Wheat and the Federalists

At the start of my masters course, striking around for ideas to investigate around the topic of the Federalist party, I adopted a hypothesis: that the shift from tobacco to wheat farming in the revolutionary Chesapeake was a factor in the national integrationist ideas of Washington and Madison, as well presumably as other Virginia and Chesapeake Federalists. Quite early in the investigation I abandoned the idea of proving this hypothesis by matching wheat-growing areas in Virginia to districts that voted Federalist in 1788: back in 1978, Norman Risjord had already tried it, and provided a helpful if discouraging footnote in his opus, Chesapeake Politics 1781-1800:

... the hypothesis does not stand up under close scrutiny, however. The upper bay-Susquehanna region produced as much wheat and flour as the Potomac, yet it voted Antifederalist. The Patuxent Valley, which grew the finest tobacco in Maryland, was staunchly Federalist. Most farmers in Maryland seem to have raised both tobacco and cereal grains, often side by side. [p283 note]

Still, I changed tack only slightly. Rather than defining voting patterns, which is after all a strong test, perhaps wheat could have nonetheless been influential on the way people saw the world, and on the ideas of Federalist leaders. Wheat trade meant closer contact between Virginians and men (merchants) from other states. It also meant that Virginia's interests as a wheat-growing state were aligned with those of other wheat-growing states to the north. Indeed, seen in the long perspective, where the pattern of Virginia agriculture swings from tobacco to wheat to cotton, it appears to take on a particular importance to the north-south divide.

These observations are all valid, I think, and they remain part of my work. But there are two things: first, the correlations are pretty weak (Madison for one remained far more concerned with tobacco than wheat), not to mention confined to the northern Chesapeake, and the hypothesis itself now seems flatly materialist; second, I'm bored of this topic now. As grateful as I was to use it in my applications, I don't actually see it as the core of my project. So, my question is, is this a symptom of flightiness that bodes ill for the long and painful task of doctoral research, or does it demonstrate a useful ability to recognise the limitations of one's pet ideas?

On Friday I will give my first ever conference paper, to the British Group of Early American Historians, and it will be all about wheat and the Federalists. When I've finished, it will close a chapter of my student life.