Succotash

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
4,517
Reaction score
1,816
[youtube]amtDSfYcSXI[/youtube]

Looked good so I tried it :grin:


[youtube]Rh9EsueEfpk[/youtube]

FYI: it was raining or trying to all the day so I did it inside. :idunno:
 
Boy!!! I had forgotten about succotash. I haven't had any in about 25 years I suppose. But ate a bait many times when I was a kid growing up in the South and my Wife made it when we lived in VA. Glad you reminded me. How did you learn about it? Did you like it?
 
I suppose "ate a bait" is southern for "ate a lot". My hunting and fishing pard. since 1953 often says "ate a shevvel full".
 
You can kick succotash up a notch by adding a few more ingredients and it becomes Brunswick Stew, which is very good, as well.
http://www.agsas.org/howto/food/brunswickstew.shtml

I kind of think Brunswick stew would probably have been called succotash in the 17th-18th century, but it has earned a separate identity these days. I've seen them served side by side at the same meal, though I don't know how far back that practice would go.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Brunswick stew has more ingredients. A friend of mine had a BS feed every fall in VA cooked in a huge cast iron kettle in his back yard and I was expected to supply the meat ( can you say grey squirrel). My wife still makes BS but no grey squirrels in MT so she uses "other meat" namely chicken. It's all goooooood.
 
VERY TRUE. - One year I was tasked with making enough squirrel stew to feed a men's service club in my home county in NETX. - Having no squirrels to spare, I used chicken & after it was cooked/boned/spiced none of the "happy eaters" knew the difference!!

yours, satx
 
Yep. When I provided the "meat" for my friends stew everyone thought it was chicken. A lot of the guests would not eat squirrel.
 
Brunswick stew has more ingredients.

Today it does, but did it always? The first reports of it show it to be a squirrel dish, made with onions and butter...funny,... did the hunting party that ate it the first time tote around onions and butter? They certainly didn't tote around lots of tomatoes (considered essential to a present day Brunswick stew). Dried corn and beans are perhaps a better bet, but then it was simply a squirrel based succotash...., unless perhaps the "cook" of the first version did carry some onions along on the trip, and simply made squirrel succotash, and then perhaps with the addition of onions (not a Native American plant) it became the first "Brunswick Stew". :confused:

I prefer my succotash with a bean other than the lima.... :barf:

LD
 
I wonder if the "hunting party" carried a pot either. Perhaps the day hunters simply returned to the farm that afternoon & added whatever was ripe in the garden to whatever they had managed to shoot. Thinking that what they had eaten was unusually tasty, they went out of their way to duplicate the ingredients and a recipe was born. :idunno:
 
Thanks, I always wondered what type of bean was used. Today we have the Lima bean but somewhere in my mind I thought the original was a kidney bean.
Actually, on a rainy day, dried kidney beans, dried corn, bits of jerky- you could cook up a pc dinner.
 
Indians did raise several types of beans. I at least could wonder that succotash was as different day to day as lobscose. Brunswick stew is a late name, but I often suspected people slapped meat between slabs of bread before lord sandwich.
 
My other succotash issue is how widely used was it? I've been reading the David Thompson Journals and there were Iroquois relocated to the Canadian Rockies and you would think succotash would have been introduced to the area.
They say beans and corn yield complete protein, add some jerky and you probably have "the perfect food".
 
crockett said:
My other succotash issue is how widely used was it? I've been reading the David Thompson Journals and there were Iroquois relocated to the Canadian Rockies and you would think succotash would have been introduced to the area.
There are two different issues to your question, IMO. The word 'succotash' is said to have first been derived from the Narragansett word msíckquatash, meaning boiled corn, in about 1750, so you wouldn't expect to see it used as such before that date in other places.

Cooking corn and beans together, though, was being done much earlier. The original Jamestown settlers, 1607, found that the Powhatan Indians living along the Virginia coast boiled corn and beans together routinely, a dish they called Pausarowmena.

As is not unusual, I suspect we won't ever find out when the term succotash was first applied to a dish of corn and beans. After 1750, at least. I have a reference from 1788 on the Ohio River near Fort Pitt, Journal of John May, which uses the term succotash, but doesn't tell us what he meant by it.

"Tuesday, May 27. I dined to day with General Harmer, by invitation, had an elegant dinner. amongst the variety was allamode and boiled fish Bear steak roast venison et.c excellent sacketosh salads and cramberry sauce, grog and wine after dinner."

As an aside, his allamode was probably beef braised with vegetables served with brown gravy. The term allamode is our à la mode, as in apple pie à la mode. It simply means 'in the fashionable way'.

Spence
 
Did the Narraganset word mean just boiled corn? I wonder if they had a generic word for soup or stewed veggies? Beans and rice would become common in the Caribbean and beans and barley was an old meal in the north east Mediterranean. So beans and grain make sense. Beans and rice are one of the most popular meals in the world today.
I can't imangin that beans mixed with corn would have been a popular dish for people that had beans and corn in their larder. How ever Washington ate meat pies, bread and meat, but didn't have pizza :idunno: did beans and rice spread to North America out othe Caribbean substituting corn for rice???
I can't see that but if the word was just boiled corn to begin with makes me wonder.
 
Dictionary.com, origin of succotash

1745-55, Americanism; < Narragansett (E spelling) msíckquatash boiled whole kernels of corn (cognate with Eastern Abenaki (French spelling) mesikoutar, equivalent to Proto-Algonquian *mes- whole + *-i·nkw- eye (hence, kernel) + *-ete·- be cooked (+ -w-) + *-ali plural suffix)

Beans need not apply.

Spence
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, continuing with my reading of the David Thompson Journals, he is now traveling eastward along the south shore of Lake Superior (This is Pre-Lewis & Clark) and he is discussing food. So far it is the most detailed I've found. The outfit is eating either "boiled corn" or boiled wild rice. The corn has been hulled through the use of lye, and it must be soaked about a day and then boiled 3-4 hours. This soaking occurred in a water filled pot taken with them (they traveled by canoe). He said quite often they would boil the corn at night, after dinner, and then take the cooked corn with them the next day however on occasion it would sour before they could eat it.
In any event, the corn sounds like whole kernel lye hominy. I wonder if it was also used in succotash.
Up to reading this passage I was of the opinion that when "corn" was mentioned it had to be corn meal because it cooks in a couple of minutes, but what is convenient today doesn't really mean that is how things were done years ago.
The "corn" some mountain man outfits ate upon leaving St. Louis, now I am wondering if it also was hominy, they just packed along the weight of it soaking in a pot of water.
Any how, on the succotash- I've been focused on the kind of beans used. On the corn half, was dried corn used or hominy, or either?
 

Latest posts

Back
Top