278 



NEW ENGLAND FARRIER. 



June 



OUR "NATIVE" CATTLE. 

 After alluding to the introduction of Euro- 

 pean cattle into Mexico, as early probably as 

 1625, -which were undoubtedly the progeni- 

 tors ol" what are noAv known as "Texan 

 Iliinger;^,'" Mr. Allen in his new work, gives 

 the following brief summary of the introduc- 

 tion of neat cattle into the United States and 

 Canada. 



In what are now the "United States," the 

 first English colonial settlement was made in 

 Virginia, on the James river, in the year 1607, 

 by a colony of a hundred men, which, by suf- 

 fering, disease, and want of food, was re- 

 duced within a year, to thirty-eight. In 

 1609, by new emigrations, the colony was in- 

 creased to five hundred persons ; but in a few 

 months they were reduced by death to sixty. 

 Man}' cows were carried from the West India 

 Islands to Virginia in 1610, and 1611. In 

 succeding years more adventures came out, 

 but in 1622, three hundred and forty-seven 

 men, women and children were massacred by 

 Indians, and the colony, in effect, broken up. 

 Whether their cattle were also destroyed, we 

 have no account ; but the settlement was soon 

 after renewed under better auspices and pro- 

 tection, and neat cattle were further intro- 

 duced and propagated. 



New York was first settled in the year 1614, 

 by the Dutch. That colony, after some vicis- 

 situdes, prospered. The first importation of 

 neat cattle there, is said to have been in the 

 }ear 1G2j, from the mother country, Holland, 

 and thu} rapidly increased in numbers, both 

 in breeding and further importation. 



In 1620, the English Plymouth colony 

 landed in Massachuisetts. In 1623, further 

 English colonies came out and settled at Bos- 

 ton and in New Hampshire. In 1624, the 

 first arrival of cattle entered Massachusetts 

 Bay. These were soon followed by other 

 arrivals.* New Jersey was settled by the 

 Dutch in 162-1, and Delaware by the Swedes 

 in 1G27, who brought cattle with them. Tiie 

 early records of New Hampshire state that in 

 the years 1631, '32 and '33, Captain John 

 Mason made several importations of cattle 

 into that State from Denmark, to supply the 

 Danish emigrants who had settled on the Piscat- 

 aqiia river. These Danish cattle were coarse, 

 large beasts, and yellowish in color. Settle- 

 ments were made in Maryland in 1633 ; in 

 North and South Carolina in 1660 and 1670 ; 

 and in Pennsylvania in 1662, all by the Eng- 

 lish, who either with the first settlers, or soon 

 after, brought cattle over, chiefiy from the 

 counties nearest the ports from which they 

 Bailed. In all probability, numerous importa- 

 tions of cattle were annually made into the 

 several colonies, during successive years, as 

 the emigrants came in rapidly, and the few 

 early importations, with their inciease, were 



insufficient to supply their wants. That 

 cattle multiplied, both by natural increase and 

 importation, is evident. We see it recorded, 

 that in the year 1636, a party of emigrants 

 went out to settle the town of North!)oro\ 

 Massachusetts, thirty miles west of Boston, 

 and in a company of one hundred nun, wo- 

 men and children, they drove with them one 

 hundred and sixty cattle — and that was but 

 twelve years after the first importation into 

 the colony. 



From these diverse and miscellaneous be- 

 ginnings, our "native" cattle originated. Of 

 what distinctive breeds they were selected, if 

 selected with reference to breed at all, we 

 have no information, nor, at this distance of 

 time, can we be at all certain. Distinct 

 breeds did then exist, well defined in their 

 characteristics, both in England, and Scotland, 

 and we are to presume, that needy and neces- 

 sitous as the emigrants mostly were — going 

 out for "conscience sake," as many of them 

 did, and in a hope to better their fortunes 

 with all — they paid little regard to breed or 

 race in their cattle, so that they gave milk, 

 performed labor, and propagated their kind. 



As the colonists grew in numbers, and pros- 

 pered in gear, their cattle, now become a 

 a leading branch of husbandry, aided much in 

 their subsistence. Families of considerable 

 wealth from "home," began to add their num- 

 bers to the earlier emigrants, and brought 

 with them domestic stock of various kind, 

 provided them forage, and gave them shelter, 

 and in some instances, probably, selected 

 choice specimens from favorite breeds in the 

 localities from whence they came, with which 

 to improve those previously imported, or their 

 descendants, the then native herds. But in a 

 new country, harrassed by hostile savages, 

 difficult of locomotion and intercourse with 

 each other in distant settlements, their cattle 

 were localized and confined to their own im- 

 mediate neighborhoods, pushing out into new 

 districts only with the adventurous parties 

 forming settlements, where they could, of ne- 

 cessity, pay little attention to selection or 

 "improvement" in their herds. They took 

 such as they had, or such as they could get, 

 at the least possible cost, as "browse" for the 

 first few years was their principal forage in 

 winter, "leeks" in spring, and coarse grass in 

 summer and autumn for pasturage. The best 

 they could do was to provide food for their 

 families, and let their cattle shift for them- 

 selves. We presume however, that the earlier 

 colonists, having become well settled and 

 thrifty in circumstances, cared well for their 

 herds and measurably improved their quality. 



Tlius, undoubtedly, stood the condition of 

 the neat cattle of the colonies down into the 

 years 1700, and after. We have accounts 

 that, as the merchants of the sea-coast towns 

 grew rich, some enterprising ones made im- 

 portations of choice breeds from England, 

 which were driven into the country neighbor- 



