In the early to mid-2000s, I was really struggling with finding exactly where our Rathkamp ancestors came from, prior to their migration to Milwaukee. But I started seeing a pattern: I was using the German Genealogy site genealogy.net and noticing that, while I wasn’t finding MY Rathkamps, all of the Rathkamps I was finding were located in a VERY tight geographic area.
On a whim, I sent an email to the Ev. Lutheran Church in Bassum, asking if they kept records, and if they did, were there any records for Hinrich Friedrich Rathkamp and Dorothee Hulseman, my great-great grandparents.
I wasn’t expecting a response.
On Christmas Eve day, I received an email from Friedhelm Wessels, a local historian. His email started: “I’ve found you’re ancestors.”
Wow, what a great Christmas present!
Over the coming months, Friedhelm bombarded me with tons of documents and information. There was a bit of a struggle with the language and early online translators were terrible.
One of the things he sent was the entire book titled: Kirchspiel Schmalförden, Höfe, Familien, Fluren (Schmalförden district, Homes, Families & Fields). He had taken the time to photograph every single page. When he sent these, I found the pages relevant to my ancestors, but never really paid much attention to the first half of the book, which gives context to the lives our ancestors lived.
This week, I used Claude to start transcribing and translating each of those pages. When it’s finished, I’ll stitch them together into a single PDF and make it available.
For now, here is a set of three pages that describe the type of lives our ancestors experienced within a system based upon Feudalism.
It’s heartbreaking and makes it easy to understand why our ancestors migrated to a foreign country that afforded them opportunities far beyond their wildest dreams.
Text Excerpt:
THE SCHMALFÖRDEN CHRONICLE
A local history of Schmalförden and its villages · English translation · Chapter 1.1, pp. 10–12
About this batch. These are pages 10–12 of the book — the core of Chapter 1.1, The Origin of the Old Farms, Farm Classes, Serfdom, and Old Rights.
Translated from the clean transcription of the German text (the scanned-page OCR was too corrupted to rely on). As in the sample, historical German terms
are kept in italics with a short English gloss in brackets on first use, so the original vocabulary stays visible for your research. Page 10 opens mid-sentence,
continuing from page 9 (not yet retrieved). Several pages carry tables, maps, and photographs in the original; those images could not be extracted from the
source files and are noted where they occur.
PAGE 10
1.1 The Origin of the Old Farms, Farm Classes, Serfdom, and Old Rights
[…continuing from p. 9] …through their constant struggle with the sea, the Frisians were able to preserve their personal freedom. Who
does not know their battle cry: “Lever dod als Sklav” [Low German: “Rather dead than a slave”]?
After this look back, let us turn again to our own home region. As already mentioned, most farms were subject to serfdom
(Leibeigenschaft). It is generally assumed that here it took the mild form — the third form — yet if one considers the dues and services
demanded especially of the Meierhöfe [tenant/manor farms], the burden here too was enormously high. Many farms bore a heavy load of
debt, particularly after the Thirty Years’ War, as one can establish from the Weinkaufregister [transfer-fee register]. Where that register
speaks of dilapidated farm buildings or of Meier- and cottage-farms utterly ruined, this was the consequence of such war burdens and
indebtedness.
But the following century, too, brought hard times upon the land. The Heimatbuch [local history book] of 1989 shows, on page 16, that
the Seven Years’ War (1756–63) did not play out only in Silesia but reached even into the region of our ancestors. These conflicts were
sharpened by the fact that, at the same time (1755–63), England was waging war against France — a war concerned, among other
things, with supremacy in Europe. Because of its personal union with England, the Electorate of Hanover was drawn in, and that meant
war here as well. From 1757 to 1759 the County of Hoya was under French occupation. This meant quartering and provisioning soldiers,
paying war levies, providing draft-team services (Spanndienste), and so on.
From this postwar period a document has survived: a letter that the Ehrenburg Chief Bailiff (Oberamtmann) von Roden and his clerk
Johann Georg Brandes addressed in 1769 to the Royal Great-British, Electoral Brunswick-Lüneburg Chamber (Cammer). They first refer
to a dispute they had had with Hanover over a land matter, but then — to take their farmers under their protection — turn to the general
distress prevailing here:
“How quickly it can happen that the countryman falls into ruin through no fault of his own, we unfortunately learn all too often. There are
misfortunes of many kinds. If it is not, as in the present year, a failed harvest, then it is the loss of livestock that in wet summers has sickened
kögisch [Note: ‘kögisch’ evidently denotes a disease symptom, but no description of it could be found]. One man loses his flock of sheep,
another his last head of cattle, and many both at once. How many have been set back, year upon year, by a hay harvest ruined by flooding?
Indeed, a great part of the district still feels the after-effects of the last war. The great highway from Bremen to Minden and Osnabrück, which
passes through this border district, was in many respects ruinous to the nearest villages. Besides the wagons and horses requisitioned for the
army, much haulage was extorted by the passing supply-trains. Invalid receipts deprived the subjects of the payment they had hoped for their
fodder. And for horses that perished in the army’s service, no hope of payment remains either.”
There follow figures for the large sums rendered for “English war-haulage,” whose reimbursements in London were said to have been cut
and sometimes disregarded entirely. Likewise they complain of the share of war-debt that fell to the Offices (Ämter) of Ehrenburg and
Barenburg, together with interest running over more than twelve years.
“Were one to reckon the damage caused since the French invasion, 20,000 thalers would come nowhere near covering what this last war alone
has cost the local subjects. The ordinary dues are considerable in any case, and for those householders who have neither grain nor other
produce to sell, little means remains — trade having shrunk — of earning a certain sum of money.”
There follows a listing of further financial obligations, which raised the people’s burdens so greatly that their dues became impossible to
meet — “of which the officials faithfully serving here would necessarily have the best knowledge.” Whether these words, boldly set to
paper in 1769, had any effect in Hanover, we do not know. In any case the account conveys a picture of the mood that lets us clearly
recognize the plight of the farmers of that time.
FARM QUALITIES, FARM CLASSES
With the aid of the tables and registers found in this book, one can easily determine how many farms existed at various times in the
villages of our parish (Kirchspiel), and to which farm class they belonged. Whereas the Pflugschatzregister [plough-tax register] of 1519
gives only the names and the place, the Bedeschatzregister of 1521 lets us infer, from the level of dues, the relative sizes of the farms. In
the Erbregister [inheritance register] of 1581 the “quality” — each farm’s membership in a class — is given for the first time.
Three farm classes were then distinguished here: Meierhöfe [tenant/manor farms], Köter [cottagers], and Brinksitzer [smallholders
settled “on the green”] — and, as an exception, two Leibzüchter (= Altenteiler retirement holdings) are also listed. Among the Meierhöfe
a further subdivision appears: “has a full farm” (= Vollmeier) or “has a half farm” (= Halbmeier). Among the Köter, an addition is noted
only twice in all: “has a good cottage” — “has a poor cottage.”
The Meierhöfe are the oldest group of farms; the founding of some may reach back into Saxon times. When the Roman historian Tacitus,
in his Germania (c. 98 AD), states that the Germanic peoples inhabit no towns, will have nothing to do with connected building, but dwell
in single farmsteads, this settlement pattern still holds true for our Meierhöfe. We find them set spatially apart from one another, with
room between them for gardens near the farmstead and for a stand of trees to shelter the buildings. It is also notable that most of the old
farms were laid out near a stream, to have sufficient water at hand — which likewise allowed grassland to be established close to the
farm.
Through the new founding of Wulferding in 1350, but especially through the division of Meierhöfe — thought to have happened
frequently between 1300 and 1550 — an increase of this farm class, the Meier, took place among us as well.
PAGE 11
The division took place in most cases between father and son, between brothers, or between brothers-in-law. Thus the Halbmeierhöfe
[half-Meier farms] arose. Where, by contrast, only ¼ was split off from a Vollmeierhof, a ¾ Meier remained and the new one was a ¼
Meier, and so on; ⅕ and ⅘ Meier also occurred. The burden was apportioned accordingly between the two farms. Thus the two
Halbmeierhöfe that had emerged from a single Vollmeierhof (whose obligation was one day per week with two horses) each needed to
serve with only one horse. The eight Halbmeierhöfe among us that had not arisen from a division — classed as such from the outset and,
like the Vollmeier, obliged to serve with two horses — were raised to Vollmeier status in the 17th century, so that in later times the farm
class could be read off from the differing horse-service.
It could be reliably recognized in all the records that the one serving with a single horse was a Halbmeier (a so-called Halbspänner,
serving with a half team), while the one obligated with two horses was a Vollmeier. To this rule there was no exception.
A special position with regard to services and dues was held by the three so-called Ritterhöfe [knights’ farms] at Wesenstedt (farms
Nr. 9, 17, 22). They were so called because they had a “knight” (= a noble lord) as their landlord (Grundherr), to whom they owed dues
— but far fewer than the other Meierhöfe. Their holders were personally free (leibfrei), yet they too, like the others, had no right of
ownership in the farm (they were half-free, Halbfreie). More on this can be learned from the individual descriptions of these farms.
Not only through farm divisions did the number of farms grow; at the same time, from 1400 to 1550, it grew through new foundations as
well — mostly laid out at the village edge, in some cases isolated out in the common land (Gemeinheit). After their originally small houses
(= Katen [cottages]) they were called Kötner. Thanks to the still-extensive common land of those days, they could win new grassland at
favourable spots, partly by clearing scrub and the like. It was the age of the creation of Kämpe (Kamp = enclosed field) outside the old
open field, which, like it, could be protected with bank and ditch (see also the enlarged excerpts from the Hanoverian land survey of
1771 in this book: the location of the Kämpe in the common land near the villages).
Original graphic here: enlarged excerpts from the 1771 Hanoverian land survey (referenced in the text) — not extractable from the source file.
The earliest new foundations were also generously endowed with rights (Gerechtsame) such as Hude [pasturing right], Plaggen- and
Heidemahd [sod- and heath-mowing], and could thus develop into large farms; one may say they scarcely stood behind the old Meierhöfe.
Their dues and services were lighter, too, for the burdens imposed of old on the Meierhöfe did not fall on them: they needed only now
and then to help the Office (Amt) with a horse, when special circumstances required. In contrast to the later-founded cottager holdings,
which rendered only manual services (Handdienste) and were therefore called Handkötner, the former were called Fahrkötner [team
cottagers]. The term Eggekötner was not in use among us.
After the Fahrkötner and the mostly younger class of Handkötner came the Brinksitzer. In the Erbregister of 1581, seventeen Brinksitzer
farms are named in our parish. These too could develop — thanks to the extensive common land (Meente) — into what we would today
call full-time agricultural holdings. As the name says, they settled “auf dem Brink” (= on the village green). They were chiefly younger
born sons, some having learned a craft, who set up on their own with the Office’s permission. Of the plots used it was then noted: “taken
from (…)” — and that had been done from a Meierhof, to whose dues the new Brinksitzer had in turn to contribute his share.
Their services to the Office were as a rule limited to work at harvest time and with the flax. Besides this, some had to perform messenger
duties, for which they were “sent, with a letter when needed, over several miles.” From the beginning of the 17th century, the holders of
new foundations were no longer called Brinksitzer but Beibauer [secondary farmers].
The territorial government had a great interest in the founding of new farms, since it raised the sovereign’s revenues; for besides the
dues customary for a new holding came the personal dues accruing over the years, such as Weinkauf [transfer fee], Erbteil [inheritance
due], and Verlaß [departure due]. This yielded more than if these subjects had become — or remained — Heuerlinge [tenant labourers]
(see the tabulation on page 13).
As much as such settlement was desired and promoted by the Office, it often met resistance from the holders of the old farms. They felt
their rights curtailed: the would-be settler — even if his allotted farm-plot in the common land was comparatively small — had
nonetheless to be granted participation, with a certain number of livestock, in the communal pasturing (Hude), and of that they gave up
something only reluctantly. (Of the arguments, expert opinions, complaints and on-site hearings brought to bear in such disputes, more
is reported elsewhere.)
In the course of restructuring the Ehrenburg Office household in the 18th century, it was decided to settle the outlying farm (Vorwerk)
Hotzfelde, and likewise the “third turn” — the western part of the High Field — with six settlers each. This was done on a ground-rent
basis (Erbenzins): the landlord ceded land in return for rent-money. Thus in 1789 the Erbenzins farms arose, and their holders were
called Erbenzinsmänner. The house-bailiff (Hausvogt) Meyer zur Landwehr also received a portion of the Office’s arable and thereby
became an Erbenzinsmann. Finally, on the former Vorwerk Ehrenburg yet another such farm arose; though situated in Ehrenburg, it was
counted with Hohenfelde. Two new villages had thus come into being:
Hotzfelde with six, and Hohenfelde with seven (one of them lying in Ehrenburg) new farms. Although these newcomers too pressed into
the common land, counter-reactions from the long-established now occurred only slightly, because the property allotted for them came
from the domanial holdings (Domanialbestand) and so meant no loss of land for the existing holdings.
PAGE 12
At the founding of the colony of Wietinghausen in 1821–24, however, protest stirred once more — of which more in the description of
that place. Through this founding a further ten Neubauer [new settlers] were added. By this time the designation Beibauer had been
replaced by Neubauer, so that the following order of rank now applied:
- In first place ranked, as before, the Meierhöfe, with the Vollmeier at the top;
- the Kötner — the Fahrkötner ahead of the Handkötner;
- the Brinksitzer;
- the Beibauer;
- the Neubauer;
- the An- and Abbauer.
In accordance with this order of rank, the farms also arose in that sequence over time.
After the divisions of the common land (Gemeinheitsteilungen), by which the holdings of the old farms had nearly doubled, some farmers
sold off parcels from this increase to would-be settlers striving for independence, who wished to build a house upon them; or else a
Häuslingshaus [cottager’s dwelling] was sold and a plot added to it, so as to bring a viable holding into being. A farm newly created in
this way was called an Abbauerei.
While some in time could grow into sizeable holdings by buying up more land, others had overreached, fell ever deeper into debt, and so
the farm had to change hands. Whoever was also a craftsman on the side managed best.
The number of farms among us was increased by a further five around the mid-1920s, when a settlement was laid out on domain land
near the Wietingsmoor: Heideloh. These farms were called Rentengutshöfe and their holders Rentengutsbesitzer (for the description, see
under the municipality of Schmalförden). From the tables in this book one can gain an overview of how development proceeded in each
village of our parish.
Looking back, we can observe that over the centuries past there was a steady increase in the number of farms, but that severe setbacks
also occurred. Let us think of the period after the fall of Henry the Lion, when — central power lacking — every count wished to enlarge
his domain at another’s expense. That these petty wars too were waged at the farmers’ expense may well be assumed. The farmers could
also become an object of exchange and trade among the landlords, suddenly bound in obligation to another. Then there were the
epidemics, which led to the dying-out of whole generations and the depopulation of villages and whole stretches of country. In our
records, too, we read that here and there “the farm died out in the plague.” With the Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648) most dreadful times
came upon the farmers once again, and the fresh start afterward was hard and long-drawn-out; the indebtedness of many farms took on
alarming forms.
The Weinkaufregister from the postwar years gives insight into the condition of the individual farms, which had to render dues despite
heavy debt. In addition, special taxes were levied to fill the sovereign’s empty coffers — as, for instance, the Rauchschatz [hearth-/smoke
tax] of 24 June 1673. This was a levy laid upon all chimneys, open hearths on the Flett [the open hearth-room of the Low-German
farmhouse], tiled stoves, baking ovens, drying-kilns, brandy-stills, and smithy-forges (Schmiedeessen). On the marriage of a daughter of
the Duke a so-called Fräuleinsteuer [maiden-tax] fell due, and so on. As one sees, ingenuity in this field was never lacking. And “it all
began once with the tithe.” (Leviticus 27:30: “All the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land or of the fruit of the tree, is the
Lord’s: it is holy unto the Lord.”)
That this state of affairs came to an end, after so long a time, in the previous century has its reasons. People — the rural population
included — became more enlightened. As the towns flourished, many sought to escape serfdom and make a living in the town, for the
saying went “Stadtluft macht frei” [“town air makes you free”]. But when throngs of emigrants turned their backs on the homeland to
begin a new, free life in America, a rethinking took place among the ruling class. New paths had to be taken to show some
accommodation to subjects who had grown restive. Thought was given to redeeming the compulsions imposed on the farmers, and
gradually, in the various territories and at various times, redemption laws (Ablösungsgesetze) arose to guide the process into orderly
channels.
Before we turn to that chapter, let us call to mind the extent of the duties and burdens that existed before the redemption: - Whoever took up a farm had to pay Weinkauf [entry / transfer fee].
- Only with the landlord’s permission could the farmer marry.
- The woman coming to the farmer on the farm had to pay Weinkauf (1/10 of the dowry).
- Whoever left the farm had to pay Verlaß [departure fee] or buy his freedom.
- When a death occurred, the Erbteil [inheritance] payment fell due.
- The landlord was empowered to designate the heir. (As a rule, however, the old principle was followed, that the eldest son
received the farm.) - In the worst case the farmer faced Abmeierung [eviction from the tenancy] and the passing of the farm to another householder
— for a right of ownership in the farm did not exist.
Finally, there were many other dues and services resting upon the farm, such as are given in each individual farm description. The
provisions governing the duties listed under points 1–7 are found in Chapter 1.7, “Oldest Sources and Source-Terms,” particularly in the
Weinkauf- und Leibeigentumsregister [transfer-fee and serfdom register] kept from 1666 until about 1840 (the abolition of serfdom)