26 KANSAS HISTORY

The William Henry farm near Lecompton, Douglas County, Kansas. This aerial photograph, ca. 1988, depicts the extant buildings of theHenry home place, with the family’s modified Pennsylvania barn dominant at the far left.

In eastern Kansas the bounty of barns that once peppered the countrysideis slowly dwindling. Contemporary farming practices largely rebuff oldbarns as irrelevant tools; even gentlemen farmers who leave suburbialooking for an idyllic rural life find them expensive to maintain. Never-

theless, the state’s remaining barns punctuate the landscape, reminding theirbeholders of the state’s ties to a once robust agricultural economy and the farmfamilies that made it possible.

A PennsylvaniaFamily Brings

Its Barn to Kansas

Cathy Ambler earned a master’s degree in historical administration and museum studies in 1990 and a Ph.D. inAmerican studies from the University of Kansas in 1996. Her research interests have focused on historic landscapes, ver-nacular architecture, and county fairs in Kansas. She currently serves as the assistant director for the Cultural ResourcesDivision of the Kansas State Historical Society. Judy Sweets earned her masters degree in historical administration andmuseum studies from the University of Kansas and continues to conduct research in genealogy, the underground rail-road, and material culture. She is the registrar and exhibits coordinator at Watkins Community Museum of History inLawrence.

The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of architect John Paul Pentecouteau and thankhim for the measured drawings of the Henry barn. The generous suggestions and materials from Dale Watts,Iona Spencer, Dennis Domer, Helen Henry, and Joe and Judith Hoage also were invaluable.

by Cathy Ambler and Judy M. Sweets

A PENNSYLVANIA FAMILY BRINGS ITS BARN TO KANSAS 27

28 KANSAS HISTORY

One great barn near Lecompton belonged toWilliam Henry, a Pennsylvania farmer who movedhis family to Kansas in 1868. The Henry family expe-rienced success, hard times, and personal loss in itsnew state as did many other immigrants, but fewfamily stories can make the connection as well be-tween Kansas settlement-era farming patterns andregional barn-building traditions from an easternhome state. When the Henry family built a new barn,it chose a great, Pennsylvania banked timber-framebarn that became the heart of thefamily’s farming enterprise.

The presence of this beautiful-ly crafted barn in Kansas raisesmany questions, however, forthose interested in barn construc-tion, function, and classificationsystems. Did a transplanted Penn-sylvania barn form adequatelyserve late nineteenth-century Kan-sas farming needs? This barnform traditionally has beenlinked to Germanic buildingtraditions; does its Pennsyl-vania regional history sup-port such an ethnic connec-tion? Since barns of thismagnitude and craftsman-ship are uncommon in Kansas, could local buildershave raised such a barn and, if not, where would askilled work crew have come from? As this barn sitssilently watching over the eastern Kansas farm thatonce belonged to the Henrys, it raises questionsabout the process and results of cultural transplanta-tion for both the family and the barn. These questionscannot be addressed, however, without a brief histo-ry of this barn form.

The “Pennsylvania barn,” a forefather to theWilliam Henry barn, is well known becauseresearchers have recorded its diffusion to

other states and regions as a means to trace thespread of cultural values. As people move from onelocation to another, they usually take traditions orpatterns of behavior with them from their home

places; therefore, barns have been used much likeroad maps to trace the movement of people andideas. They have often been easier to track than housetypes, for example, because as tools necessary to afamily’s economic survival and well being, farmerstended to change them less often or dramatically asthey moved. Farmers usually made modifications tobarn designs in response to changes within the agri-cultural economy.1

Researchers have traced this predecessor ofHenry’s barn because it has a char-acter-defining trait called a fore-bay, which is a projection or can-tilever that overhangs the barn’slower-level foundation (Fig. 1).2

This large rectangular, timber-framed barn almost always wasbuilt into the side of a hill, orbanked, so that it had two levelswith openings in both of the

longer sides.3 The lower levelhad several separate doorsfor horses, cows, mules, pigs,or sheep, and it openedunder the forebay into thebarnyard (Fig. 2). Farmersused the upper level of thebarn to store feed, grains,

hay, and straw, and it had four sections, or bays, thatfunctioned as storage areas with granaries or thresh-ing floors (Fig. 3). The barn’s evolutionary rootsbegan in Switzerland, but in the eighteenth century

1. The point is strongly argued in Thomas C. Hubka, Big House, Lit-tle House, Back House, Barn (Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New Eng-land, 1984). The book’s cause-and-effect conclusions are somewhat con-troversial; nevertheless, they have stimulated other researchers todocument how changes in agriculture and the market economy affectedthe design and modification of barns.

2. Robert F. Ensminger, The Pennsylvania Barn: Its Origin, Evolution,and Distribution in North America (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UniversityPress, 1992), 55, reviews Ensminger’s work and other published researchon the Pennsylvania barn, its origins, and diffusion, and claims that theforebay is the Pennsylvania barn’s diagnostic feature.

3. In the northeastern corner of Kansas a few forebay barns havebeen surveyed in Doniphan County. A forebay barn in Douglas County,Eudora Township (section 17, township 13, range 21), belonged to theOtto Rosneau family. Although the barn is no longer extant, photographsdocument the forebay and the lower level’s multiple barnyard doors. SeeRosneau House and Barn file, Watkins Community Museum of History,Lawrence, Kans.

This barn that sits silentlywatching over the eastern

Kansas farm raises questionsabout cultural transplantation.

Fig. 1: This barn in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, clearly depicts the forebay projecting over the barn’s lower-level foundation.

A PENNSYLVANIA FAMILY BRINGS ITS BARN TO KANSAS 29

30 KANSAS HISTORY

ethnic Germans and other Europeans carried its formto the southeastern area of Pennsylvania from Euro-pean source regions.4

The barn William Henry built in Kansas is similarto the Pennsylvania barn but without the distinctiveforebay.5 The reasons the barn changed in appearanceare not yet fully proven, but researchers believe thatfarmers began to change the Pennsylvania barn asthey increased dairy production and moved morefully into a market economy. Between 1780 and 1850,while farmers used their agricul-tural production to meet their ownfamily’s needs for food and fiber,many engaged in some produc-tion for market as well. As farm-ers’ marketing activities increasedduring this seventy-year period,especially in dairying, the Penn-sylvania barn with a forebay in-creased in size and the forebaybegan to disappear. In dairy-ing, a farmer managed morecattle in his barn and lessmixed livestock. With mainlydairy cows in the Pennsylva-nia barn’s lower level, therewas little need for many sep-arate divisions. Farmers max-imized open space by clearing away small divisions,and they gained even more room by enclosing thearea under the forebay and eliminating the manydoors into the barnyard. To manage a herd going in

and out, farmers made the openings in the lowerlevel larger by running a central aisle from gable endto gable end, or lengthwise, through the barn.6

Henry Glassie, one of many researchers who hasstudied the spread of barn forms, observed the tran-sition of the Pennsylvania barn in the western part ofthat state. Glassie’s comments about the significanceof both the changing form and its dominance in west-ern Pennsylvania should not be underestimated. Hisobservations relate directly to the county that neigh-

bored the Rossiter area—the loca-tion of the Henry home place. Glas-sie stated that:

As the Pennsylvania barn movedwestward it was evolved into anew type which had become pre-dominant by Westmoreland Coun-ty, Pennsylvania; it has two levels,but lacks the forebay and has themain doors of the basement [lower

level] on the end rather thanon the rear.7

Within the contextof Pennsylvaniafarming patterns

in the nineteenth century, theconnection between changesin the Pennsylvania barn and

increased dairying is supported by E. Willard Miller,geographer at Pennsylvania State University. Millerhas observed that a typical crop rotation pattern onPennsylvania farms consisted of corn, oats, wheat,and grass during this era. Miller further notes that thedairy industry came into existence during the 1830s,and over the next seventy years it was transformedfrom a home industry to a highly organized commer-cial enterprise.8

6. Ensminger, “A Comparative Study of Pennsylvania and Wiscon-sin Forebay Barns,” 104. Ensminger linked barns in Wisconsin to the Penn-sylvania barn and also attributed barn modifications to dairy farming.

7. Glassie, “The Pennsylvania Barn in the South,” 8–9.8. E. Willard Miller, “Agriculture,” in A Geography of Pennsylvania, ed.

E. Willard Miller (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press,1995), 185. Many changes in agricultural patterns also address the evolu-tion of technology in farming machinery, transportation, and refrigera-tion. These helped change what farmers produced and their markets.

4. Ensminger, The Pennsylvania Barn, 50–53.5. According to Ensminger’s definition, the Henry barn would not

be a Pennsylvania barn since it lacks a forebay. It is a banked four-baybarn that evolved from the forebay type. See Robert Ensminger, “A Com-parative Study of Pennsylvania and Wisconsin Forebay Barns,” Pennsyl-vania Folklife 32 (Spring 1983): 104. Henry’s barn was a common form inparts of Pennsylvania. See Henry Glassie, “The Pennsylvania Barn in theSouth,” Pennsylvania Folklife 15 (Winter 1965-66): 8–9.

Terry Jordan-Bychkov, “Transverse-Crib Barns, The Upland South,and Pennsylvania Extended,” Material Culture 30 (Spring 1998): 7, notedthat defining a barn type is not simple because some traits receive moreemphasis than others in classification systems. Transitional or modifiedbarn forms can be difficult to classify since they do not fit well into neatcategories. This case study generally supports Glassie’s observations thatthe Henry barn is a “new type” of Pennsylvania barn in the western partof the state that was reinforced by forebay-less, two-level barns from NewYork.

The barn William Henry builtin Kansas is similar to the

Pennsylvania barn but with-out the distinctive forebay.

Fig. 2: Representative basement plan for the Pennsylvania barn.

Fig. 3: Representative upper level plan for the Pennsylvania barn.

A PENNSYLVANIA FAMILY BRINGS ITS BARN TO KANSAS 31

32 KANSAS HISTORY

9. Although built after William Henry left Pennsylvania, a barn ofnearly identical form to his Kansas barn stood on the Henry home placein 1989.

10. “Wm. Henry Buried,” Lecompton Sun, March 28, 1913; see alsoIrvin Dale States to Judy Sweets, November 29, 1988, Henry Family Sub-ject file and Henry House and Barn Site file, Watkins Community Muse-um of History, hereafter cited as Henry Family and Site files. Rachel’s par-ents were Peter Warner and Judith Schumaker Warner. Peter Warnerfought in the Revolutionary War as a private in the Twelfth Virginia Reg-iment. The Warners moved later from Virginia to Pennsylvania.

11. Irvin Dale States to Judy Sweets. Buried in this cemetery areWilliam Henry’s parents, William and Rachel Henry; his grandfather, PeterWarner; and his sister Susannah and her husband, Jonathan Sherman.

12. “Wm. Henry Buried.”13. Atlas of Douglas County, Kansas (New York: F. W. Beers, 1873), in-

dicates Henry owned 240 acres.14. In an 1855 memorandum book Henry writes about his contact

with G. W. Zinn. See private collection of Helen Henry, Lawrence, Kans.Although this book predates his move to Kansas by thirteen years, a G.W.Zinn also was Henry’s neighbor near Lecompton. Zinn possibly wasHenry’s Kansas contact. Locals still pass along in oral history that Henryacquired his property in a trade for guns.

William Henry transplanted this new type ofPennsylvania barn to Kansas. Compare the Pennsyl-vania barn’s upper floor plan with Henry’s (Figs. 3,4) and with Glassie’s description of the westernPennsylvania barn form. They are both large andhave four bays: two-bay threshing/storage floors orrunways in the center of the barn, and two haymowson the sides. However, the Henry barn’s granaries arenow in the haymows whereas the Pennsylvania barnhad them in the forebay area. In both barn forms,openings or drops helped a farmermove hay, grain, and beddingfrom the upper to the lower level.The function of the barn remainsmuch the same on the upper levelalthough the arrangement issomewhat different. Compare thelower level of Henry’s barn withthe Pennsylvania barn (Figs. 2, 5).It is evident that Henry’s barn wasmore open to feed similartypes of livestock, whereasthe Pennsylvania barn planshows stabling for mixedlivestock. Glassie’s observa-tions about the new type ofPennsylvania barn appear inWilliam Henry’s Kansas barn.

Considering Miller’s overview of Pennsylvaniaagricultural production patterns, when WilliamHenry left the state in 1868 his family’s home placewas producing a variety of crops, animals, and dairyproducts such as cream and butter. The new type ofPennsylvania barn, so prevalent near Henry’s homeplace, would have met the needs for increased pro-duction of dairy products and yet served farmers en-gaging in mixed agricultural production that includ-ed grains and grasses.9 But who was William Henryand did this new type of Pennsylvania barn workwell for Kansas farming patterns?

William Henry was born in Banks Town-ship, Indiana County, in western Pennsyl-vania in 1836, the son of William Henry

and Rachel Warner Henry (Fig. 6).10 He grew up onthe family’s 490-acre farm close to Rossiter (Fig. 7),where a small family cemetery still remains across theroad from his home place.11 During the Civil War,Henry served as a quartermaster in the Union army.He also was in command of the ammunition corps atthe Battle of Vicksburg (Mississippi) and supervised

an ambulance train at the Battle ofWinchester (Virginia). Henry mar-ried Jane Clarke Kirk, also from In-diana County, in 1858.12

In November 1868 the Henryfamily moved to Lecompton, Dou-glas County, Kansas, and by May1869 had purchased land (Fig. 8).13

It seems likely the family knewsomeone in the area since immi-

grants frequently moved tolocations where they had ac-quaintances or where otherfamily members already hadsettled.14 The countryside,similar to that around Ros-siter, would have made theHenrys feel at home. The

rolling landscape near Lecompton is covered withwoods and streams and frequently is interrupted by

But who was William Henryand did this new type of

Pennsylvania barn work wellfor Kansas farming patterns?

Fig. 4: Upper level plan of the William Henry barn.

A PENNSYLVANIA FAMILY BRINGS ITS BARN TO KANSAS 33

34 KANSAS HISTORY

terns. Such records also make it possible to comparethe Henrys’ agricultural records over several decadesand the family’s success with their neighbors’ in therest of the township (Table 1).

The farm economy of Kansas in the early 1870swas based on mixed-crop patterns and livestock pro-duction although many farmers produced for themarket as Pennsylvania farmers did. In 1872 DouglasCounty farmers planted mostly corn, wheat, andoats, a pattern also similar within Pennsylvania, but

many harvested native prairiegrasses for hay, as well as grassessuch as Timothy.

The Henry family faced aharsh winter in 1872–1873, whichwas followed by a grasshopper in-vasion during 1874. Grasshoppersappeared late in the summer, eat-ing everything organic as theyswept across the state. Despite

these poor crop years that ru-ined many farmers, the Hen-rys’ real estate value was threethousand dollars in 1875. Al-though property value is onlyone indicator of the Henrys’prosperity during the difficultyears of the early 1870s, cen-

sus records show the value of their personal proper-ty at seven hundred dollars. Perhaps more indicativeof the family’s financial state, however, was its abili-ty to purchase farm equipment despite the difficulttimes. When the family worth is compared with thatof the neighbors, the Henrys were doing well. Sincetheir farm was probably just beginning to producesteadily, they had only part-time help living withthem and paid out a small amount for hired laborduring the year. They planted a nursery of fruit treesthat later would produce apples, peaches, and cher-ries. As Pennsylvania farms usually had nurseries ororchards to produce fruit for home consumption, onewould expect the family to plant an orchard anyplace they moved.18

15. J. E. Bauman, interview by author (Ambler). Bauman is a twenti-eth-century barn builder who built in the Rossiter area and lived on theHenry home place in May 1989. Based on his experience, Bauman pre-dicted a large barn like the Henrys’ could be finished within a month tosix weeks. (Author’s note: the amount of time obviously would vary de-pending on the size of the crew, the preparation of materials, and theweather.) See also J.E. Bauman to Cathy Ambler, May 29, 1989, HenryFamily and Site files.

16. Henry Family and Site files. 17. “Obituary—[Rachel Kathryn “Kate”] Henry,” Lecompton Sun,

August 2, 1934; “Pearl Henry Drowned,” ibid., March 25, 1904; “The Fu-neral of Willie Henry,” ibid., June 23, 1892. 18. Miller, “Agriculture,” 185.

rich, open, agricultural land and bottom areas nearthe Kansas River.

The Henrys arranged for the construction of theirbarn almost immediately since the large sixty-two-by-eighty-foot barn was completed before the end of1869. Where the family lived during the building ofthe barn is unknown, but they may have spent theirearly days in a dugout or a log cabin, a pattern com-mon among those who moved to tree-covered, hillyeastern Kansas. The barn probably was raised withinsix weeks so perhaps the familymoved into a portion of the newbarn as they waited to build a newhome.15 Unfortunately, Jane Henrydied in 1872 at the age of thirty-five, leaving her husband withtwo young children, twelve-year-old David and seven-year-oldLeni. The family finally finishedits new limestone house just eastof the barn the year afterJane’s death.16

In 1874 William Henry re-married and at the same timereinforced ties to Pennsylva-nia through his new wife,Rachel Katherine “Kate” Hick-ox. Kate also was originallyfrom Indiana County, but her family had come toKansas in 1874 after first moving to Freeport, Illinois.William and Kate had two sons, John Pearl “Pearly,”born in 1875, and William “Willie,” born in 1879.17

Kansas agricultural census records make it possi-ble to reconstruct some of the Henrys’ farming expe-riences and compare them with Pennsylvania pat-

The Henrys’ barn was con-structed almost immediatelysince it was completed before

the end of 1869.

OVERALL PROSPERITY

CensusYear

1875 240 $150 $ 3,000 $ 5 $ 51885 370 $500 $10,000 $600 $201895 370 (only $ 90 $ 6,000 $600 $20

150 undercultivation

AcresOwned

Value ofFarm Implements

Value ofReal Estate

Value of AnimalsSold for Slaughter

Value ofPoultry and Egg

LIVESTOCK

CensusYear

1875 10 3 4 40 11885 10 10 15 3 21895 7 8 30 23 1

MilchCows

Horses Swine OtherCattle

Dogs

CROPS AND DAIRY

CensusYear

1875 6 40 1 7 300 50 (Timothy) —1885 70 100 1 30 830* 201895 15 40 — 22 250 40 (Prairie 40

Meadow)

WinterWheat(acres)

Corn(acres)

IrishPotatoes(acres)

Oats(acres)

Butter(lbs.)

Grasses(acres)

PrairieHay

(tons)

FENCES

CensusYear

1875 25 80 — 30 5001885 150 960 640 50 1601895 320 600 500 — —

Stone(rods)

Hedge(rods)

Wire(rods)

Board(rods)

Rail(rods)

ORCHARDS

Census Year

1875 — — — 1 acre nursery1885 20 bearing, 12 nonbearing 20 20 —1895 20 bearing, 20 nonbearing — — —

Apple Trees Peach Trees Cherry Trees Horticulture

Source: Kansas State Censuses, 1875, 1885, 1895, Douglas County, Lecompton Township, Schedule 2–Agriculture.* While the records clearly note this amount of butter, it seems in error when one considers the number of dairy cattle Henry owned.

Table 1: HENRY FAMILY AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION

A PENNSYLVANIA FAMILY BRINGS ITS BARN TO KANSAS 35

36 KANSAS HISTORY

Aside from the problems they might have facedstarting their farm, the Henrys had the financial re-sources to build a barn immediately and complete ahouse within the first three years. Considering thedifficult farming period the family faced when theyfirst arrived in Kansas —hot, dry summers and harshwinters, grasshoppers, and high farm debt—it seemsclear that the family had enough capital to ensure agood start.

Henry’s barn must havebeen a useful tool in hisearly farming endeavors.

Records indicate his 1875 agricul-tural production was both mixedcrop, livestock, and some market-place production. Henry probablyfelt quite at home with his greatbarn since it assisted him in farm-ing patterns that were similar tothose in Pennsylvania. Be-tween 1875 and 1885 thefamily net worth increasedas the value of its real estateclimbed from three thousandto ten thousand dollars. Butthe Henrys were not the onlyfarmers doing well duringthis decade; prosperity had returned to Kansas as awet weather cycle began around 1878. With adequatecrop production, farmers had an easier time obtain-ing credit from optimistic investors. Other new tech-nologies, such as barbed wire, made it possible forfarmers to fence their lands easily and further stimu-lated the settlement of the state.19 The Henrys usedthis new fencing material and began to phase out thelabor-intensive rail and board fencing. Rain, barbedwire, and willing investors all encouraged an escala-tion of real estate values, and the Henry family un-questionably benefited from better times.

In 1885, ten years later, census data note thatWilliam Henry was calling himself a stockman andfarmer. He had a variety of livestock including hors-es, cattle, pigs, and a dairy herd that produced morebutter than many in the neighborhood. With excessbutter production, Henry might have sold both but-ter and cream to his eldest son David. By 1885 Davidwas married and farming eighty acres of his own(Fig. 9). He also operated a dairy in the nearby townof Big Springs.20 His creamery had a reputation for

quality Longhorn cheese, whichDavid sold in the most populoustowns in northeastern Kansas.21

Besides cream and butter, theHenrys’ farm again producedwinter wheat, corn, oats, and Irishpotatoes. These choices remainedamong the crops statewide thatproduced the greatest value in thestate’s farm economy. Besides

serving his dairying needs,the barn, with plentiful gra-naries and storage areas,would have held the Henryharvest until needed duringthe year. Other sources offamily income were the poul-try and eggs. Compared with

ten years earlier, Henry was marketing animals forslaughter, which provided a substantial source ofcash. The Henrys’ orchard supplied the family withapples, peaches, and cherries. Dried and canned,these fruits were a welcome addition to the family’sdiet during months when fresh fruit was out of sea-son.

With his eldest son managing his own familyfarm and business in 1885, and because sons Pearly

19. Kenneth Davis, Kansas (New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1984),123–25.

20. Kansas State Census, 1885, Douglas County, Lecompton Town-ship, Schedule 2–Agriculture; see also “Obituary of David K. Henry,”Henry collection. David K. Henry married Delia Pifer May in May 1881,and they had ten children. See Henry Family and Site files. Big Springs isin the same township as Lecompton.

21. Marcus Wilson, “A History of Big Springs, Kansas” (paper,Watkins Community Museum of History, 1974).

Henry probably felt at homewith his barn since it assistedhim in farming patterns simi-lar to those in Pennsylvania.

A PENNSYLVANIA FAMILY BRINGS ITS BARN TO KANSAS 37

Fig. 5: Basement plan of the William Henry barn. (Note: this drawing depicts the barn as it might have looked, based on physicalevidence.)

and Willie were only ten and six years old, Henryneeded extra help farming. Two laborers assistedHenry in operating the farm, which had increased insize to 370 acres. It would have been difficult forHenry alone to cut the twenty tons of prairie hay tofeed and bed his cattle during the winter months,store twelve hundred bushels of corn and one hun-dred bushels of wheat in the barn’s granaries, andproduce such large quantities of butter without someassistance. Hired workers often lived with farm own-ers who provided them room andboard and paid them a smallsalary. In 1885 Henry paid aboutone thousand dollars to laborers,which indicates that he may havehired other seasonal help.22

The Henrys had entered theKansas farm economy dur-ing a period when agricul-

ture offered a wide variety ofproduction. But between1875 and 1885 this began tochange. Despite the Henrys’generally improving finan-cial status, they could not en-tirely escape the depressionthat struck the state in thelate 1880s. In 1887, as rains stopped and dry windsshriveled crops, a persistent drought ended remain-ing investors’ optimism. The boom was over, andhard times returned as banks, mortgage companies,and businesses closed their doors and went out ofbusiness. Kansas had experienced cycles of boomand bust from its earliest days, but this depression hitthose farmers with mortgages especially hard. Dur-ing the good times of the 1880s, many borrowedmoney to increase their acreage and purchase farmequipment, so when the dark days of depression ar-rived, it drove those in debt out of business.

Almost every farmer faced some financial diffi-culties during such hard times, even those moderate-ly well-off. While times were most difficult in west-ern Kansas, the Henrys’ decreased real estate value in1895 indicates that financial problems struck easternKansas as well. The Henrys reduced their herd sizeand butter production declined, although compara-tively the family still fared better than many. Farmersin the northeastern part of the state generally sus-tained themselves better than those in other areas

where high mortgages and farmfailures caused much personalhardship.

During this decade the Henrysdecreased production of wheat,corn, and oats but increased hayproduction and numbers of swine.By 1895 the family appears to havescaled back its farming activitiessomewhat. While William and

Kate Henry prospered de-spite fluctuations in thestate’s agricultural economy,on a personal level their fam-ily experienced misfortune.Their youngest son Williehad suffered an illness or ac-cident in infancy that had

paralyzed one leg. Always in poor health, he died atthirteen in 1892.23

The family had been farming in Kansas for thirtyyears when son John Pearl, or “Pearly,” married SarahKatherine Moore, a local woman, in 1899 (Fig. 10).William and Kate Henry then turned over theirKansas home place to the young couple and moved toTopeka. In 1902 Pearly and Katherine bought thefarm, but it did not remain in the Henry family muchlonger. On March 24, 1904, Pearly drowned in a flashflood as he floated logs down a creek to a saw mill.When his horse arrived home without him, Katherinealerted the neighbors who found his body.24 After

38 KANSAS HISTORY

22. Kansas State Census, 1885, Douglas County, Lecompton Town-ship, Schedule 2–Agriculture.

23. “The Funeral of Willie Henry.”24. “Pearl Henry Drowned.”

The great Pennsylvania barnand limestone house still

grace the Henry home placenear Lecompton.

Fig. 6: William Henry came from Pennsylva-nia to Douglas County, Kansas, in 1868,bringing with him many agricultural pat-terns of his home state.

Fig. 7: Taken in 1989,this photograph showsa barn on the Henryhome place nearRossiter, Pennsylva-nia, that resembles theone the family built inKansas.

A PENNSYLVANIA FAMILY BRINGS ITS BARN TO KANSAS 39

Pearly’s death, Katherine’s family advised her to sellthe farm, believing she could not manage it alone.With no extended family member available to assisther, Katherine and her two young daughters, Princessand Laura, left the farm after selling it to a familyfrom the area.

The Henry family left a legacy in Kansas, de-spite the deaths of two children and the sale ofthe farm. David, his children, and their chil-

dren remained in Kansas to raisetheir families, and their great Penn-sylvania barn and limestone housestill grace the Henry home placenear Lecompton. Although thebarn has been owned by others, ev-idence remains of the family whobuilt it. John Pearl left his markwhen he scratched his name “PHenry” onto the stairwell leadingto the lower level (Fig. 11). Be-sides this family signature, theHenry barn still shows itsworking history with well-worn threshing floors and gra-nary walls scratched withbushel counts.

Modifications to the barnbegan only after it passed from the Henry family,when later owners altered the barn to serve newneeds. Most of these modifications were attempts tofurther open up the barn’s lower level interior. Oneunfortunate alteration was a large hole punched intothe solid limestone foundation for a new entry on thesouth barnyard side (Fig. 12). Another was the re-moval of most of a large lower-level manger that rannearly the length of the barn and supported theupper story in the middle on a hefty limestone foun-dation (Fig. 13). Both modifications threaten the barnsince the structure’s weight now rests mainly on theoutside foundation walls, and they have failed.

Until these alterations, the barn stood structural-ly sound for nearly 130 years as a tribute to its Penn-sylvania barn-building heritage. From census andfamily records it appears that this transplanted barn

form adequately served the late nineteenth-centuryKansas farming needs of the Henry family.

Researchers generally agree that while predeces-sors of the Pennsylvania barn evolved in Europe overa number of years, ethnic Germans built early formsin a hearth, or core, region—the Cumberland area ofthe Great Valley in Pennsylvania—during the 1700s.25

Enlarged and modified there over many decades, thePennsylvania barn, or barns with forebays (and laterHenry’s modified form), have been attributed to Ger-

manic building traditions. Penn-sylvania Germans did spread theform as they immigrated to newlocations, but the Scotch–Irish alsodispersed the barn, especially intothe southern parts of the Shenan-doah Valley of Virginia.26 Bothgroups are credited with spread-ing the barn form because many oftheir cultural threads intertwined

in the Cumberland area. To emphasize the problem

of linking Henry’s barn withan ethnic group, his familycame from Indiana County, anarea settled mainly by Scotch–Irish immigrants althoughPennsylvania Germans also

settled in the same area. While most of theScotch–Irish were directly from the northern regionof Ireland, many others came to Indiana County fromthe Cumberland area. Indiana County was estab-lished in 1803 from existing Westmoreland and Ly-coming Counties and was settled between 1710 and1769, about the same time forebay barns were beingbuilt farther east in the hearth area. Because of thenumber of immigrants arriving in Indiana Countyfrom different places and the later presence of thenew type of Pennsylvania barn, it would be difficult

40 KANSAS HISTORY

25. Ensminger, The Pennsylvania Barn, chapter 1, 51–52.26. Ibid., 150.

The Pennsylvania barn, orbarns with forebays, have

been attributed to Germanicbuilding traditions.

Fig. 8: Atlas of Douglas County, Kansas (New York: F. W. Beers, 1873), showing Henry property.

A PENNSYLVANIA FAMILY BRINGS ITS BARN TO KANSAS 41

to connect William Henry’s barn with any one Euro-pean group or tradition.27

By the time the Henrys left the family’s farmnear Rossiter, Pennsylvania, in 1868, the form couldnot be distinguished by purely ethnic connections;rather, the barn had evolved and syncretized forfarming needs because it served common agricultur-al production patterns, especially dairying. The pres-ence of this barn form in Kansas should be studied asan economic structure, not as evi-dence of ties to an ethnic heritage.

The lower level of the Henrybarn has much in common withso-called English basement barns.English basement barns also aredescribed as having access in thegable ends, stanchions or feedingmangers between the access aisles,and no forebay.28 But English barnsmore often had three bays inthe upper level instead of

four, and these barns are small when compared withthe new form of Pennsylvania barn that belonged toHenry.29

I f it is difficult to attribute barn choice with oneethnic group, another approach is sometimesused to determine ethnic building patterns—in-

terior skeleton or framing patterns. A barn’s skeletonis created by connecting a series of “bents,” which are

part of the heavy timber frame-work that provides the structurefor a barn. Figure 14, which is asection of the Henry barn, shows abent pattern comparable to that ofthe Pennsylvania barn in Figure15. Bents connect to each otherwith large cross timbers called“girts.” Once the skeleton is fullytogether and in place, the builder

can nail or peg a wooden skinto the barn’s frame. While itis difficult to trace changes inthe construction of a barn’sskeleton, the Henry barnshows at least some similari-ty to other Pennsylvaniabarns. For example, in early

barns, girts were typically mortised into the tops andend posts of bents. But by the mid-nineteenth centu-ry builders began to simplify this pattern as theydropped the girt down a short distance from the topso that bents could be constructed with a connectinggirt in place. This eliminated the need for a secondarygirt as part of the bent and somewhat simplified theconstruction of the frame. There is no reason to be-lieve, however, that these changes were attributableto an ethnic tradition or particular regional barn pat-

42 KANSAS HISTORY

27. Cortland W. W. Elkin, “TheEarly Settlement of Indiana County,Pennsylvania,” Western PennsylvaniaMagazine 18 (December 1935): 276–77.Other influences possibly affected the Rossiter area’s barn building pat-terns, but they have yet to be as clearly established. Paul Roberts, editorof Pittsburgh History, noted that north of Rossiter many small towns re-semble old farm market and lumber towns along the New York borderand suggested that perhaps the Henrys had visited farms or seen barnsbuilt by New Yorkers. Paul Roberts, telephone interview by author (Am-bler), 1998. Glassie’s research also supports a New York connection. SeeGlassie, “The Pennsylvania Barn in the South,” 9, where he notes that theforebay-less two-level barn was reinforced by the presence of the forebay-less, two-level barn from New York.

While the Henry barn is a case study, it poses many research ques-tions about Kansas barns. For example, Jordan-Bychkov, “Transverse-Crib Barns,” 6–7, suggests that most of the eastern half of Kansas en-compasses a “Pennsylvania Extended” diffusion area called the LowerMidwest. He notes that the “Lower Midwest bears preponderantly theimprint of the Pennsylvania Dutch.” This cannot be fully supported in thecase study of William Henry’s barn, however. Henry’s barn form flour-ished in western Pennsylvania where both Scotch–Irish and Pennsylva-nia Dutch settled, and it remains unclear how the area’s barn patternsevolved or which ethnic groups could claim an influence on the sourcearea for Henry’s barn form. With more research, Jordan-Bychkov’s con-clusions may be supported, but ethnic connections now remain difficultto sustain as a means to identify and classify Kansas barns.

28. Henry Glassie, “The Variation of Concepts within Tradition: BarnBuilding in Otsego County New York,” in Geoscience and Man, vol. 5, Manand Cultural Heritage, ed. Bob F. Perkins (Baton Rouge: Louisiana StateUniversity, Department of Geography and Anthropology, June 1974), 223.Glassie also believed that increased dairying explained changes in a NewYork barn form.

29. Susanne Ridlen, “Bank Barns in Cass County, Indiana,” PioneerAmerican Society 4 (July 1972): 25–43. Allen G. Noble and Richard K.Cleek, The Old Barn Book: Field Guide to North American Barns and OtherFarm Structures (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1995), 79, callthis an English basement barn. Ridlen’s article also points out the prob-lem with tracing the Pennsylvania barn, associating it with Germans, forexample, and comparing it with similar English barns. She notes an amal-gamation of these barn forms in Cass County, Indiana, which she simplycalls a “bank barn,” and she drops ethnic associations. See ibid., 27.

The lower level of the Henrybarn has much in common

with so-called Englishbasement barns.

Fig. 10: John Pearl "Pearly" Henry is shown here with hiswife, Sarah Katherine Moore Henry, ca. 1890. Pearly, a son ofWilliam Henry and second wife, Kate, was the last Henry fam-ily member to own the farm.

Fig. 11: Pearly Henry left his mark on thefamily barn when he scratched his nameonto the stairwell leading to the lower level.

Fig. 9: David K. Henry, eldest son of William Henry andfirst wife, Rachel, is shown with his wife, Delia Pifer May,and two children.

A PENNSYLVANIA FAMILY BRINGS ITS BARN TO KANSAS 43

tern; rather, they were part of an evolution of build-ing techniques.30

While variations are found in mortise and tenonjoints, they do not necessarily reveal a barn builder’scultural or ethnic background. However, the Henrybarn does show a distinctive element in the mortiseand tenon joints because they are “seated-in.” Seat-ing-in a joint means a builder notched out a slot inthe mortised beam so a tenon would “sit down,” orseat itself within the notch. Again,Henry Glassie documented thistrait for late eighteenth-centurybarns in New York, not in Penn-sylvania. He concluded that theolder the barn, the more likely thebeams would be seated-in.31 TheHenry barn obviously is not old incomparison with those Glassiestudied from the late 1700s, yetGlassie’s research suggeststhe framing pattern forHenry’s barn has perhaps asmuch connection to NewYork’s barn building tradi-tions as it does to Pennsylva-nia’s. This tends to reconfirma mix of ethnic groups with-in Indiana County during its settlement years. TheHenry barn presents a very complex picture of build-ing traditions and cultural backgrounds tied to theRossiter region but apparently derived from multiplesources—including Pennsylvania German andScotch–Irish, and from New York and Pennsylvania.Despite all that the Henry barn does convey in form,function, and building technique, no information hasbeen found about this barn’s construction crew.

For nearly thirty years William Henry’s farmingpatterns affirmed that his decision to build a Pennsyl-vania barn in Kansas, which was familiar to him, fitwithin agricultural production patterns that crossedregional borders. This is not to say that the barn en-sured the Henry family’s long-term economic successbut rather that it assisted in maintaining farming pat-terns familiar to them. Although few other easternKansas farmers had such a barn, many were just as

successful as the Henry family.With the multitude of factors thataffected farmers’ success or fail-ure, it is difficult to draw conclu-sions about the barn’s value otherthan it helped the family sustainand improve its financial statusand provided a cultural link to itsPennsylvania home place. In abroader view, the history of the

Henry family helps connectfarming patterns across theUnited States and demon-strates that immigrants whobrought capital with themcould survive the late nine-teenth-century boom andbust economy in a settle-

ment-era state.In Kansas, rather than identify barn forms by eth-

nic associations, it is usually most helpful to identifya barn’s form and function and then trace it to othereastern regional barn building traditions throughfamily histories, to agricultural production patterns,or to new technologies and popular or prescriptiveforms from the building era. Only in rare instances inKansas can barn patterns be associated with ethnicgroups such as Swedes, or religious groups such asMennonites or Amish, and even these groups builtwide ranges of barn forms within the state.32

44 KANSAS HISTORY

30. Ensminger, “A Comparative Study of Pennsylvania and Wiscon-sin Forebay Barns,” 112; Glassie, “The Variation of Concepts within Tra-dition,” 227, 228.

31. Glassie, “The Variation of Concepts Within Tradition,” 199. Aframing characteristic attributed to lowland areas of the Netherlands andnorthwestern Germany is extended pegs, or those driven through a mor-tise and tenon joint and left to protrude much like a bristle on a brush. SeeHubert G. H. Wilhelm, “Midwestern Barns and Their Germanic Connec-tions,” in Barns of the Midwest, ed. Allen G. Noble and Hubert G. H. Wil-helm (Athens: Ohio University Press, 1995), 76.

32. Greg Schultz, “Barns and Cultural Change in Central Kansas”(master’s thesis, University of Kansas, 1983). Schultz noted the problemsin associating barn forms with ethnic groups such as Swedes and Men-nonites. Schultz found that a wide range of interrelated cultural phenom-ena made it difficult to indicate which factors might lead to changes inbuilding forms. Many different events influence people to alter the basicmanner in which they construct a building.

Only in rare instances inKansas can barn patterns be

associated with ethnic orreligious groups.

Fig. 13: Manger on lower level. This small section is all that remains of a manger that onceran almost the length of the barn.

Fig. 12: In later years a hole unfortunately was punched in the limestone foundation on the south barn-yard side of the Henry barn.

A PENNSYLVANIA FAMILY BRINGS ITS BARN TO KANSAS 45

An identification system for classifying barntypes that works for Kansas has yet to be worked outdefinitively. Most published barn research has beencompleted on structures located in eastern states, andtherefore the existing field guides that frequently citeethnic ties are based on this work. In Kansas a mix ofcultural forces, including ethnicity, regionality, agri-cultural economics, popular prescriptive trends inagricultural journals, technology, and tradition, af-fected the choice of barn forms.33

Diffusion over time and distancenotably increased the interactionof such factors. The rooted influ-ences of a cultural hearth could di-minish under these conditions es-pecially when Kansas immigrationrecords reveal that most familiesmoved west in a succession oftimes before they reached thestate. As they moved, manysyncretized tastes along theway with new customs andideas.

Although researchers tracebarn building patterns, fewdraw associations betweenforms and the families thatused them as economic structures supporting agri-cultural production. The richness of the Henry fami-

ly’s history connects Pennsylvania family roots toKansas and shows how this Pennsylvania barn formremained viable when the Henrys transplanted into anew setting. Census records, obituaries, histories,and tax records provide the information necessary tocreate a good understanding of the Henry family’sfarming experience and how its great barn assistedthe family’s transition from Pennsylvania to Kansas.As 1868 immigrants to a state whose boom and bust

economy, cycles of drought, andinsect invasions forcefully chal-lenged many farmers, the Henryfamily prospered. The story of thisfamily is tied to Pennsylvania tra-ditions but unfolds within the con-text of Kansas’s regional agricul-ture. The barn reminds us thatsome immigrants believed theireconomic success was bound not

only to farming traditions butalso to their barns, which theyintegrated seamlessly intotheir farm life. Today, theHenry’s great Pennsylvaniabarn remains a testament tothe immigrant family whobuilt it, and to its successes,

hardships, and sorrows while settling into its newhome state of Kansas.

46 KANSAS HISTORY

33. See Noble and Cleek, The Old Barn Book; see also Noble and Cleek,“Sorting Out the Nomenclature of English Barns,” Material Culture 26(Spring 1994): 49–63; John Fraser Hart, “On the Classification of Barns,”Material Culture 26 (Fall 1994): 37–46; Noble and Cleek, “Reply to Hart,”Material Culture 27 (Spring 1995): 25–31. These articles in Material Culturehave been a forum for continuing discussions among barn researchers

about the value of existing or proposed classification systems, diffusionpatterns, and cultural hearths. This case study would argue that even instates such as Pennsylvania, mixed settlement patterns and changes inagricultural production may have had more to do with barn forms thandid ethnic affiliation.

The Henry’s greatPennsylvania barn remains atestament to the immigrant

family who built it.

Fig. 14: This sectionof the Henry barn il-lustrates a “bent”pattern of construc-tion comparable tothat of the Pennsylva-nia barn in Fig. 15.

Fig. 15: Representative sectionof the Pennsylvania barn.

A PENNSYLVANIA FAMILY BRINGS ITS BARN TO KANSAS 47