the north wall. It retains its original framing and door with six raised panels. Additional entrances into the building are located in the front and rear elevations of the one story kitchen wing, and also in the east end elevation, opening onto a small hip-roofed porch adjacent to Anderson Road. The south entrance to the addition retains its original door with six raised panels, and mortised and tenoned frame with pegged joints and ovolo molded trim. The north door has four raised panels, with the two upper panels replaced with glass. This is an original entrance. The east door dates from the 20^th century with nine lights over two panels. The door is of a later date, and the entrance also may have been added in the late 19^th century.

Chimneys are located inside the end walls at the gable peaks. The stone chimneys terminate with a corbel at the top. The roofing material is slate, installed ca. 1990, replacing an asphalt shingle roof. Based on the spacing of shingle lath in the attic, earlier or original roofing was wood shingles.

Typical of many Georgian period southern Pennsylvania houses, this one had gable-end pent roofs/cornices. Although the pent roofs were removed, probably in the mid to late 19^th century, the evidence of these structures is quite clear with nailers protruding through the stone walls, attached to outriggers extending from the attic joist and rafter system. The nailers carried the pent cornice system. The massive cornice continued along the front and the rear elevations as well. The painted mortar joints mentioned earlier stop at the point where the cornice began, defining the width of the cornice.

Entering the main part of the house from the south door, the visitor walks into a large reception room, 17 by 18 feet in the southeast portion of the house. The interior plan is Georgian in feel, but lacks a central through passage and is made somewhat asymmetrical by the four-bay rather than five-bay façade. The plan consists of two large front rooms along the south side of the house, with two small rooms and a stair recess behind, along the north wall (see attached Floor Plan).

The entrance room (Rm 103) like all of the first floor rooms has a massive molded cornice of combined ovolo and cavetto moldings in large scale. A fireplace dominates the east wall with an original brick hearth, stepped-in firebox with radial arched header and floor to ceiling paneled chimney breast. The woodwork includes ovolo moldings forming full crossettes around the firebox, entablature with massive astragal moldings terminating with a mantel shelf, and a tripartite overmantel with recessed panels, stretching to the cornice. The panels have concave and convex rounds at the corners and the recesses are lined with cavetto moldings. Opposite the fireplace is a large doorway opening with four eight-panel (bi-fold) doors leading into a parlor (Rm 104). The large bi-fold doors were a ca. 1865-70 modification (based on a June 1864 patent date on the lock for these doors), replacing a single door whose header mortise remains in place. In the north wall of the southeast room (Rm 103) there are doors opening into the stair recess and into the small northeast room (Rm 107). In the east wall, in addition to the fireplace, there is a door leading into the south room of the kitchen addition (Rm 102). This door is trimmed with the same ca. 1865-70 molding that was used for the enlarged opening between the two front rooms. The ca. 1865-70 modification also included removal of a cupboard to the north side of the fireplace. The room has one large window in its south wall. Chair rail remains throughout, with a massively ovolo-molded top rail.

The southwest room (Rm 104) is extravagantly decorated with extraordinarily robust carvings and moldings. Most of the north end wall consists of a fireplace with an overmantel with the most elaborate of the Georgian pediment treatments, a scroll pediment with central carved magnolia pod and floral rosettes. The overmantel surrounds a stepped-in firebox with radial arched header and hearth set with square bricks. Immediately around the opening is a crossetted architrave with a central key feature. On either side are fluted pilasters that rise to the cornice. Above the firebox is a narrow mantel shelf with tripartite panels above. Over the panels is the scroll pediment, lined with bands of Greek fretwork. The paneling extends to the ceiling where a cornice with Greek fretwork, bands of molding and modillions separated by carved rosettes continues around the room. Above the baseboard is a paneled dado which terminates with a massively molded chair rail.

In the late 19^th century a few alterations were made to the room (Rm 104), including removal of a cupboard to the north (right) of the fireplace. Evidence of the cupboard remains behind the added stud and plaster wall. Molding around the inside edges of the panels in the dado and above the fireplace was also removed, although evidence of it remains in paint lines on the panels. Similar molding survives in the opposite fireplace overmantel panels.

Tongue and groove tight-grained pine flooring of fairly uniform width extends through both rooms. The floorboards are not only tongue and grooved side to side, but also end to end. These two rooms occupy the southern or front portion of the main block of the house.

The north series of rooms includes two small rooms in the northeast and northwest corners of the house, and a central stair room. The northeast room (Rm 107) was altered in the 20^th century (1956, based on dated materials) to serve first as a bathroom and then as a kitchen. However, evidence remains of a large cornice likely similar in profile to that in the adjoining southeast room (Rm 103). The northeast room has a doorway that leads to the original kitchen in the ca. 1790 addition (Rm 101), this doorway is not original and appears to have been added in the late 19^th century.

The staircase is set into a central space (Rm 106) accessible through a door from the southeast room (Rm 103). However, architectural evidence shows clearly that the staircase originally opened directly into the southeast room and was within a recess or alcove rather than as separate walled off space. This change appears to be part of the ca. 1865-70 modification campaign. As modified, the staircase turns with wedge steps and lands facing west into the stair room instead of south into the southeast room. To allow for this change, the newel post was extended in height. There is a flattened handrail and turned balusters, two per step. The stair room also has the rear exterior door, held with long strap hinges.

The northwest room (Rm 105) survived fully intact. It has a paneled fireplace wall with a heavily molded architrave around the radially arched fireplace opening with stepped-in sides. There is no mantel shelf. Above the firebox are three molded raised panels, and above those a large raised panel with molded trim. On either side of the fireplace are cupboards with raised panel doors. The massive cornice seen elsewhere on the first floor trims the walls, and chair rail extends around the room.

All original interior doors have six raised panels and ovolo trim.

The second floor plan is similar to that of the first floor, but the woodwork is quite plain, limited to chair rail and architraves. The southwest room is large, extending three bays in length. The two south rooms have fireplaces. The north rooms do not. Above the second floor is a roomy attic with floor boards attached with wrought nails and a truss system that includes diagonal bracing half-dovetailed into the collars and rafters. Outriggers mortised into the end rafters extend through the stone gable walls and served to support the gable cornice.

Attached to the east end wall of the main block is a one story kitchen addition. The addition probably dates from about 1790, and was fully in place by 1798, as it is noted with its correct dimensions and window count on the US Direct tax of that year. The addition has two rooms, each with a fireplace in the east end wall. The front or south room (Rm 102) has its own entrance, a heavy door with six raised panels hung on long strap hinges. There is a diagonally set fireplace that has a slight curve to its profile. Chair rail attached with wrought nails follows the perimeter of the room. The original function of this room likely was an office for the mill since it has a separate entrance, faces the mill, and originally had no direct access into the main part of the house.

The north room (Rm 101) of the addition is a kitchen. It has a large service fireplace and a door to the rear domestic yard. Another door opens almost directly onto Anderson Road. Separating the two rooms is a tongue and groove beaded board partition with the boards running horizontally, and retaining original red paint. The kitchen also has a door leading into the northeast room (Rm 107) of the main block. This doorway appears to have been created in the late 19^th century, although it was closed off around 1956, when Room 107 was converted to a bathroom. Against the west wall of the kitchen a boxed stair leads to the attic above, which is partitioned into two rooms with vertical beaded boards.

Support buildings: Behind the Irwinton stone house are three support buildings, all of which appear to date from the early 20^th century, but they likely replaced earlier service buildings. Closest to the north side of the house is a frame summer kitchen (NR #2), with gable end entrance facing toward the house. In the opposite gable end is a fireplace with a brick chimney. The fireplace once had an attached bake oven, as evidenced by its remains lying in rubble in the small space between the summer kitchen and the garage. Each side wall has a 6 over 6 light sash window. The wooden covering is horizontal drop siding with a curved molding along the bottom of each piece. The foundation is poured concrete and the roofing material is corrugated sheet metal. Just west of the summer kitchen is a frame smoke house (NR #3). It has a gabled roof and siding matching that of the summer kitchen. Its entrance is in the south gable end facing the main house. The roofing material is corrugated sheet metal and the foundation is poured concrete.

North of these two outbuildings and facing onto Anderson Road is a frame car shed/garage (NR #4), three bays wide, with support posts separating the bays. The building is gable fronted with shed extensions along either side. The foundation is poured concrete, with the wall surface covered with horizontal drop siding like that on the other two buildings. The roofing material is corrugated sheet metal.

Mill Complex

Anderson Mill/Union Mill/Henkell Mill/Irwinton Mill (NR #5): Built in 1856, this two and a half story, gable-fronted frame mill is clearly influenced by the Greek Revival style. The initials J*W*H (for John William [Henkell]Hinkle), and the date 1856 appear on a corner stone located in the northwest corner of the foundation. The current mill replaced the original 1766 mill that Archibald Irwin built, although some of the foundation of the original mill likely survives within the current structure. The original mill, described in the 1798 US Direct Tax as “part stone,” burned, necessitating construction of the new mill in 1856.

Set into the sloping west bank of the Conococheague Creek at the edge of the dam, the mill’s limestone foundation is a full story in height where it meets the creek on its eastern side. Above the foundation, the mill’s construction is timber frame, and it is covered with its original lapped wooden siding and some German siding. It has a ca. 2000 channel drain sheet metal roof, laid over original (or early) wood shingles, visible from the interior of the mill. Windows have 6 over 6 sash and there are four doors in the front (west end) elevation. All doors have six vertical panels, three above the center rail and three below. Two of the doors open into the main story, and there are central doors at the second and third stories. Above the third story door is a small gabled projecting box, which houses the pulley system for raising and lowering sacks of grain or flour from the upper levels of the mill. Within the gable of the pulley housing the date 1856 is inscribed. Tracing the mill’s roofline is a molded cornice with an ample frieze decorated with dentils. This trim projects out over the corner boards, giving them the suggestion of pilasters. Attached to the south side of the mill is a small frame side-gabled cooper’s shop.

The interior of the mill retains its structure, equipment and furnishings. The grinding stones, belts, wheels and chutes remain connected to two large turbines which replaced the overshot wheel ca. 1920 submerged at the base of the mill. Chutes run from story to story, ready to carry meal or flour on its several trips through the mill as it was ground, separated, and sifted. Constructed into the southwest corner of the first floor is the miller’s office with desk, counter, bench and stove. Above it on the second floor is a sleeping room for peak season stayovers. Flour and grain bins remain on the third floor with penciled annotations giving the count of various loads brought for custom processing. The mill is fully operable and was last run in 2005.

Support Structures: Serving the mill is the mill dam (NR #6), the head race (NR #7) with a small shed sheltering the lift gate mechanism and the tail race (NR #8). The lift gate opens into a concrete lined head race that diverts water from the collection behind the dam into the mill. The tail race, also concrete lined, exits the mill and funnels water back to the creek just below the dam. The current dam is concrete but is said to incorporate parts of an earlier log dam (personal communication, Harry Anderson, August 2011). These concrete structures date from the early 20^th century, ca. 1920.

Anderson House (NR #9): Built ca. 1850, this dwelling has been substantially altered, but is considered to be contributing to the historic district because it retains its historic location, setting, form, structural system, and its associations with the history of the district. The house consists of a two story, four bay central section with two center front doors, a common Pennsylvania German fenestration pattern from the 19^th century. Brick-surfaced wings extend from each end.

The entire building rests on stone foundations with a side gabled roof. Except for the brick facades, the building is covered with vinyl siding. A two story porch has been added across the front and large windows and sliding glass doors have been added to the wings. A one story shed addition extends along the rear elevation.

Support Buildings and Structures: There are a number of service buildings and structures which are part of the mill complex. Immediately across Anderson Road from the mill is a frame hog barn (NR #10) with vertical board siding. It is gable fronted with shed extensions with open hog pens on either side. The building rests on stone foundations and has a corrugated sheet metal roof. It appears to date from the early 20^th century.

Behind this building is a small late 19^th century barn or stable (NR #11). It has an open forebay, is three bays wide, of timber frame construction with vertical siding. Shed extensions stretch to the west (rear) and south sides. The roofing material is sheet metal.

To the west of the barn is a early 20^th century wagon shed/garage (NR #12) of frame construction and gable end entry with doors. The roofing material is channel drain sheet metal.

In the front yard area, opposite the mill is a small square early 20^th century frame well/pump house (NR #13) with a hipped roof. Along the road, closer to the mill is an early 20^th century gas pump (NR #14 not included in resource count) and a remnant of an old mill turbine (not included in resource count).

Immediately south of the house is a mid 19^th century log smoke house (NR #15) with exposed logs, flat-notched. The roofing material is wooden shingles.

Behind and to the south of the house is an early 20^th century poultry house (NR #16) of frame construction on stone and concrete foundations. It is covered with narrow gauge siding and has six over six light windows.

Log Secondary House (NR #17): Standing opposite and slightly south of the mill is a late 19^th century one and a half story, two bay log house with a two story frame board and batten addition to its north gable end. The logs are hand hewn with shallow V notches. The log portion of the house has 6 over 6 pane sash and the frame section, 2 over 2. A shed-roofed porch extends across the front and the roofing material is channel drain sheet metal.

Support Building: A small frame gable roofed privy (not included in the resource count) stands to the southwest of the house.

Barn Complex

Bank Barn (NR #18): At the north end of the complex, on the east side of Anderson road near the point where the creek bends sharply to the east, stands a ca. 1850 century frame Pennsylvania-type bank barn, facing south. It rests on limestone foundations and has a closed-end forebay. The barn ramp accessing the threshing floor is on the north side, between two out-shot granaries. Vertical boards cover the timber frame construction. Louvered vents in the front and end walls provide for air circulation inside the barn. A corrugated metal roof covers the building. A small shed attached to the west end of the barn shelters a poured concrete watering trough. The forebay opens onto a concrete paved barn yard. The concrete work probably dates from the 1950s or ‘60s.

Support buildings and Structures: To the northwest of the barn is a frame wagon shed/corn crib (NR #19) with vertical board sheathing and open ends for drive through and equipment storage. It has stone foundations and a corrugated metal roof, and dates from the mid-late 19^th century.

Also behind the barn is a concrete block silo (NR #20) with a metal roof. It appears to date from ca. 1960.

Assessment of Integrity

The Irwinton Historic District with its associated landscape, buildings and structures retains integrity by all seven definers. The Location and Setting with Anderson Road following the Conococheague Creek, the dam, and the pond behind it along with the limestone cliffs following the east bank of the creek are unchanged. Design, Materials and Workmanship remain substantially intact, representing several important phases of the history of the Irwinton Historic District. Indeed the buildings and structures have changed over time, but for the most part, alterations are historic, and the original appearance, where alterations have occurred, is easy to read and interpret. Therefore, the Irwinton Historic District evokes the Feeling of its past history stretching back to the period of the American Revolution, and thus carries Associations with its past into the 21^st century.

Summary Statement of Significance:

The Irwinton Historic District, comprised of the Stone House Complex, the Mill Complex, and the Barn Complex located along the West Branch of the Conococheague Creek in Montgomery Township, Franklin County, Pennsylvania, is significant under National Register Criterion A for its role in the settlement, growth and prosperity of the Cumberland Valley as a milling hamlet and seat of the Irwin family who quietly left their mark on the region and the country, and its continuous role as a milling center through the 19^th century and into the 20^th century. French and Indian War militia veteran Archibald Irwin [I] established the Irwinton Mill by 1766, among the earliest mills in this part of the Cumberland Valley. It was the foundation for the development of Irwinton as a center of industry, a base of provisioning operations during the American Revolution, and a home for several generations of men and women who exemplified the American ideal. Among these were Archibald Irwin [I], who served with the local militia during the French and Indian War, developed a profitable milling business, and worked with the Quartermaster General’s Department during the American Revolution; James Irwin, who served in the Pennsylvania militia and then with the Continental Army’s Commissary Department during the American Revolution, and later established a successful business in nearby Mercersburg; Jane (Irwin) Harrison and Jane (Irwin) Findlay, who both served as White House hostesses during the brief term of U.S. President William Henry Harrison; and Elizabeth (Irwin) Harrison, who was the mother of U.S. President Benjamin Harrison. Milling continued at Irwinton after 1849 under the ownership of William Henkell with a new mill building and other attendant buildings, and after several intervening owners, under the Anderson family through the middle of the 20^th century.

Historically all part of the mill hamlet known as Irwinton, the Henkell-Anderson Mill and its attendant houses and outbuildings, the elegant Irwinton stone house and its outbuildings, and the adjoining barn complex each evolved as the agricultural, economic, and political conditions changed in the Cumberland Valley and across the country. The Irwinton Historic District is therefore significant under National Register Criterion C as representative architectural markers of the period of growth and prosperity in the Cumberland Valley region. Few complete milling complexes remain intact within the region, particularly to the degree that the Irwinton Historic District does with its mill, dam, head and tail race, two dwelling houses, and various outbuildings. The still-operational mill, built in 1856 on the foundations of the earlier mill, is a relatively rare survivor as most mills were abandoned and left to the destructive force of the waterways that had been their source of power. The Irwinton stone house, built ca. 1778, is an outstanding example of vernacular early Georgian architecture, unusual in the attention to interior details not commonly found in remote rural settings.

The period of significance for the Irwinton Historic District, 1766-1961, begins with the earliest date of milling operations on the land by Archibald Irwin [I] based on tax records and ends in 1961, following the National Register 50-year rule, but still within the 100-year ownership of Irwinton by the Witherspoon family, and within the continuing intermittent operation of the Anderson Mill. The time-span is inclusive of the history of Irwinton’s settlement and growth as a milling hamlet, as well as its architectural history.

Historic Context and Resource History

Historic Context: Cumberland Valley Settlement, Growth, and Prosperity

The Cumberland Valley, couched between the Blue Ridge and Appalachian ranges locally known as South Mountain on the east and North Mountain on the west, formed the western frontier of early 18^th century Pennsylvania and Maryland. Its open grassland, occasionally interrupted by wooded areas, was well-nourished by limestone rich soils and numerous powerful mountain-fed streams and creeks. Called “the barrens” because of its lack of trees, the valley lands west of the Susquehanna River in Pennsylvania, then still part of Lancaster County, saw little in the way of permanent settlement until the second quarter of the 18^th century.

The earliest known settler, Benjamin Chambers, an immigrant from Ireland, arrived in the Cumberland Valley in 1730 attracted by the waterpower of the Conococheague Creek. In 1734, the Penn proprietary land agent issued a warrant to Chambers “to take and settle and improve four hundred acres of land at the Falling Spring’s mouth…for the conveniency of a grist mill and plantation.”¹ There he located his stone house, gristmill and sawmill, initiating a settlement that would eventually become Chambersburg (1764). This part of the Cumberland Valley, that would soon be part of Cumberland County and later carved out as Franklin County, was included in the 1736 purchase of land from the Indians by the Penn family, the Proprietary of Pennsylvania.² A wave of migration to the Cumberland Valley followed with Scotch-Irish and German farmers seeking the rich limestone soils and abundant waterpower. In this valley the settlers established traditional family farms producing wheat and other grains supported by numerous local mills.

The immigrants coming from Ireland were Protestants, primarily Presbyterian, commonly known as Scotch-Irish for their Scottish ancestry. Most came from Northern Ireland where they had settled under the direction of the English King James I in the 1600s in an effort to temper the rebellious Irish Catholic majority. Fleeing continuing religious intolerance in Ireland, the Scotch-Irish began arriving in the Pennsylvania port at Philadelphia in the 1730s. With much of southeast Pennsylvania already occupied by well-established Quaker settlements, many of the new arrivals migrated westward to “the barrens.”³ By 1748, 800 of the 850 taxable men listed in the valley lands of Lancaster County west of the Susquehanna were Scotch-Irish and the remaining 50 were German.⁴ The concentration of Scotch-Irish immigrants in the frontier lands of Pennsylvania was reportedly the result of a proprietary plan. In 1750, Cumberland County was carved from Lancaster County:

…in consequence of the frequent disturbances between the governor and Irish settlers, the proprietaries gave orders to their agents to sell no lands in either York or Lancaster Counties to the Irish; and also to make to the Irish settlers in Paxton, Swatara and Donegal Townships advantageous offers of removal to Cumberland County, which offers being liberal were accepted by many.⁵

In the Cumberland County area then known as the “Conococheague Settlement,” which later formed Franklin County (1784), the 1751 tax roles listed 539 taxables almost all of whom had Scotch-Irish surnames.⁶ The dominance of the Scotch-Irish presence in Cumberland County was striking next to the largely German adjoining counties in Pennsylvania and Maryland (Adams County, PA and Washington County, MD).

Settlement in the Cumberland Valley frontier remained relatively sparse until the resolution of the French and Indian War in 1763 and the end of Pontiac’s rebellion the following year. Additionally, much of the land within Cumberland County had been disputed territory between the proprietary families of Pennsylvania (the Penns) and Maryland (the Calverts). In 1763 the two families agreed to have the boundary line surveyed by Charles Mason and Jeremiah Dixon. The “Mason-Dixon Line” survey was completed in 1767. Previous to the establishment of an official border, many settlers held only squatter’s claims to their land. Some held warrants for specific amounts of land from the proprietary, but surveys and patents were often not obtained until 1767 or later.⁷

Thereafter, settlement progressed rapidly as transportation routes improved and word of the rich farmland in the Cumberland Valley spread. The land was made fertile by numerous limestone outcrops, which give special visual character to the landscape as well as providing material for buildings and fences. The swift waters of the Conococheague and Antietam creeks and their tributaries provided ample waterpower to turn mill wheels. The Proprietary of Pennsylvania granted tracts most commonly of 100-300 acres, which were ideal for a profitable family farm. As the population grew, towns and villages were established where local products could be marketed and goods from the port cities could be obtained from enterprising merchants. Skilled tradesmen located their shops and houses in towns, advertising their services to the surrounding rural population.

The Cumberland Valley region prospered on its grain-based economy, achieving a high level of cultivation and development during the second half of the 18^th century. While the tobacco-growing regions of eastern and southern Maryland and Virginia suffered from degraded soils and a saturated market, the wheat grown largely on the smaller farms of the Cumberland Valley and Shenandoah Valley of Virginia thrived. Wheat was a staple product, more saleable than tobacco and was not restricted by production legislation as tobacco had been. However, farmers of the Cumberland Valley quickly found that transportation of bulky grains across the South Mountain by wagon was prohibitive. Processing of grain in mills and distilleries produced a compact product in flour or whiskey easier and cheaper to transport to the Philadelphia and Baltimore markets. Thus mill and distillery owners were among the more affluent members of the region’s population.

Wheat however, like tobacco, was on the list of commodities that by law had to be shipped to England in pre-Revolutionary days. Therefore, in the 1760s and 1770s, wheat profits were limited by market conditions in England. As their countrymen signed the Declaration of Independence in Philadelphia in 1776, Cumberland Valley men prepared for war, eager to free themselves of colonial economic controls. Flour, forage, and beef produced on Valley farms played a significant role in the support of the Continental Army. And as the new nation emerged following the 1783 Treaty of Paris that ended the War for Independence, those fertile Valley farms formed the core of the American “breadbasket” through the middle of the 19^th century.

Throughout the first half of the 19^th century, the pattern of grain production on mid-sized farms sent to local custom and merchant mills continued. By 1850, in the Cumberland Valley area occupied by Franklin County, census records indicate that some of the farms and mills were taken up by a more recent wave of German immigrants. Primary crops were still winter wheat and Indian corn, and to a lesser degree rye and oats. Most farmers kept a small number of milch (milk) cows, cattle and swine for family consumption. Fruit-bearing trees were also kept for subsistence stores.⁸ Woodlots were commonly maintained for personal use as well as for sale of lumber to local sawmills and forges.

As the United States dissolved into civil war in 1861, residents of Pennsylvania’s south border counties eyed their Maryland neighbors nervously. With only a few miles between Franklin County, Pennsylvania and Jefferson County, Virginia – then part of the Confederate rebellion (in 1863 it became part of the Union state of West Virginia) – the easy terrain and abundant produce of the Cumberland Valley seemed vulnerable. South-central Pennsylvania was invaded several times by Confederate troops throughout the Civil War, primarily in search of food and livestock. The food and supply gathering mission undertaken by the Confederates as part of the Gettysburg Campaign is well documented in the words of the Southern soldiers themselves describing the lushness of the farms. A member of A.P. Hill’s Third Army Corps wrote, “I have never seen any country in such a high state of cultivation. Such wheat I never dreamed of and so much of it.”⁹ In July of 1864 Confederate General Jubal Early led another invasion into Northern territory, sending General McCausland into Franklin County to occupy Chambersburg. Early’s plan was to demand a ransom of $100,000 in gold or the town would be burned. It was a threat on which his men followed through, leaving much of the town in smoldering ruins.¹⁰

Despite the military incursions of the war, the Cumberland Valley region of Pennsylvania faired better than their southern neighbors and recovered more quickly. The 1870s appears to have been the highpoint for the Valley’s grain farms and mills. But through the 1880s and 1890s, as the mechanization of mills using coal-fired steam power allowed large milling operations to move closer to the market cities, the smaller mills along the creeks of the Cumberland Valley began to decline. Additionally, the push of the railroads to the mid-West accelerated the growth of large, mechanized grain farms in that region. This growth took its toll on the mid-Atlantic wheat belt through the last decades of the 19^th century. The smaller farms of the mid-Atlantic found it hard to compete with those of the mid-West. Although production of wheat would remain significant in the region, increased production of other products began to appear.

During the first decades of the 20th century, many Cumberland Valley farms diversifibegan to decline. Additionally, the push of the railroads to the mid-West accelerated the growth of large, mechanized grain farms in that region. This growth took its toll on the mid-Atlantic wheat belt through the last decades of the 19th century. The smaller farms of the mid-Atlantic found it hard to compete with those of the mid-West. Although production of wheat would remed into dairy production, orchard products, poultry and meats as income-producing commodities, in addition to grain production.¹¹ By the mid-century, farmers were faced with government sanitary regulations which made production, particularly dairy and meat, prohibitive on small farms. Many small farms were incorporated into larger commercial farms or subdivided for housing; a few have survived as recreational farmsteads.

Architectural Context

During the 1750s, encouragement for the Scotch-Irish to settle the Cumberland Valley occurred when the proprietary government instructed its agents to try to send Scotch-Irish settlers to Cumberland County (then encompassing all of the Cumberland Valley, including Franklin County) and German settlers to York County because of cultural friction between the two groups. Consequently, the strong German colonial-period and early republic influence is found in York and eastern Adams Counties in Pennsylvania and adjoining Frederick, Washington and Carroll Counties in Maryland, while the Scotch-Irish were prevalent in the Pennsylvania portion of the Cumberland Valley. The majority (although not all) of the German-Swiss influence in the Cumberland Valley occurred in the early 19th century and later.

The Cumberland Valley region prospered, achieving a high level of cultivation and development during the period from 1760-1860. Most of the substantial farmhouses and Pennsylvania bank barns common to the region were constructed between 1790 and 1850. Favored building materials for houses were log (nearly always covered with siding or stucco), native limestone, or brick, although most brick farmhouses in the area date from after 1820. Log house and barn construction was the overwhelming norm. Within Franklin County as a whole, 91% of farmhouses recorded in the 1798 U.S. Direct Tax (valued over $500) were of log construction, while only 7% were constructed of stone (along with 1% brick and 1 % frame). The stone houses, however, represented nearly 75% of the highest valued dwellings in the county. ¹² The earliest barns were log or limestone with brick or timber framing favored after the 1830s.

In a comparative study of stone house construction in the Cumberland Valley of Pennsylvania and Maryland, Paula S. Reed identified common features:

An important aspect of stone masonry of exterior house walls as practiced in the Cumberland Valley is its ability to be used as a dating tool. The architectural surveys of Washington County and Adams County, as well as observation of stone construction elsewhere in the Cumberland and Shenandoah Valleys, reveals consistency in the manner in which exterior stone walls were constructed and finished, with major changes in practice occurring approximately at 1780 and 1810. Prior to 1780, stone house construction employed relatively small stones laid in fairly even, narrow courses. Openings are made with segmental relieving arches which were characteristic of the early Georgian style of the first half of the eighteenth century.¹³

A typical example of this construction form is the Henry Funk House in Washington County, Maryland (approximately 15 miles south of the subject property), with a date stone of 1773, in which the use of the segmental arch is clearly shown. Reed found a correlation of one-third of the pre-1780 stone houses in Washington County associated with gristmill owners, indicating the growing prosperity of the agricultural economy in the Cumberland Valley region.¹⁴

As local farms and mills prospered, most early log barns were quickly replaced with the hewn-timber frame Pennsylvania or ‘Swisser’ bank barns after 1800. These barns were associated with the German or Swiss influence, but were adopted by the majority of the region’s farmers regardless of family origin.¹⁵ House and barn were often constructed in either parallel or in-line arrangements, the forebay of the barn and the front elevation of the house generally facing south or east.

While vernacular influenced construction was most common, people of the Cumberland Valley region, particularly the more prosperous, did also aspire to include the features of popular architectural styles in their buildings. During the period between 1720-1780 the “dominant” stylistic influence, particularly in the eastern port cities, was the Georgian style,¹⁶ inspired by the English interpretation of the Italian Renaissance. However, the interior details associated with the Georgian style required woodworking craftsmanship on a level not generally found in rural areas, with the exception of the homes of the wealthy. These details were most often expressed in paneled chimney walls, and massive trim and moldings throughout the building interior.

By the mid 19^th century, while Georgian inspired symmetry still lingered in exterior fenestration patterns, interior spaces in the Cumberland Valley region saw reduced or eliminated wall paneling, more extensive plaster surfaces, fully developed mantel shelves and elimination of chair rails

According to the study of the barns of Pennsylvania by Robert Ensminger (1992), barns too have changed over the past two centuries, evolving through vernacular tradition with popular adaptation.¹⁷ Throughout the 18^th century in the Cumberland Valley region, the dominant barn form, known as the “Sweitzer” or “Swisser” barn reflected the German and Swiss traditional construction practices of the immigrant farmers.¹⁸ These barns were identified by their banked rear entrance to the upper story threshing floor and granaries, and the projecting cantilevered forebay which produced an asymmetrical roofline.

Beginning around the turn of the 19^th century the symmetrical Pennsylvania or “Standard Pennsylvania Barn” construction emerged.¹⁹ Here the traditional banked rear entrance to the upper story remained, however the cantilevered forebay was recessed into the main barn framing producing a symmetrical roofline. According to Ensminger’s Pennsylvania Barn morphology, the Standard barn constructed between 1790 and 1890 could often be found with the forebay ends enclosed by the gable walls.²⁰ Unlike the earlier all-stone barns, these barns were typically constructed with stone or brick gable ends while the forebay structure was frame with wood siding. Ventilation of the brick gable ends was often quite elaborate, however stone ventilation remained primarily in the form of vertical slits, which widened toward the interior of the wall.

Although construction techniques of the Standard Pennsylvania Barn changed little through the 19^th century and into the 20^th century, materials did change enough to aid in the dating of barns. Use of stone or brick gable ends fell-off in the second half of the 19^th century, and the H-bent framing technique became more widely used after the turn of the 20^th century. However, Ensminger notes that many barns “were built or rebuilt with traditional framing, but using commercial rather than hand-hewn timbers.”²¹

(see comparative sites discussion following the History of Irwinton)

History of Irwinton

In the spring of 1729, eight Irwin (Irvine) brothers, said to be descendants of the Scottish “Laird of Drum,” sailed from Northern Ireland to the port of Philadelphia on the ship “George & Ann.”²² Among the group were James Irwin, his wife, and their first-born son James. Joining the wave of largely Presbyterian Scotch-Irish migrants who were urged westward by the Quaker proprietary of Pennsylvania, they continued their journey to the Cumberland Valley, then still part of Lancaster County. James Irwin first appeared in the Lancaster County records when he acquired a warrant for survey on 540 acres in 1748.²³ His unpatented tract of land was located in the disputed boundary territory between Pennsylvania and Maryland, a dispute not settled until 1767 when the Mason-Dixon Survey of the boundary line was completed.

Among the earliest settlers on the western frontier of Pennsylvania, James Irwin described himself as a “blacksmith” when he wrote out his will in 1776.²⁴ He had chosen land near the west branch of the Conococheague Creek, in the vicinity of one of the earliest roads through the Valley. The road, which passed from York through Carlisle, Shippensburg, and Chambersburg, funneled settlers into the Cumberland Valley. By 1750, the settlements in the Valley land west of the Susquehanna had grown enough that Cumberland County was carved from Lancaster County. James Irwin’s land fell within the Cumberland County subdivision called Peters Township, where he appeared on the 1751 List of Taxables.²⁵

Cumberland County was still frontier territory in 1751. Though the Penn proprietary family purchased the land from the Indian inhabitants in 1736, the wider dispute between the French and British known as the Seven Years War spilled over into the New World as the French and Indian War by 1755. Frontier settlements like that occupied by the Irwins and their neighbors, known as the Conococheague or West Conococheague Settlement, were located on the front line. The main road from York through Cumberland County connected at Fort Loudon with the “Military Road” cut by General Braddock’s troops as they advanced westward in 1755. After Braddock’s defeat at Fort Duquesne (later Pittsburgh), the frontier settlements of Pennsylvania faced repeated attacks by the Indian allies of the French.

As members of the local militia, the Irwins likely helped to build several local forts (stockades) at McDowell’s Mill (Bridgeport/Markes) and around their small log church at Church Hill.²⁶ In 1756, the Presbyterian minister at Church Hill, the Rev. John Steel, was commissioned a Captain in the local militia headquartered at McDowell’s Fort. Steel recommended Archibald Irwin, son of James Irwin, to serve as ensign at the fort.²⁷ These crude stockades actually provided little protection for the settlers. In November 1756, Valley settler James McCullogh reported in his journal: “John Woods his wife and mother in law and John Archers wife was killed and 4 children carried off and 8 or 9 men killed near McDowels fort.”²⁸ This was just one of many such incidents in and around the Conococheague Settlement, and before the end of the year as much as 80% of the settlement population fled eastward.²⁹

Archibald Irwin was about 24 years old at the start of his service in the French and Indian War. As a member of the Church Hill congregation, he likely already knew Jean McDowell, who lived at McDowell’s Mill/Fort. By April 1758, Archibald and Jean were married and their first son James was born in York, Pennsylvania. The uncertainty of living in the Cumberland Valley frontier kept Jean Irwin in York, while Archibald Irwin fulfilled his military obligations. It was not until 1763 with the conclusion of the war that Archibald Irwin appeared on the Cumberland County tax list for then-Peters Township with 200 warranted acres.³⁰

Officially, Irwin’s land warrant was dated September 1, 1766 and the survey of the land was completed in 1767.³¹ Like many in the frontier settlement, Archibald Irwin probably claimed his land first by occupying it, and possibly delayed his survey until the Mason-Dixon boundary line was completed. His 217-acre tract was located along the west side of the West Branch of the Conococheague Creek (Figure 1), well-situated for his chosen occupation as mill-owner. Situated within a pronounced curve of the creek created by steep limestone cliffs on the east bank, the water provided a significant source of power. By 1766, the tax record indicated that Archibald Irwin was already well-established when he was assessed for his 200 acres as well as a grist mill, one servant, one negro, three horses, four cows, and four sheep.³² It is likely that the Irwins also had a house on the property by 1766 – probably log, though not the log house now standing at Irwinton. By 1772 there were eight children in the family of Archibald and Jean Irwin, from the oldest, James Irwin, born in 1758, to the youngest, Archibald [II] born in 1772.

Archibald Irwin’s [I] milling operation was prosperous, as indicated by his ability to acquire an indentured servant as well as an enslaved Negro. But as the American war for independence from British rule began late in 1775, the future might have seemed uncertain. In 1776, eighteen-year old James Irwin enlisted in the Pennsylvania Militia in Capt. John McClelland’s company for a two month service beginning in August. The company marched east through Pennsylvania to Philadelphia and north to Trenton and Perth Amboy in New Jersey.³³ Beginning in December 1776, he again enlisted in McClelland’s company for another two month period. James Irwin enlisted a third time in the Pennsylvania Militia in November 1777, joining Capt. James Maxwell’s company in the regiment of Col. William Chambers. They marched to White Marsh, recalled Irwin in his pension application (1832), joining Gen. Potter’s Brigade where they skirmished with the British:

After there the main army went to Winter Quarter at Valley Forge. We remained near the Lancaster Road until our term expired and then went home. Our pay was fifty shillings per month.³⁴

Though James Irwin returned home soon after his brush with battle, it appears he had already again enlisted before the end of the year 1777. However, this time his enlistment was in the service of the Continental Army, serving as Assistant Commissary for the Western Department under Col. George Morgan, which was headquartered in Pittsburgh.³⁵

Though James Irwin returned home soon after his brush with battle, it appears he had already again enlisted before the end of the year 1777. However, this time his enlistment was in the service of the Continental Army, serving as Assistant Commissary for the Western Department under Col. George Morgan, which was headquartered in Pittsburgh.³⁶

James Irwin’s service as a purchasing and provisioning agent for the army was perfectly suited for his upbringing and abilities. Returning home to his father’s mill, James Irwin handled a remarkably large amount of “public” business through the Irwinton Mill, which he later recalled in detail for his Revolutionary War pension application:

The business that I done under his [Col. George Morgan] direction was to purchase wheat and have it ground and packed in kegs each weighing about one hundred pounds ready to be sent on to Pittsburg [sic] by the Quarter Master Department, having four brigades of pack horses, each about one hundred horses with one horse master and about twelve drivers to each brigade. The horse masters were James Huston, Peter Whitesides, David Tait and H [?] Hamilton. These men were to be furnished with provisions five kegs were to be provided. This business was continued about three years. I then lived with my father Archibald Irwin and at his mill the great part of the flour was sent away, the distance from my fathers to Pittsburg [sic] was near 160 miles. I was to have forty dollars per month and did get it. I settled my public account with Col. George Morgan in the year 1786 and he gave me a certificate which I think amounted to about £540, which was paid by the United States. He then lived at Princeton New Jersey. Besides the wheat and flour buying I had to procure beef and pork to supply the men that drove the pack horses with provision – my father whom I lived with attended to Quarter Master Department under the Direction of Col. Archibald Steel who was D. Q. M. G. for the Western Department.³⁷

James Irwin’s youngest brother Archibald [II], who was 6 years old in 1778, must have been deeply impressed with the activity around his father’s mill. In his 1833 deposition for his older brother’s pension application, Archibald [II] recalled “that a great deal of flour was made at the Mill…”

He remembers of kegs of flour brought from Washington County, in the state of Maryland and sent on pack horses that a considerable quantity of beef cattle were purchased and slaughtered for the public use he recollects that a house was built for the purpose of a slaughterhouse that he recollects his Brother James Irwin who was the oldest of the family was constantly engaged in the business that the business was continued for several years he thinks not less than three…³⁸

James Irwin, who later became a successful merchant in Mercersburg, benefited from the business experience he gained during the Revolutionary War.

Clearly the elder Archibald Irwin’s milling business benefited significantly from his son’s activity as commissary from 1777 through 1780, as well as his own arrangements with Deputy Quartermaster General Col. Archibald Steel.³⁹ The death of Archibald Irwin’s [I] father, the elder James Irwin (the settler) in 1778, brought an inheritance of two farms,⁴⁰ which also would have enhanced his financial standing. It seems likely that the money that Irwin made during this period precipitated his decision to build a new stone house that would demonstrate his wealth and position.

Though stone house construction was not unusual in the second half of the 18^th century in the Cumberland Valley, where the blue limestone well-suited for masonry construction was plentiful, it still was not common. Even as late as 1798, when the U.S. Direct Tax recorded all of the houses then standing in Franklin County, only 7% were of stone construction while 91% were log. The stone house built by Archibald Irwin [I] ca. 1778 was distinctive, not only for its stone masonry and its large size, but also for interior details rarely found in such a rural location.

Of particular note is the carved wood overmantle in the southwest parlor (Rm 104, Stone House First Floor Plan), its scrolled pediment nearly identical to that in Plate XXVI in William Salmon’s Palladio Londinensis or The London Art of Building (1734) (Figure 2). Also notable is the carved cornice in the same room. Such elaborate detailing, associated with the early Georgian style of architecture popularized in and around the larger cities such as Philadelphia prior to the Revolutionary War, would have made a dramatic statement in the Cumberland Valley. The Irwins likely still had family in the Philadelphia area, descendants of several of the eight Irish brothers who stayed after their 1729 arrival in Philadelphia. Additionally, son James had recently marched through southeastern Pennsylvania with his militia company, spending time specifically on the Old Lancaster Road near White Marsh. Nearby was the stone house belonging to Gen. Anthony Wayne called Waynesborough, located west of the White Marsh skirmish area (Fort Washington), and just south of the Old Lancaster Road and Valley Forge.⁴¹ The main section of the house, built about 1735, displays striking similarities to the Irwin stone house, in particular the segmental arches over the windows and gable pent roof (Figure 3). In his capacity as Assistant Commissary, James Irwin likely also had occasion to visit Carpenters’ Hall in Philadelphia, which housed the Commissary General’s headquarters beginning in 1778.⁴² Designed by Philadelphia carpenter/master builder Robert Smith, Carpenters’ Hall was a textbook of Georgian architectural design, both inside and out (Figure 4).

It is not known who Archibald Irwin contracted to construct his stone house and to produce the elaborate wood details. Among the local carpenter/builders working at that time in the Cumberland County area, few were likely capable of crafting the detailed woodwork found in the Irwin house. Perhaps the most prominent was Walter Beatty, whose signature was first of the fourteen craftsmen who signed the Chambersburg issue of a “Bill of Rates of Carpenter and House-Joiner Work,” compiled in 1790. Apparently based on a similar publication by The Carpenters’ Company of Philadelphia (1786), the rate book established charges for specific work items performed by carpenters and house-joiners.⁴³ By 1790, Beatty was working on the new courthouse in Chambersburg for newly-formed Franklin County, indicating that he was an experienced and likely skilled tradesman by that time.⁴⁴ County commission records indicate that Beatty was paid “for preparing a place for court” (a temporary courtroom) in 1790 and again in 1791, prior to the completion of the courthouse in 1793.⁴⁵ In 1794, Beatty was contracted to build the Georgian-inspired Rocky Spring Presbyterian Church (Figures 5-7).⁴⁶ Still standing today essentially unchanged from its original appearance, the church exhibits Georgian details around the pulpit:

The suspended pulpit is octagonal and is trimmed with multiple ogee and ovalo moldings and a band of dentils. Above the pulpit is a sounding board with a curvilinear top and bands of dentiling and molding. The small window behind the pulpit has raised paneled jambs, molded crossettes and flanking paneling with chair rail and pilasters.⁴⁷

The chair rail continues around the church interior and the pews and enclosures have raised fielded panels with ovolo trim. The use of these Georgian refinements in the rural Rocky Spring Church demonstrates Walter Beatty’s ability to translate the style to a vernacular building.

In March 1783, Archibald Irwin [I] recorded his patent for “Irwinton,” the 217-acre tract encompassing his milling hamlet.⁴⁸ Whether this was precipitated by the completion of his stone house, the conclusion of the American Revolution, or to ensure his children’s inheritance in the event of his death is unknown. Perhaps all three factors played a role. By then in his 50s, Archibald Irwin [I] had three sons and five daughters, all unmarried except the oldest daughter Mary who married Matthew Van Lear in 1782.⁴⁹ Oldest son James was married in 1787, leaving six Irwin siblings presumably still living at Irwinton at the time of the first U.S. Population Census in 1790. In addition to seven adults listed in the Archibald Irwin [I] household, there was one male under the age of 15 listed, possibly an apprentice, five “other free” who were likely black laborers or servants, and three slaves. With eight servants/slaves in the household, it is likely the stone kitchen addition, with its quarters above, was already attached to the Irwinton stone house. As a mill owner, Archibald Irwin’s possession of slaves was not unusual. Adjoining the Irwin property was the milling complex of John Scott, Jr., who listed five slaves and five freemen in his 1790 household. Also nearby was the mill owned by James Ramsey, who was listed on the census with four slaves and three “other free.”

Archibald Irwin [II], who married James Ramsey’s daughter Mary (Polly) Ramsey in November 1798, would soon inherit the Irwinton house and mill.⁵⁰ Archibald Irwin [I] wrote his will in March 1798 and died probably shortly after his son’s wedding; his will was probated in February 1799.⁵¹ Archibald [I] devised to his youngest son Archibald [II] “this plantation on which I now live, with all the houses, mills, and hereditaments,” along with the remaining personal estate. Archibald [II] and Polly (Ramsey) Irwin shared the house with his mother Jean (McDowell) Irwin until her death in 1814. The other Irwin siblings, who were already established in their own right, received money or in the case of the brothers James and William, the tract of land in Peters Township inherited from James Irwin (the settler).

The 1798 U.S. Direct Tax record for Franklin County provides the best picture of what buildings the Irwinton complex included at the time of Archibald Irwin’s [I] death. Irwin was assessed for a stone dwelling house, measuring 36 feet by 33 feet, 2 stories in height, with 12 windows, and 258 lites (panes). The stone kitchen measured 33 feet by 18 feet, 1 story, with 4 windows and 60 lites. Irwin was also assessed for a log lumber house, 20 by 18 feet; the whole complex on two acres was valued at $1,200. Archibald Irwin was additionally assessed for his grist mill, measuring 45 by 25 feet, “part Stone” construction, a saw mill, barn, and two log dwelling houses valued at $90, one unfinished and the other occupied by Peter Shields – probably the miller.⁵²

Of the sixteen other stone houses assessed for over $100 in Montgomery Township in 1798 (excluding the town of Mercersburg), none rivaled the Irwinton house in size and value except that of James Huston, who owned a mill complex on Licking Creek. Huston’s two-story house measured 38 by 33 feet, with 22 windows and 367 lites. His house, kitchen, smoke house and large (50 by 18 feet) “Negro house” were valued together at $1,400. James Huston served as horse master of one of the pack horse brigades working out of the Irwinton Mill during the Revolution, according to James Irwin’s testimony (see above). Archibald Irwin’s neighbor, Hannah Maxwell, was assessed for a two-story stone house measuring 35 by 26 feet with only 8 windows.⁵³ Backing up to the east side of North Mountain was Col. John Work’s two-story stone house. The 1798 tax record described this three-bay house (still standing on today’s Blue Spring Road) as 33 by 29 feet with 10 windows and 135 lites.⁵⁴ In the town of Mercersburg, nine stone houses were assessed, including the adjoining houses of James and William Irwin, and that of Peter Whitesides – another of the pack horse brigade masters who worked out of the Irwinton Mill during the Revolution.⁵⁵

Archibald Irwin [II] inherited the Irwinton house and mill complex in 1799 and continued to live there operating the mills and raising two families until he died in 1840. With his first wife Polly he had five children – James, Jane, twins John and Archibald, and Elizabeth. Following Polly’s death in 1813 he married Sidney Grubb, with whom he had eight children. His two oldest daughters, Jane and Elizabeth, both married into the Harrison family thereby connecting the Irwins to two U.S. presidencies. Jane married William Henry Harrison, Jr. in 1824, the wedding likely occurring at Irwinton, the home of the bride. He was the son of Gen. William Henry Harrison, Sr., who became President of the United States in 1840. President Harrison, whose wife was too ill to travel to Washington D. C. at the time, brought his daughter-in-law Jane Irwin Harrison, by then a widow, and her aunt, Jane Irwin Findlay (daughter of Archibald [I]) to serve as hostesses at the White House.⁵⁶ Elizabeth Irwin, the last child of Archibald [II] and Polly Irwin, married John Scott Harrison who was also a son of William Henry Harrison, Sr. Elizabeth and John Harrison’s son Benjamin Harrison became President of the United States in 1888.⁵⁷

Following Archibald Irwin’s [II] death in 1840, Irwinton passed out of the Irwin family to William Henkell (John William Henkell) in 1849.⁵⁸ William Henkell (spelled Hinkle in the census) was born in Germany, according to the 1850 census record, and it appears he immigrated to the United States about 1835 along with his brother James and James’ wife Catharine. William Henkell’s oldest son Lewis was born in Maryland, but the family then moved to Pennsylvania where the rest of the children were born. William and James Henkell were part of an influx of German immigrants coming into what was traditionally a Scotch-Irish dominated part of the Cumberland Valley.

William Henkell’s Irwinton included 170 acres, the stone house and domestic buildings, agricultural buildings, and the mill complex. He valued his property on the 1850 U.S. Population Census at $10,000 and listed his occupation as “Farmer.” Jacob Shirk, a tenant listed adjoining Henkell, gave his occupation as “Miller.” On the 1850 agriculture census, the Irwinton farm was a general farm, producing wheat, oats, corn, and rye, as well as potatoes, orchard products, and a market garden.⁵⁹ Henkell also made butter from his five milk cows, and had six horses, twelve “other cattle,” six sheep, and forty swine. His forty swine was a significantly larger number than most of his neighbors, perhaps resulting from their use at the mill to consume grain waste.

James Henkell (Hinkle), also born in Germany, was listed on the 1850 census as a tenant next to his brother William Henkell. His occupation as a “Carpenter,” along with his place of birth, indicates that James Henkell probably built the Germanic-style double-front-door frame house (today’s Anderson House) neighboring the Irwinton stone house. By 1860, James Henkell was no longer living at Irwinton, according to the census record that year. In 1856, following a fire that destroyed the Irwinton Mill, the Henkells rebuilt the frame mill building, laying a new cornerstone inscribed “J W H 1856.” The Henkell Mill, as it then was known, probably stood on at least part of the original mill foundation of stone, allowing continued use of the original mill dam and mill race/water wheel configuration.

On the 1860 U.S. Population Census, John (William) Henkell listed his occupation as “Miller,” with real estate now doubled in value at $21,200.⁶⁰ Living as a tenant on the property and also occupied as a “Miller” was Henkell’s son-in-law John Rummell, along with his wife Elizabeth (Henkell) and their infant son William. Another tenant, Emmanuel Hendricks, also listed his occupation as “Miller.” Several laborers were listed as living in the Henkell household, as well as with one listed as a tenant.

The 1860 census record indicates that the Henkell Mill was busy and prosperous. However, in 1866 J. William Henkell subdivided his Irwinton property for sale. In March he sold the stone house and barn complex with 156 acres to James Witherspoon for $12,500.⁶¹ Then in April, Henkell sold the mill complex along with 19 acres to Adam Kuhn and Jeremiah Witten(Witter) for $7,000.⁶² Henkell exited the milling business at a good time as larger steam-powered roller mills would soon marginalize smaller local mills.⁶³ Between 1866 and 1894, the mill property was reduced to 17 acres and passed through five successive owners, its value plummeting to $1,800 in 1894 when it was sold to Joseph and William Palmer under the name “Union Flouring Mills.”⁶⁴ After two more ownership changes, the “Union Chopping Mills” was sold in 1917 to Chester A. Anderson.⁶⁵ Under the Anderson family ownership, the Anderson Mill continued regular operations into the 1950s. Now owned by Harry Anderson, the mill is the only historic mill still standing in Montgomery Township and its machinery remains operable today (2012).

Shortly after their sale of the mill property in 1866, J. William Henkell and his son-in-law John Rummell sold the Irwinton stone house, agricultural complex, and 156 accompanying acres to James Witherspoon.⁶⁶ (Figure 8, 1868 Atlas map) Witherspoon was already an established farmer in Montgomery Township. He was listed on the 1850 Agricultural census with 105 acres, with production much like that of Henkell’s Irwinton farm though on a smaller scale. It is not clear whether James Witherspoon ever occupied the Irwinton farm. By 1880, he was deceased and his sons James W. and John A. Witherspoon were living elsewhere within the county. Irwinton was tenanted by Henry Heisey in 1880. Heisey produced primarily corn, wheat, and hay, while his livestock was limited to five milk cows, five calves, and a few other cattle.⁶⁷ Though occupied as a tenant farm, Irwinton remained in the Witherspoon family until 1967 when it was sold to William and Dorothy W. Bowers, who documented much of the history of Irwinton during their ownership.⁶⁸

In 2001, the Irwinton farm was subdivided, leaving the stone house and domestic outbuildings on a 4.2-acre lot (Lot 6) and the agricultural complex on a 4.7-acre lot (Lot 8). Lots 1-4, 7, and 9 include the remaining farm land with later houses (Figure 9).⁶⁹ The mill complex remains on its historic (ca.1866) 17-acre parcel.

The history of Irwinton, its occupants and physical development over time, reflects the history of settlement and growth in the Cumberland Valley in an especially evocative way. The Irwinton Historic District includes a remarkable stone dwelling house and its attendant outbuildings that, along with the milling complex, help to tell the story of the Irwin family, as settlers, soldiers, millers and merchants, wives and mothers. The historic milling complex also tells the story of the developing economy of the region and its significant role during the American Revolution. The alterations in the 19^th century to the mill, the houses, and the barn complex during the ownerships of the Henkells and Witherspoons recalls the changes in the milling industry and agriculture in the region as mid-Western dominance in wheat production rose and mid-Atlantic farms shifted to more generalized production. The Irwinton story is American history in microcosm.

Comparative Sites

The Irwinton Historic District is an unusually intact collection of buildings and structures that reflect the district’s history as the milling hamlet known as Irwinton. Few such collections survive in the Mid-Atlantic region where suburban growth and the demise of custom milling renders many mill villages unused and in ruins or completely gone. Some mills have been converted to residential use and remain, although altered from their original function. Franklin County has never had a comprehensive survey. As a result only two mill properties are recorded: McAllen’s Mill in Fannett Township, with only a partial Pennsylvania survey form dated 1975 as documentation, indicating that the mill, built in 1830 or 1836 had been converted to a residence. Listed in the National Register from Franklin County is Shank’s Mill in Washington Township just east of Waynesboro. At the time of the nomination in 1975, the 1857 brick mill was still operational, but is no longer working. The Shank’s Mill nomination does not include any additional buildings that might have made up the mill complex. The ca. 1850 Burnt Cabins Grist Mill in Fulton County, PA (outside the Cumberland Valley) has been documented by HABS/HAER and grinds meal and flour commercially as a tourist attraction. It was listed in the National Register in 1980 along with a house and other support buildings. Later, in 1997 the mill complex was included in the Burnt Cabins Historic District, a village containing approximately 50 buildings. In Chester County is the Hopewell National Register Historic District, which contains a ca. 1815 textile mill and surrounding associated houses and support buildings and landscape. The mill is no longer operating.

The nearest comparable examples of historic intact mill hamlets are found in Washington County, Maryland, located about 10 miles south of Irwinton. Washington County has a comprehensive county-wide survey. Three National Register listed mill hamlets are similar in size and types of resources to the Irwinton Historic District. The Doubs Mill Historic District on Beaver Creek East of Hagerstown, Maryland contains a stone flour mill built ca. 1790 and several stone dwellings and a stone barn dating from the late 18^th and early 19^th centuries. The mill has been converted to a residence. The Hitt’s Mill and Houses near Keedysville, Maryland includes a mid 19^th century brick flour mill built on the first story of an 18^th century stone mill that burned, two 18^th century/early 19^th century houses, a barn and support buildings. The mill has been converted to a residence. The third mill grouping used for comparative purposes is Lehman’s Mill Historic District, north of Hagerstown, Maryland. The district consists of the remaining buildings of the mill group including the brick Lehman's Mill, built in 1869 for Henry F. Lehman on the site of an 18^th century mill, the farmstead with a stuccoed stone house dated 1837 with older and newer sections, a barn, carriage house, and agricultural outbuildings; another dwelling, also built by Lehman in 1877, a two-story brick and frame house located immediately west of the mill; related outbuildings, and a portion of the mill's head and tail race. These buildings form a cluster along both sides of Lehman's Mill Road, and together with a canopy of large old Buckeye trees retain the rural setting which conveys their use and purpose during the late 19th century. Lehman’s Mill was the oldest continuously operating mill in Washington County, and is the most intact mill hamlet remaining in the county as well. Lehman’s Mill ceased operation producing organic corn meal and flour in 1995 and has been converted into a gift and craft shop. Like Irwinton, Lehmans Mill includes the mill, mill farmstead, miller's house, assorted domestic, agricultural and mill-related outbuildings, and vestiges of the mill race and dam. However, Irwinton’s mill race and dam are fully intact while only traces of those structures remained at Lehman’s Mill.

While the three Maryland mill groupings most closely resemble Irwinton in their assemblage of buildings, only the Burnt Cabins Mill among the comparative properties remains in operation today. These comparisons show that intact surviving mill groups are indeed rare. The Henkell-Anderson Mill is singular for its intact quality, containing all of its machinery and furnishings which allow it to remain in operating condition. It is the only known mill remaining in Franklin County with such intact and complete components.

Scotch-Irish Presbyterian settlers began populating what was to become Franklin County in the 1730s. James Irwin arrived as part of this group and accumulated land in the vicinity of present-day Mercersburg. His son, Archibald took up 217 acres along the Conococheague Creek and by 1766 was operating a flour and saw mill. Presumably he lived in a log house near the mill. By the time of the American Revolution, Archibald Irwin’s mill became an important provisioning station for the Continental Army serving in western Pennsylvania. Archibald Irwin worked for the Army’s deputy quartermaster. His eldest son, James, served in the Revolution as commissary, and traveled and lodged in and around Philadelphia. Around 1778, or toward the end of the war (or even perhaps after the end of the war in October of 1781), Archibald built a large and grand house with extraordinarily exuberant woodwork reminiscent of Philadelphia’s finest houses of the 1750s and 1760s. Perhaps James’ observations of the houses he saw while serving in and around Philadelphia inspired the interior woodwork and exterior detailing (cornice, pent roof, window and door trim). Thus Irwinton’s architectural detailing is slightly out of date for its 1777-1780 period of construction, but reminiscent of the earlier Georgian buildings James would have seen during his service in and near Philadelphia.

While the US Direct Tax of 1798 indicates 16 stone houses in Montgomery Township, only a fraction of those were in existence by 1780. The one most likely closest in date of construction to Irwinton is the National Register listed Col. John Work House dating from 1775. This two story limestone house spans three bays with segmentally arched first story windows and a central entrance. Like Irwinton, the Work house fireplaces have radial arched fireboxes with stepped-in sides. The chimney wall is fully paneled in the Work house, but absent is the fancy scroll pediment, Greek fretwork, fluted pilasters, modillioned cornice and carved rosettes that decorate Irwinton’s parlor. Likewise, the ceilings in the Work house are much lower than Irwinton’s.

Perhaps more similar in character to Irwinton in terms of its architectural woodwork detailing is the Rocky Spring Presbyterian Church, dated 1794 near Chambersburg in Franklin County, and listed in the National Register. Although Rocky Spring Church dates about 15 years later than Irwinton’s stone house, it utilizes some similarly styled paneling and molding in its interior, including carved rosettes, crossettes and fluted pilasters. Rocky Spring Church also has pent roofs at each gable end. Walter Beatty, the carpenter and joiner who is considered the builder of Rocky Spring Church, may also have crafted the woodwork for Irwinton. Among recorded and evaluated examples of 18^th century, pre-1780 buildings in Franklin County, the Irwinton stone house stands out as unusually refined and the product of expert craftsmanship at the local level.

Major Bibliographical References:

Bowers, Dorothy W. The Irwins and the Harrisons. Irwinton Publishers, Mercersburg, PA, 1973.

Bowers, William S. Carpenters and Joiners Notes of Franklin County, Pennsylvania 1750-1850. Irwinton Publishers, Chambersburg, PA, 1990.

Cumberland and Lancaster County Warrant Registers, RG 17, Records of the Land Office, Pennsylvania State Archives, www.phmc.state.pa.us.

Ensminger, Robert F. The Pennsylvania Barn. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, 1992.

Franklin County Land and Estate Records. Franklin County Courthouse, Chambersburg, PA.

Irwin, James (Franklin Co., Pennsylvania). Revolutionary War Pension Record No. 2946 (NARA), original scan available on HeritageQuest Online.

M’Cauley, I. H. Historical Sketch of Franklin County, Pennsylvania. (1876) Abridged Edition privately published by J. Ralph Strite, 1877.

Reed, Paula S. “Building with Stone in the Cumberland Valley: A Study of the Regional Environmental, Technical, and Cultural Factors in Stone Construction.” Ph.D. Dissertation, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, 1988.

Reed & Assoc., Paula S. “Mid-Maryland: An Agricultural History and History Context.” Draft, Catoctin Center for Regional Studies, Frederick, MD, 2003.

U.S. Agricultural Census. 1850, 1880, 1927, original scans on www.phmc.state.pa.us.

U.S. Population Census. Original scans on HeritageQuest Online.

Warner, Beers & Co. A History of Franklin County, Pennsylvania. (1887) Unigraphic, Inc., Evansville, IN, 1975.

Verbal Boundary Description:

The Irwinton Historic District boundary is defined by the outlines of tax parcels 23, 97, and 22, on Tax Map #J-13, Montgomery Township, Franklin County, Pennsylvania.

Boundary Justification:

The Irwinton Historic District boundary includes all of the buildings and structures historically associated with the Irwinton stone house and mill property as they stand on their current parceled acreage, including the ca.1866 17-acre Mill Complex parcel with the mill dam and portion of the West Branch of the Conococheague Creek, the 4.2-acre Stone House Complex parcel known as Lot 6 on the 2001 subdivision plat, and the 4.7-acre Barn Complex parcel known as Lot 8 on the 2001 subdivision plat. The three building complexes and their respective land parcels form a cohesive district within its historic setting. A house on an adjoining property to the north side of the district is excluded because it was built shortly before the 2001 subdivision of the property and thus does not contribute to the history of the district or the architectural assemblage.

1 I. H. M’Cauley, Historical Sketch of Franklin County, Pennsylvania, 1876 (Abridged Edition privately published by J. Ralph Strite, 1877), p. 9.

2 M’Cauley, p. 9.

3 Warner, Beers & Co., p. 141; D. W. Bowers, p. 14.

4 As cited in Warner, Beers & Co., p. 143.

5 Warner, Beers & Co., p. 143.

6 Warner, Beers & Co., p. 153-155.

7 Cumberland County Warrant Registers, RG 17, Records of the Land Office, Pennsylvania State Archives, www.phmc.state.pa.us, accessed November 2011.

8 1850 U.S. Agricultural Census, digital copy on www.phmc.state.pa.us, accessed November 2011.

9Spencer Glasgow Welch, A Confederate Surgeon's Letters to His Wife, (1911), p. 150.

10 Warner Beers & Co., p. 130.

11 1927 U.S. Agricultural Census, digital copy on www.phmc.state.pa.us, accessed November 2011.

12 1798 Direct Tax Assessment, Franklin Co., Pennsylvania, as cited in Paula S. Reed, “Building with Stone in the Cumberland Valley: A Study of the Regional Environmental, Technical, and Cultural Factors in Stone Construction.” Ph.D. Dissertation, (The George Washington University, Washington, DC, 1988), p. 177.

13 Reed, pp. 68-69.

14 Reed, p. 222.

15 Robert F. Ensminger, The Pennsylvania Barn, (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992), pp. 1-5.

16 Virginia and Lee McAlester, A Field Guide to American Houses, (New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 1997), p. 154.

17 Robert F. Ensminger, The Pennsylvania Barn, (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992).

18 Ibid, p. 111.

19 Ensminger, pp. 67-73.

20 Ensminger, p. 67.

21 Ensminger, p. 146.

22 Dorothy W. Bowers, The Irwins and the Harrisons, (Mercersburg, PA: Irwinton Publishers, 1973), p. 16; online genealogy citing LDS reports, Elson Irwin, http://boards.ancestry.com/surnames.irwin/302.370.373/mb.ashx.

23 Lancaster Co. Warrant No. 111, Warrant Registers, RG 17, Records of the Land Office, Pennsylvania State Archives, www.phmc.state.pa.us, accessed November 2011.

24 D. W. Bowers, p. 36.

25 Warner, Beers & Co., A History of Franklin County, Pennsylvania, 1887 (Evansville, IN: Unigraphic, Inc., 1975), p. 155. He was listed as James Erwin.

26 D. W. Bowers, p. 17.

27 D. W. Bowers, p. 19.

28 “James McCullogh His Book 1745-1767,” original manuscript, private collection.

29 Calvin Bricker & Walter Powell, Conflict on the Conococheague, 1755-1758, (Mercersburg, PA: The Conococheague Institute, 2008), p. 40.

30 As cited in D. W. Bowers, p. 21.

31 Copied Surveys, Book A-17, p. 213, Records of the Land Office, RG 17, Pennsylvania State Archives, www.phmc.state.pa.us, accessed November 2011. Archibald Irwin recorded a patent for his 217 acres in 1783, calling it “Irwinton,” though it is likely the name was used prior to 1783 (RG-17, Records of the Land Office, Patent Tract Name Index).

32 As cited in D. W. Bowers, pp. 22-23.

33 James Irwin Pension Record No. 2946 (NARA), original scan available on HeritageQuest Online; Bowers, p. 34.

34 As cited in D. W. Bowers, p. 34.

35 James Irwin (Franklin Co., Pennsylvania), Revolutionary War Pension Record No. 2946 (NARA), original scan available on HeritageQuest Online, accessed November 2011; D. W. Bowers, p. 35.

36 James Irwin (Franklin Co., Pennsylvania), Revolutionary War Pension Record No. 2946 (NARA), original scan available on HeritageQuest Online, accessed November 2011; D. W. Bowers, p. 35.

37 James Irwin (Franklin Co., Pennsylvania), Revolutionary War Pension Record No. 2946 (NARA), original scan available on HeritageQuest Online, accessed November 2011.

38 As cited in D. W. Bowers, p. 35.

39 No military record of Archibald Irwin’s [I] service with the Quarter Master Dept. was located. This was likely a business arrangement, rather than military service.

40 James Irwin Last Will & Testament, Cumberland County, probated 1778, transcribed by Mary Ann Million, USGenWeb Archives, accessed November 2011.

41 Philadelphia Society for the Preservation of Landmarks, www.philalandmarks.org, accessed November 2011; “Waynesborough,” HABS supplimental documentation (1963 and 1976), HABS No. PA-208.

42 Carl G. Karsch, “Answering the Call to Arms,” Carpenters’ Hall, www.ushistory.org/carpentershall/history/calltoarms.htm, accessed November 2011.

43 Reproduced in William S. Bowers, Carpenters and Joiners Notes of Franklin County, Pennsylvania 1750-1850, (Chambersburg, PA: Irwinton Publishers, 1990), pp. 2-9. The “Bill of Rates” was published in 1799 with an Appendix of additional work items and rates, on which Walter Beatty was no longer listed.

44 Franklin County was carved from Cumberland County in 1784.

45 Warner, Beers & Co., p. 199. Beatty was paid “for preparing for the court to sit in the prison” in 1791, apparently the prison was complete enough to house the courtroom temporarily. Beatty and his crew were still working on the courthouse in 1793 when he was paid “for detaining his hands from work on the court-house” while the court met in the still-unfinished building.

46 “Rocky Spring Presbyterian Church,” National Register nomination, 1993.

47 “Rocky Spring Presbyterian Church,” National Register nomination, 1993.

48 “Irwinton,” Patent Tract Name Index, Records of the Land Office, RG-17, Pennsylvania State Archives, www.phmc.state.pa.us, accessed November 2011.

49 D. W. Bowers, p. 40.

50 D. W. Bowers, p. 65.

51 Franklin Co. Will Book B, p. 70.

52 1798 Direct Tax Assessment, Franklin Co., Pennsylvania, Montgomery Township, List No. 1 and 2.

53 The stone house now standing on the Maxwell property is a larger dwelling built about 1810.

54 The Col. John Work House, said to have been constructed about 1775, has finely coursed, dressed stones on the front façade and segmental arches above the windows, possibly the work of the same stone mason who laid the masonry for the Irwin house. Interior woodwork similar to that found in Irwinton, though less elaborate, indicates the carpenter/builder may also have been the same. See Comparative Sites section below.

55 All of the above cited stone houses were listed in the 1798 Direct Tax Assessment, Franklin Co., Pennsylvania, Montgomery Township, List No. 1.

56 D. W. Bowers, pp. 69-70.

57 D. W. Bowers, p. 151-152.

58 Franklin Co. DB 28, p. 138. The acreage was reduced to 170 acres at this time by an earlier sale to Matthew Irwin (DB 27, p. 332).

59 1850 U.S. Census Schedule 2, “Productions of Agriculture in Montgomery Twp,” http://www.portal.state.pa.us, accessed November 2011.

60 1860 U.S. Population Census. Though the census taker spelled the name Hinkle, on his deed records it is consistently spelled Henkell. Deed records also indicate his name as J. William Henkell, apparently John William, which explains why he appears in the 1850 census as William and in the 1860 census as John.

61 Franklin Co. DB 40, p. 645.

62 Franklin Co. DB 40, p. 583.

63 Susan Winter Frye, “Evolution of Mill Settlement Patterns in the Antietam Drainage, Washington County, Maryland,” p. 71; McGrain, “’Good Bye Old Burr, ’” p. 154, citing Oliver Evans, The young Mill-Wright and Miller’s Guide (Philadelphia, 1795), p. 125.

64 Franklin Co. DB 46, p. 332; DB 50, p. 395; DB 59, p. 326; DB 85, p. 67; DB 100, p. 206.

65 Franklin Co. DB 187, p. 76.

66 Franklin Co. DB 40, p. 645.

67 1880 U.S. Census Schedule 2, “Productions of Agriculture in Montgomery Twp,” http://www.portal.state.pa.us, accessed November 2011.

68 Franklin Co. DB 619, p. 652. See Dorothy W. Bowers, The Irwins and the Harrisons, (Mercersburg, PA: Irwinton Publishers, 1973) and William S. Bowers, Carpenters and Joiners Notes of Franklin County, Pennsylvania 1750-1850, (Chambersburg, PA: Irwinton Publishers, 1990).

69 Franklin Co. Plat Book 288H, p. 874.

Contact Information:

If you have older or better photographs, other documents and information and are willing to share, please send email to: andersonmccullohmccunefcpa@gmail.com

_____________________________________________________________

Related Genealogy Web Site: Genealogy of Anderson, McCullough, McCulloh, McCune, & Humphreys families, Franklin County, Pennsylvania

This web site link below contains the Genealogy of Oliver Anderson and his related lines of Franklin County, Pennsylvania (Anderson, McCullough, McCulloh, McCune, Humphreys) which is documented by Elizabeth Wolff's book "Early History and Genealogy of the Anderson-McCullough-McCune Families and Related Lines of Franklin County, Pa. Much of her information and more current information provided by many other descendants of Oliver Anderson is on the Web Site: http://sites.google.com/site/andersonmccullohmccune/Home

Related Pages and web sites:

Anderson Mill

Irwinton Historic District

Hays Stone Arch Bridge

Hays Bridge Historic District

Model Grist Mills

Witherspoon Red Covered Bridge

Oliver Anderson Genealogy Web Site: http://sites.google.com/site/andersonmccullohmccune/Home