America suffered from a chronic labor shortage throughout its colonial years, a situation that persisted well into the nineteenth century. With local exceptions in major port cities, regions of high immigration, or congested areas, most Americans took advantage of cheap land prices and a welcoming frontier to purchase and operate their own farms, which often promised financial independence and prosperity. Many historians have used the “labor scarcity” thesis to explain America’s rapid industrial progress, willingness to employ machinery, consumer behavior, and other trends.49 The perceived consequences of the labor shortage even appear in Revere’s correspondence. In 1803 Caleb Gibbs of Providence requested Revere’s copper sheet and nail prices on behalf of several merchants, since “it will be better for them to purchase here, than to send to Europe.” Gibbs then added, “but they ought not to think that matters of this kind can be had in our Country yet as low as in Europe when we have to give such price for labour.” Clearly, American manufacturers often viewed labor as a limiting factor, but reality was a bit more complicated. While America certainly lacked the ample quantities of laborers found in England and other nations, America’s labor supply improved by the turn of the century and continued growing in the decades that followed, particularly in urban areas and in the Northeast. New sources of nineteenth-century labor, including apprentices escaping their contracts in order to earn wages, immigrants, and surplus population leaving farms, competed with journeymen for jobs and aided the shift to more modern business practices. Although many employers could locate laborers seeking employment, the need for dependable workers possessing the proper skills remained pressing.50
The relationship between management and labor changed in the early nineteenth century. American artisans primarily stuck to earlier practices throughout most of the eighteenth century, including bespoke work, apprenticeships, and social obligations connecting apprentice and master. The growth of the market economy and industrial production eroded craft labor traditions and fostered new practices such as division of labor, wage labor, and standardized output, which Paul Revere and other pioneers had implemented many years earlier. Different permutations of old and new managerial and technical practices promoted a spectrum of nineteenth-century manufacturing operations ranging from traditional artisan shops to capitalist factories; from tool-wielding skilled laborers to powered machinery. In the middle lay entrepreneurial ventures that started as craft shops but expanded into larger-scale manufactories. As they grew, many of these businesses reorganized labor by dividing tasks into simple jobs requiring more stamina and less training; standardizing products; relying upon larger numbers of apprentices or semiskilled laborers, including women and children; increasing machine use; paying wages for time worked instead of tasks completed; and rigorously supervising the work process to maximize productivity. Managers often attempted to make their employees work in a more regular and efficient manner instead of the skilled workers’ traditional “alternative bouts of intense labor and idleness” described by E. P. Thompson in his classic work The Making of the English Working Class. Even the definition of the “labor problem” changed over time to reflect an increasing identification with the managerial mindset. In the eighteenth century, “labor problem” referred to a widely perceived shortage of skilled artisans, but by the mid-nineteenth century this term shifted to identify a perceived shortage of hardworking laborers, and eventually, to a shortage of discipline or drive among workers whenever laborers failed to perform as efficiently as the managers hoped. Many artisan traditions such as liquor breaks or flexible work hours eroded when masters attempted to increase productivity. Machine operators in particular needed to work regular hours in a diligent and steady manner in order to maintain the overall product flow throughout the workplace. The pace of work often depended upon the limits of the power system, such as a river’s flow, more than upon the human need for rest or breaks. In addition, the shift from tool-based production to self-acting machinery shifted control over the pace and style of work from the laborer to the owner or supervisor. All of these workplace changes caused many artisans and journeymen to protest the loss of skilled laborers’ hard-earned privileges and independence, and they came to resent what they perceived as inflexible and emasculating regulations.51
Employee relations gradually shifted from a mutual exchange of obligations between masters and apprentices to short, specialized training periods that produced employees able to perform standardized tasks for a fixed wage. The apprentice system faltered after 1800, since apprentices rarely needed six or seven years to learn the trade and often preferred to leave early and start earning wages. Masters also deemphasized their educational responsibilities and focused on deriving benefits from apprentice labor. For example, Harpers Ferry Armory initially offered apprentices a fixed monthly wage of $12 that largely paid for their room and board, buttressed by a piecework wage for all their output above a certain minimum level. Their apprenticeship contracts bound them until they were 21, and promised to teach them the “art and mystery” of gunsmithing. They also received a new suit of clothing when they graduated. In 1809, managers changed this system to the “non-contractual training program” that treated apprentices as wage laborers. Harpers Ferry offered young boys a salary and nothing else, and their education suffered as a result. However, since many of the master armorers employed their own sons, many craft traditions and secrets propagated to the new generation through less formal means, keeping the spirit of apprenticeship alive albeit in a diminished manner.52
Changing traditions led to friction and protest. Journeymen and master craftsmen enjoyed harmonious relations throughout the eighteenth century, with only occasional small strikes breaking out less than once per year. Journeymen’s roles changed as their advancement prospects worsened. In the eighteenth century most journeymen were young and hopeful, earning money on the way to setting up their own shop. But even by the late 1790s, Boston had three to six times as many journeymen as masters, indicating their diminishing prospects of running their own business. By 1815, most journeymen were older and less likely to advance to shop ownership, often supporting families on their wages. Urban journeymen complained about wage reductions, longer working hours, the fading of apprenticeship, deskilling, and the increased use of day laborers, and in New York City more than two dozen substantial strikes took place between 1795 and 1825. Masters, journeymen, and apprentices flocked to Jefferson’s political party to oppose these workplace changes, which they attributed to elitist Federalists. In short, they protested the erosion of the craft system, demanded to be treated as skilled laborers, and expected to enjoy all the privileges of the prior generation of artisans. These hopes were doomed to fail, as the workplace, and indeed, the larger economy, had already embraced most of the values of industrial capitalism.53
Paul Revere managed to sidestep the prevailing labor conflicts and did not share the “typical” artisan’s frustrations. While operating his brass and copper endeavors throughout the 1790s he evolved a system of wage labor employment that adopted some trappings of the craft system, and he applied these practices to the new copper mill. The results were largely, though not entirely, successful, and he maintained a continual pool of at least five to twelve mill workers between 1802 and 1810. The number of employees on his Canton mill’s payroll and the total salary they received is displayed in Table 7.2.54
These figures reveal a general trend of growth, broken only in 1808 when Jefferson’s non-importation and embargo policies curtailed the sales and forced Revere to reduce his workforce. Revere relocated all his Boston foundry operations and equipment to Canton after October 1804, which might account for some of the payroll increase because these figures apply to Canton and do not include Boston-based foundry employees.
Table 7.2. Size of Workforce and Labor Costs in Canton Mill
Revere’s ledgers and correspondence do not indicate any chronic reduction of output resulting from labor scarcity, unlike the frequent slowdowns caused by
raw material shortages. Revere did face short-term labor problems at times, as did all establishments at the time. For example, in September 1809 all of his workmen could not work for ten days because of sickness. Whenever workers and managers argued over the right to set schedules and the pace of work, many employees in other manufactories resorted to strategies such as a “slowdown” or feigned sickness to increase their leisure time. Revere’s records do not indicate whether his crippling 1809 work stoppage had feigned or natural causes, but the former seems unlikely. Throughout all his employee records, frequent reports of absenteeism indicate that any worker could begin a leave of absence whenever he wanted as long as he was willing to forgo his salary. Thanks to Revere’s lenient policy, workers did not need to act sick to earn free time. A second worker conflict occurred in 1810, when two of his principal workmen left in the middle of a job.55 This abrupt and damaging departure might reflect unhappiness with Revere’s working conditions, although it could also indicate a sudden business opportunity that lured them away. These were the only two instances throughout all of Revere’s records when he explicitly attributed a production delay to labor problems.
Revere’s labor relations relate to early nineteenth-century legal trends. Many disputes between laborers and managers reached the courts and in nearly all the early cases the courts favored the employer, a throwback to earlier court support for master craftsmen against their apprentices. Nineteenth-century labor relations became more explicit and quantitative than the verbal contracts under the earlier system, and often relied upon written contracts arbitrated in courtrooms. Most judges viewed labor contracts as “entire” agreements that became null if violated in any way. In several of the most egregious cases, employees signed yearlong contracts, missed a few days of work, and therefore had to forfeit all wages as their penalty for breaking the contract. Revere never faced this problem with his laborers, partly because he relied upon informal verbal contracts and related to them as fellow skilled workers whom he treated with respect as long as they earned his trust. Revere showed his age by favoring the older style of flexible personalized contracts rather than the standardized professional contract terms that gained in popularity from the 1780s to the mid-1800s. Joseph Warren Revere, more modern and formal than his father, recorded four explicit written contracts in his “Canton Ledger,” a notebook often used for miscellaneous recordkeeping tasks. These four notes are the only ones of their kind, possibly signaling an early experiment that was not continued. On November 15, 1805, he agreed to hire Enos Withington for one year (beginning the prior September) for $18 a month, with a raise to $19 a month for the last five months. On November 18 he enlisted Thomas Pattersole until April 1 at the rate of 3 shillings, 6 pence per working day. On November 25 he contracted with Isaac Bosworth for $1 per day, and on February 18, 1806, he hired Timothy Allen for $1 a day. The different agreement types are interesting: Withington’s contract reflected months of work that had already taken place at a monthly rate; Pattersole’s rate used shillings and pence to pay a day wage; and Bosworth and Allen received $1 a day as agreed before work began. Clearly, father and son lacked a consistent method for contracting salaries and labor.56
The only surviving description of any worker’s job title applied to the foreman position. Revere apparently delegated some authority to Willaby Dexter, succeeded by his brother Jeremiah Dexter after Willaby left. Revere clearly trusted and respected Willaby, who received by far the highest salary in the plant, three months’ wages at $45 per month and five months at $49 per month. Willaby provided room and board for many of Revere’s employees, as described below, and also gave evidence for the court proceedings in Revere’s lawsuit against Leonard and Kinsley in 1804. Jeremiah Dexter received the most raises of any employee in Revere’s service, and became the highest-paid worker after his brother left, as well as the first one to receive a daily wage. Revere paid his best employees accordingly, knowing from his own experience that this would lessen the likelihood of turnover while increasing their motivation and morale.
Managerial influence often extended past the walls of the shop, as many early nineteenth-century factory owners considered themselves responsible for the moral and spiritual well-being of their workers. Examples of managerial proselytizers include Eli Whitney, who styled himself a “steward of the Lord,” and the Waltham and Lowell textile mills, which attracted young women from rural communities with their paternalistic emphasis upon regular church attendance and proper behavior. The desire to promote or mandate virtue among employees arose in response to the widespread fear of industrial decadence and oppression, as different factory owners attempted to demonstrate that manufacturing establishments could educate and enlighten their workers. These efforts often created employee dissatisfaction, as the owner’s attempts at rigid supervision diminished or eliminated laborers’ prior privileges such as liquor, swearing on the job, and workers’ freedom to spend the Sabbath as they saw fit.57 Revere never considered or implemented any policies along these lines. Despite all his attempts to become a gentleman, former craftsman Revere understood the needs of skilled labor and seemed capable of dealing with his workers amicably.
Revere did not unduly suffer from the scarcity of labor in America, but at the same time he certainly wished for improvements in his workforce. He expressed some frustrations in the 1803 letter to Joshua Humphreys quoted earlier. When discussing errors in an early shipment of bolts, he laid some of the blame on labor and management practices:
The Bolts we sent them were drawn from Pigs of our own casting that weighed 250 lbs. The men whom we imployed were not carefull they did them by the job & did not take the pains they ought to in cutting the pigs they made finns & those finns made the scales. All these bolts were manufactured before we got our works agoing. Now they are all done under my & my son’s inspection . . . we are obliged to pick up hands as we can & as they begin to know some thing of the Business they leave us.58
This letter alludes to two common labor problems: lax on-the-job practices and high turnover. Revere implies a solution to the first problem: now that his works were properly “agoing,” he and his son could keep a closer eye on the shop to make sure the laborers followed rigorous procedures. The erroneous shipment took place when his Canton shop had first opened its doors and as a result he might have subcontracted the work, relied upon unfamiliar workers, or allowed the workers more than their usual independence while he focused on more pressing matters. The second problem, workers leaving after learning some skills in the shop, had plagued managers and master craftsmen since the days of colonial apprenticeships. Revere was no stranger to worker turnover, nor could he address it definitively. His only recourse was to offer the best possible working conditions and endeavor to recruit capable new workers when older hands chose to leave.
Revere continually looked for new skilled employees and occasionally wrote letters in search of recommendations or leads. One such exchange provides our only glimpse of a negotiation process. Revere received such a favorable report of Isaac Bosworth, a Plymouth copperworker, that he contacted him by letter to arrange a trial in his shop. Revere waited for his son to return from Europe before opening the negotiations, a sign of his faith in his partner. On October 19, 1805, Revere said he would not meet Bosworth’s request of 9 shillings a day, approximately $1.30 to $1.50, because this high rate would upset the current wage hierarchy. At the time he paid one man $18 a month and had several job applicants request $20, so he offered Bosworth $26 a month, which translated to $1 a day for 26 working days (implying a 6-day workweek). Revere believed his wage system appealed to his laborers, saying, “you will judge wether that wages paid punctually in Cash is not better that the way you have received your wages.” If Bosworth came for a trial month and both parties wished to continue the relationship, Revere then offered to engage him for a year. This is exactly what happened, and Revere later sent Mrs. Bosworth $40 in December at his request, informing her that Mr. Bosworth planned to work at Canton
over the winter.59
Revere charted his workers’ salaries and employment periods in a ledger prior to 1807.60 Revere switched from a monthly wage to a daily wage between 1805 and 1806. This change had little practical impact upon Revere’s treatment of issues such as absenteeism since he already converted monthly wages into daily rates whenever he deducted money from workers’ accounts for missed days. Revere might have moved his unit of employment time to a smaller increment to reflect increasing worker turnover. Most workers stayed for only one or two years, rarely longer than four. New England presented many opportunities for skilled laborers, as well as the ever-present lure of running one’s own farm after amassing enough money. Revere’s manufactory represented a good opportunity for workers to learn useful technical skills while earning an excellent salary. This transient behavior occasionally became a problem, as noted above, but Revere’s total number of workers steadily increased. As long as he could replace his losses and train new workers relatively quickly, Revere’s labor situation remained beneficial.
As with so many of his manufacturing practices, Revere mixed old and new labor methods, even reaching into his own artisan experiences for occasional inspiration. Revere paid his foreman, Willaby Dexter, for the room and board of many employees, whose names he recorded as Jon Battler, Pettier, Vase, Story, Withington, Mr. May, Jacob Perkins, Asa Smith, Joel Fales, and finally, “Nath Morton & Apprentices.” The “Nath Morton” notation implies that the apprentices may have worked for longtime Revere employee Nathaniel Morton, and not for Revere himself. The complexity of this transaction adds proof to the interconnectedness of personal and business relationships in small artisan-style shops like Revere’s. Dexter owned a house near the Canton rolling mill and offered Revere a convenient way to provide his employees with nearby accommodations that might even build worker camaraderie . . . for a price. Dexter’s board charges totaled $182, a sizeable sum. Some of these workers, such as Battler, May, Perkins, and Morton and his apprentices, do not even appear in Revere’s ledgers, raising the question of why Revere paid their board. He might have employed them in non-mill operations such as carpentry or masonry, or they might have worked in the mill without written contracts, a common practice. After Willaby Dexter left his job, Revere paid his employees directly for their lodging at a rate of $2 a week, presumably to help them make their own living arrangements. Subsidized lodging hearkened back to artisan obligations, and Revere probably discontinued this practice in 1805 when he stopped recording lodging subsidies. In 1808 he revealed that he hoped to build “a large dwelling House” for his workmen on an unused part of his property, a plan he never brought to fruition.61 Even the mention of this idea shows how Revere thought about his relationship with his workers, hoping to provide them with a place to live on his property and food to eat as well as a competitive salary. He continued to see them as a community of skilled laborers, fellow craftsmen whose hard work and judgment profoundly contributed to the success of his manufactory. In this manner he remained their leader and manager without engendering the backlash experienced in many other firms attempting to modernize. Perhaps Revere succeeded because he subconsciously applied one of the great lessons from the other revolution that had transformed America several decades earlier: he who loses the goodwill of the people loses all.
Midnight Ride, Industrial Dawn Page 37
