In a long response to Josiah Quincy, Revere fumed about the committee’s verdict. He leveled most of his ire at the petitions of the coppersmiths and braziers, which he considered a completely unfounded betrayal. He defended his petition as “just” and claimed it would benefit other copperworkers as much as himself: “If we had whished for an exclusive right we should have applied for it when we erected our works, had we then done it we have no doubt the government would have granted it. It was as much a new invention as any thing for which patents have been granted by our government.” This statement proves that Revere knew about patents and their monopolistic consequences, but still chose not to apply for one when he first perfected the rolling process. In the remainder of the letter he repeated the great expenses and trials he incurred while mastering copper rolling, and proudly claimed, “we were willing that any Americans who could attain to so usefull and necessary a manufacture should be on a footing with our selves.” Concluding his rebuttal, Revere angrily denied the petitioners’ claim that
a sufficient quantity for supplying the United States can not be afforded by our manufactory or that we do not manufacture enough for the Town of Boston! The fact is that we have supplied different Merchants in Quebec, Newhamshier, Connecticut, Rhode Island, N York, Philadelphia . . . & that the sheets with which the Constitution’s Bottom was covered before she went to the Mediteranean was manufactured by us . . . We again assert that if we were properly encouraged we have not the least doubt that we could Manufacture a sufficient quantity for the US. We have now 20,000 lbs by us and have but one pair of rolls whereas we can make use of six pair.38
By changing the petition from a clarification of terminology to a request that his business receive preferential treatment in exchange for its functioning as a national industry, Revere destroyed any chance he had for its passage.
Years later, Revere shared all his information on the subject with James Prince. Apparently, some copper importers realized Revere’s petition would increase their material costs, and rallied the Philadelphia and New York copperworkers and braziers against Revere, insinuating that he wanted to raise a duty on raw copper. If true, this rumor explained much: a bloc of manufacturers carried more persuasive power against Revere than a group of wealthy merchants. Revere also explained how he discussed the goals of his petition with the Boston copperworkers, who then refused to join the coppersmiths of other cities against him.39 Of course, many of these Boston copperworkers were probably his friends.
Revere’s quest for tariff protection never left his thoughts. In August 1809 outgoing Secretary of War Henry Dearborn (now a collector for the port of Boston) asked him to participate in the survey of the Report on Manufactures. Seeing at last an attentive government audience, he brought Dearborn up to speed on the tariff situation and presented his request for the encouragement of manufactures, and sheet copper in particular, via a 17.5 percent protective tariff of domestic made goods. He also wanted the federal government to hire him for all of its copper needs since many judges rated his work equal or superior to British products. He reasoned that large contracts would help him improve even more. Unfortunately, Dearborn could not help him.40
By 1810, Revere was ready to try again, using a new approach. An August 20, 1810 letter to Treasury Comptroller Gabriel Duval reiterated all his old concerns about ambiguous terminology and the unfairness of protecting all imports except sheet copper. He was quite frustrated by this time, and pleaded for protection that he felt was both just and vital for his economic survival. Duval responded on September 4, simply stating that the courts had decided that bolts and sheets would also not receive a protective tariff, and only Congress could protect him at this point with new legislation. To make matters worse, Revere learned in December that Secretary of the Treasury Gallatin submitted a circular letter to all customs collectors requesting that copper bolts also be imported duty free. This measure prevented Revere’s two major products from receiving any tariff protection against cheap foreign imports. Revere once again planned to petition the government to collect the same tariff on bolts and sheets as on other items, and in 1813 Paul Revere and Son joined forces with fellow copper manufacturers Levi Hollingsworth and Harmon Hendricks on yet another request for tariff protection. None of these efforts bore fruit, and no duty was collected on copper sheeting until the Civil War.41
The tariff controversy embodies many of Revere’s complaints about the Democratic-Republican government’s hostility toward him. It is strangely ironic that the man who always wanted to become a merchant ended up losing his fight against a merchant lobby in a Jeffersonian administration. However strongly Revere might plead his case, he would never win as long as pride in his achievements caused him to stress the uniqueness of his business. His impassioned arguments offer his conception of both justice and efficiency: he felt he had earned the right to receive federal protection through tariffs as well as continued direct support through large government contracts. In addition to rewarding him, large contracts would provide new funds he could use to expand his manufactory and better serve his country. Revere’s political arguments favoring a merit-based republican system instead of excessive democracy came to fruition in this dream scenario: the government should reward and support the most qualified manufacturer and enable him to improve his craft. The U.S. government, especially under the Jeffersonians, would never levy a tariff that protected only one copper mill at the expense of merchants and copperworkers.
In spite of this defeat, Revere’s persistence, energy, confidence, and pride are evident throughout this lobbying period. Yet the same characteristics that helped him receive his first government loan and enabled him to overcome innumerable technical challenges could not win over the new administration, a testament to both the changing times and a former artisan’s constancy.
As a silversmith, Revere never gave a moment’s thought to the type of business he would run. The question was virtually meaningless. A skilled artisan who owned his own tools had enough independence to work for himself, making his operation a sole proprietorship by default. Other than paying the proper tax on his property, he didn’t have any papers to file. Similarly, his business had no independent existence or a name: anyone wanting silver would hire Paul Revere even if an apprentice or journeyman completed the work. As Revere expanded his business into new product lines throughout the end of the eighteenth century he had no reason to alter this status quo by incorporating or taking on partners. The primary reasons for changing one’s business organization were the need to raise capital and to pool expertise. Revere made out quite well in these areas even though he was “only” a sole proprietor.
In the midst of ever-increasing prosperity a few years after building his rolling mill, Revere initiated a momentous change: “I have spent for the last three years most of my time in the Country where I have Mills for Rolling Sheets & Bolts, making Spikes, and every kind of copper fastening for ships. It has got to be a tolerable advantage business. I have one of my sons in partnership with me; he takes the care of the business in Boston, I take the care at Canton about 16 miles from Boston.”42 On June 7, 1804, Revere signed Articles of Agreement to form a partnership with his second oldest son, Joseph Warren Revere. Paul listed “Gentleman” as his title and occupation, while Joseph Warren appeared on these forms as a “Bell & Cannon Founder,” a title he later changed to “Merchant” in spite of the fact that he spent nearly all his time working at the Canton mill. Neither Revere nor his son wished to emphasize his manufacturing-oriented livelihood when they could augment their reputation and self-image by calling themselves gentlemen and merchants. The signing of these papers created a new entity, “Paul Revere and Son,” technically considered a partnership that combined elements of old and new business arrangements. The partners agreed to practice “the art & mystery” of bell and cannon founding for three years, to work for the company’s good and not their private interests, to pay all taxes and expenses equally, to divide profit equally (“shar
e & share alike”), and to have equal access to all company books and records. In the case of the death of a partner or other reason for dissolution of the partnership, company assets would be divided according to the ownership ratio at the time of the contract’s signing. Since Paul contributed $32,400 of stock and tools while Joseph Warren contributed $16,200—both figures representing rough approximations, as demonstrated by the lack of inventory records—Paul became the “senior partner” and claimed two-thirds of all company assets.43
Revere’s new partnership arrangement explicitly acknowledged the relationship that had evolved over the past fourteen or so years. Joseph Warren helped his father operate the foundry from the beginning and served as his father’s right-hand man in nearly all matters. When Paul devoted the lion’s share of his efforts to managing the Canton mill and property, Joseph Warren provided an invaluable service by supervising the Boston shop. This arrangement persisted until a storm destroyed the Boston foundry’s roof on October 9, 1804, inspiring the Reveres to consolidate all operations in Canton, although they still maintained a shop for retail sales in Boston.
When this partnership expired on June 7, 1807, father and son renewed it until March 10, 1810. The renewal specified a fixed date for the termination of Paul Revere’s career: if he was still alive in 1810, he would allow Joseph Warren to run the business alone after that point and would sell or lease his share of all stock and property at a fair price, with the exception of his house.44 Apart from delaying his retirement until the beginning of 1811, Revere followed this script exactly.
The partnership form of business organization shared many features with the sole proprietorship. Both business types imposed unlimited liability upon the owners, who could be sued or imprisoned because of the firm’s debts or practices. Interestingly, the personal liability aspect of partnerships often helped them to prosper: clients and lenders usually engaged with a firm for personal reasons such as the trustworthy reputation of the owner. A firm that existed separately from its owner lost this personal advantage. Partnerships also had short durations, often even shorter than those of sole proprietorships. A partnership expired when either partner died, or if either partner chose to terminate the agreement, or at the natural end of the agreement, usually several years. While partnerships offered the possibility of raising additional capital or pooling twice the expertise of a sole proprietorship, in reality many partnerships featured one member with far more experience and assets than the other. Partnerships avoided the stigma of servility by elevating both members to the position of owner, a vital asset in a society that placed such a value on independence. Family firms, a popular form of business organization representing a modification of typical partnerships, offered unique challenges and rarely lasted more than one or two generations. Paul Revere and Son was an exception. One of the biggest barriers to family business success involved arguments over succession or management of the firm, particularly in larger families with more than one potential heir. Where corporations included formal legal structures that governed shares of ownership and voting procedures, family partnerships depended on the common sense and cool-headedness of relatives, never a safe bet. But families offered other benefits such as loyalty and goal sharing that could help small firms focus on long-term issues vital to their survival. Especially in a patriarchal society, the founding family member had the opportunity to impart a defining vision to the enterprise that could last for the life of the company.45 Joseph Warren Revere may have contributed less than his father, but his contributions held unquestionable value. Surviving correspondence illustrates a warm and trusting alliance between father and son, with Joseph Warren deferring to his father’s leadership and vision while Paul credits his son with a shrewder business sense and outstanding technical intuition. Common goals and methods allowed their partnership to thrive, and Joseph Warren attempted to involve other family members after his father’s retirement.
Revere had another option in addition to forming this partnership. Some manufactories overcame their inability to raise large amounts of capital by forming corporations. If they could arrange to receive a corporate charter from the state legislature, the manufactory owners could then sell shares of stock and raise enormous quantities of funds. Although limited liability did not appear as a corporate benefit until 1829, corporations often received corporate privileges such as monopolies, tax relief, or land grants from local or state governments. However, incorporation remained a rare organizational strategy at first. State legislatures only granted corporate charters in the 1790s and early 1800s to endeavors that served the public good, and did this sparingly to avoid creating unnecessary monopolies. Most early corporations such as colleges and libraries did directly serve the public welfare, although profit-seeking endeavors such as banks and turnpike companies that still provided public services became increasingly prevalent. Massachusetts granted only 3 corporate charters to manufacturers between 1789 and 1796, but granted 15 between 1800 and 1809 and another 133 in the next decade. The legislature rarely rejected these petitions and even allowed the scope of these charters to include peripheral activities unrelated to the primary mission. The growing popularity of corporations illustrates the overlap between public service and private enrichment, as this business structure seemed to accomplish both ends at once, although the public service aspect of corporations diminished in the following decades.46
Revere definitely knew about the existence of corporations, as he was the first president of the Charitable Mechanics Association, which actively lobbied for a corporate charter in the 1790s and received it in the early 1800s. He probably gave little thought to incorporation since he overcame the worst symptoms of his capital shortage in 1802 after receiving his government loan. Perhaps he did not want to share the ownership of his shop with strangers, knowing that investors, a board of directors, and perhaps even the state legislature would then have a say in his company’s decisions. He almost certainly preferred to involve the increasingly annoying government as little as possible in his business. The fundraising capabilities of corporations remained modest in the early nineteenth century when merchants and banks, the only sources of significant investment capital, typically expected personal securities as a guarantee for loans rather than using property as collateral. By keeping things personal and private, Revere remained in step with most of his fellow manufacturers. In spite of entrepreneurs’ tendency to expand their operations and adopt more modern managerial methods, the vast majority of shops throughout the country remained traditional small sole proprietorships or partnerships well past 1850. Even Alexis de Tocqueville commented, “What astonishes me, is not so much the marvelous grandeur of some undertakings, as the innumerable magnitude of small ones.”47
Revere and Son eventually incorporated in 1828 under the able, forward-looking leadership of Joseph Warren Revere. The organizational forms chosen by father and son exactly mirror their different approaches toward management and capital. Paul Revere selected a partnership, an intermediate stage between sole proprietorships and corporations that allowed some pooling of capital and expertise within a comfortable family structure. Joseph Warren took the next step toward industrial capitalism, modernizing into a corporate framework to maximize his ability to grow the business.
The Changing Face of Labor
Paul Revere was one participant, though older than most, in a widespread movement to replace skilled craftsmen with machinery and machine-operators in response to new opportunities presented after the Revolution. These trendsetters contrasted with a larger proportion of the population who retained older methods, resulting in divergence among the producing classes and strikingly disparate employment outlooks for different artisans. Small, struggling shop owners and journeymen unable to raise capital lost economic and social status and usually became wage laborers. The most successful artisans, such as Paul Revere, became businessmen by raising sufficient capital to employ others and prosper in the new world of mass output. And the majority, li
ving between these two extremes, entered the “middling” class, continuing their craftwork in any way possible, often supervising the labor of others in small shops, working as skilled laborers for larger employers, or becoming supervisors or machine tenders in factories. The term mechanic eventually identified this growing community of middling men unified by their belief in industry, frugality, and the “dignity and utility of manual labor.”48
Paul Revere’s background helped him dodge many of the pitfalls afflicting other manufacturers’ labor relations. As a skilled worker with impeccable artisan credentials he understood where his laborers came from and what they wanted. His shop brought in enough income to allow him to pay reasonable wages without placing undue demands on the local labor market. But even Revere had his frustrations and setbacks when it came to employee management, because America had not definitively decided how its nonagricultural workforce should be hired, supervised, compensated, or treated.
Labor relations are vital components of all operations, particularly manufacturing shops, as they relate to the deployment of capital, the mastery of technology, and the efficiency of resource use. In the nineteenth century America wrestled with two particular labor challenges: labor shortages in some regions or trades, and friction between employers and employees. The choices made by the owners, managers, and workers in each manufacturing operation often spelled the difference between profitable growth and dissolution. Paul Revere’s ability to blend old and new managerial styles and his impressive networking abilities allowed him to maintain a group of productive skilled workers even in the face of high turnover.
Midnight Ride, Industrial Dawn Page 36
