7. The preceding analysis represents a distillation of the first chapter of Lawrence A. Peskin’s Manufacturing Revolution: The Intellectual Origins of Early American Industry (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003). Note that the term mercantilism was not used until the late 1700s, but British economists advocated some aspects of mercantilist economic theory centuries earlier.
8. Margaret Ellen Newell, “The Birth of New England in the Atlantic Economy,” in Engines of Enterprise: An Economic History of New England, ed. Peter Temin (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2000), pp. 11, 59, 61; and Kulikoff, “The Progress of Inequality,” p. 376.
9. These categories contain a surprising number of gradations and overlaps: for example, most farmers also produced goods such as textiles or even practiced an artisan trade, and many hired laborers did so on a temporary basis while saving their earnings to buy land or start a trade of their own.
10. Marketplaces, or the locations for the buying and selling of goods and services, existed in some of the earliest human societies, and a market economy can be said to appear when a number of marketplaces fold into one another, creating price convergence, division of labor, and increasing returns. Capitalist attitudes and conditions existed throughout colonial America, but remnants of pre-capitalist practices still exerted an influence. For example, some colonists still used the concept of a “just price,” or a price for goods and services determined by notions of fairness rather than profit maximization. In addition, many economic relations depended on personal relationships, and unpaid labor (indentured servants, apprentices, or slaves) affected labor rates as well. The analysis of early market growth and the corresponding spread of capitalism is explored in many sources, including Winifred Barr Rothenberg, From Market-Places to a Market Economy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), p. 243; Winifred Barr Rothenberg, “The Invention of American Capitalism: The Economy of New England in the Federal Period,” in Engines of Enterprise: An Economic History of New England, ed. Peter Temin (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2000), pp. 78–79; Eric Foner, Tom Paine and Revolutionary America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1976), p. 26; Winifred Barr Rothenberg, quoted in Edwin J. Perkins, “The Entrepreneurial Spirit in Colonial America: The Foundations of Modern Business History,” Business History Review 63, no. 1 (Spring 1989): 160; Richard Lyman Bushman, “Markets and Composite Farms in Early America,” William and Mary Quarterly 55, no. 3 (July 1998): 353, 354, 356, 363–365; Howard S. Russell, A Long, Deep Furrow: Three Centuries of Farming in New England (Hanover: University Press of New England, 1976), pp. 33, 57; Stuart Bruchey, The Roots of American Economic Growth, 1607–1861 (New York: Harper, 1965), p. 44; Paul B. Hensley, “Time, Work, and Social Context in New England,” New England Quarterly 65, no. 4 (December 1992): 546–551; Jan de Vries, “The Industrial Revolution and the Industrious Revolution,” Journal of Economic History 54, no. 2 (June 1994): 254–260; and Gordon S. Wood, The Radicalism of the American Revolution (New York: Vintage Books, 1991), p. 135.
11. Artisan was the most popular term in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, craftsman was most common in the late eighteenth century, and mechanic gained ascendancy after that. This study uses the term artisan, although the sources often use other terms. Alison Burford, Craftsmen in Greek and Roman Society (London: Thames and Hudson Ltd., 1972), p. 13; Thomas J. Schlereth, “Artisans and Craftsmen: A Historical Perspective,” in The Craftsman in Early America, ed. Ian Quimby (New York: W. W. Norton, 1984), p. 37; James R. Farr, Artisans in Europe: 1300–1914 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), pp. 3–6.
12. Paul A. Gilje, “Identity and Independence: The American Artisan,” in American Artisans: Crafting Social Identity, ed. Howard B. Rock, Paul A. Gilje, and Robert Asher (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995), p. xii; Schlereth, “Artisans and Craftsmen,” p. 39; S. R. Epstein, “Craft Guilds, Apprenticeship, and Technological Change in Pre-industrial Europe,” Journal of Economic History 58, no. 3 (September 1998): 686, 701; Farr, Artisans in Europe, pp. 240–241.
13. Iliad, book 12, lines 342–345. Quote taken from Robert Fagles translation (New York: Penguin Classics Deluxe Edition, 1998), p. 335.
14. Burford, Craftsmen in Greek and Roman Society, pp. 67–89. The development of science in classical Greece contributed to the gendering of craftwork. Even though women performed highly skilled tasks such as weaving, this work was not held in the same regard as men’s work. Many of the vital services provided by women—child raising, education, weaving, cooking—exited the domain of crafts. Richard Sennett, The Craftsman (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), p. 23.
15. Farr, Artisans in Europe, pp. 33–34, 37–40, 260–263, 264–268.
16. Guilds formed in the thirteenth century as part of an arrangement with local governments: in exchange for receiving quasi-legal authority to control local entrance to trades (among other benefits), guilds assumed responsibility for maintaining quality standards. Pressures from widening commercial activity weakened guilds in the sixteenth century, which caused England to react with the Statute of Artificers (1562), which backed guild practices with the authority of national law. Walter Licht, Industrializing America (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995), pp. 48–49.
17. This emphasis upon honor applied to guilds as well, which often attempted to expand their social role by serving political, social, and administrative functions. Some guilds received authority from local government to collect taxes or rents or to help members with legal issues. Responsibility accompanied this authority: guilds enforced societal organization by publicly advocating the values of paternalism, hierarchy, and discipline. Guilds often took on the role of charitable societies or fraternities comprised of like-minded individuals seeking to perform good works. W. J. Rorabaugh, The Craft Apprentice (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), pp. 4–5; Epstein, “Craft Guilds,” pp. 684–687, 691–692; and Farr, Artisans in Europe, pp. 5–6, 20–21, 33–35, 228–230, 261–263.
18. The silversmiths’ guild, known as the Worshipful Company of Goldsmiths of the City of London, was exceptionally powerful. More than five hundred years old by the time of the first American colonies, it maintained a complete monopoly in Britain, and oversaw all aspects of the trade. It had no authority in the colonies. Graham Hood, American Silver, A History of Style, 1650–1900 (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1971), p. 15; Farr, Artisans in Europe, pp. 89–90; Epstein, “Craft Guilds,” pp. 696, 701; Thomas Max Safley and Leonard M. Rosenband, The Workplace before the Factory, ed. Thomas Max Safley and Leonard M. Rosenband (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1993), pp. 4–5.
19. According to the 1790 census (America’s first official population tally), only 5.1 percent of America’s population, or a total of 201,655 individuals, lived in urban settings, compared to 3,727,559 rural residents. The urban population would remain under 10 percent until the 1840 census. The census defined an urban center as one with 2,500 or more inhabitants; 24 such centers existed in 1790. Most Americans did not emphasize book-learning, scientific knowledge, or artistic finesse, but did gain familiarity with construction and repair skills as well as general mechanical knowledge. American craftsmen had to learn to do whatever needed doing with any tools at hand. Christine Daniels, “‘WANTED: A Blacksmith who understands Plantation Work’: Artisans in Maryland, 1700–1810,” William and Mary Quarterly 50, no. 4 (October 1993): 747; Gilje, “Identity and Independence,” p. xii; Thomas C. Cochran, Frontiers of Change: Early Industrialism in America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1981), pp. 10, 14, 54.
20. Artisans thrived in the middle and northern colonies, and fared worse in the rural South, where foreign imports and the lure of agriculture discouraged both masters and apprentices. One author defines artisans as those who derived half or more of their income from nonfarm pursuits, and believes they constituted 10 to 15 percent of all colonialera households, with a higher percentage in cities: one-third of all New York City households were headed
by artisans according to this definition. Edwin J. Perkins, The Economy of Colonial America, 2nd ed. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1988), p. 116. Bridenbaugh estimates that artisans constituted 18 percent of the total colonial-era laboring population, representing the second largest occupational class next to farmers, and he claims that artisans may have comprised between one-third and one-half of employed urban dwellers. Carl Bridenbaugh, The Colonial Craftsman (New York: New York University Press, 1950), pp. 1, 30–32, 96, 127. Looking at smaller sample populations, one regional study contends that by the time of the Revolution, one-fourth of Connecticut men practiced some form of artisanal activity. Newell, “The Birth of New England in the Atlantic Economy,” p. 62. Philadelphia had the largest number of crafts and craftsmen: 934 of 3,432 property owners were artisans in 1774. This number does not include all artisans, merely those heads of families who possessed real estate. Carl Bridenbaugh, Cities in Revolt: Urban Life in America, 1743–1776 (London: Oxford University Press, 1955), p. 272.
21. Kulikoff, “The Progress of Inequality in Revolutionary Boston,” p. 378; Bridenbaugh, The Colonial Craftsman, p. 127; Daniels, “Artisans in Maryland,” pp. 753, 760–765.
22. The government eventually attempted to take on some of the duties of guilds such as quality control and prosecution of frauds. Bridenbaugh, The Colonial Craftsman, pp. 1, 126–127, 146; Rorabaugh, Craft Apprentice, pp. 8–9. 366 Notes to Pages 25–27
23. Foner, Tom Paine and Revolutionary America, pp. 28–29.
24. Richard Hofstadter, America at 1750 (New York: Vintage Books, 1973), pp. 132–134; Bridenbaugh, The Colonial Craftsman, 155–156; Bridenbaugh, Cities in Revolt, p. 137; Nye, Cultural Life of the New Nation, pp. 132–133.
25. Wood, Radicalism, pp. 21–26; Leehey, “Reconstructing Paul Revere,” p. 15; Rorabaugh, Craft Apprentice, p. 5; Gary B. Nash, The Urban Crucible (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1986), pp. 163–166; Nye, Cultural Life of the New Nation, pp. 105–106, 109, 111, 115.
26. Gordon S. Wood, “The Enemy is Us: Democratic Capitalism in the Early Republic,” Journal of the Early Republic 16, no. 2 (Summer 1996): 301; Wood, Radicalism, pp. 21–26, 195; Gordon S. Wood, Revolutionary Characters: What Made the Founders Different (New York: Penguin, 2006), pp. 14–15; Nash, The Urban Crucible, pp. 163–166. The colonies lacked a true gentry or aristocracy in the English sense. American gentlemen would hardly draw attention in comparison to the much greater authority and wealth commended by the four hundred or so noble families comprising England’s hereditary and titled aristocracy. The wealthiest of Americans would, at best, be considered minor gentry in England, and most would simply fall under the category of gentlemen. Had they possessed such an incredibly wealthy and enduring hereditary class, colonial politics might have been far more stable: for example, Virginia had the closest approximation of a gentry class and had the most stable government. Wood, Revolutionary Characters, p. 12; Wood, Radicalism of the American Revolution, pp. 119–121.
27. Separation between colonial social classes was far from absolute. In Philadelphia, for example, artisans and merchants lived near each other and although most individuals carried out their transactions with their equals, a fairly frequent number of social and business interactions took place between these groups, including occasional inter-marriages. Even though Americans had a large gap between rich and poor it was smaller than Europe’s gap, and the chance to rise in society was larger in the United States. Wood, Radicalism of the American Revolution, p. 122; Charles S. Olton, “Philadelphia’s Mechanics in the First Decade of Revolution, 1765–1775,” Journal of American History 59, no. 2. (September 1972): 313; Kulikoff, “Progress of Inequality in Revolutionary Boston,” pp. 376, 388, 390–391; Wood, Revolutionary Characters, p. 12; Nye, Cultural Life of the New Nation, pp. 105–107.
28. This negative view of manual labor extends to the Roman Empire, if not earlier. While Saint Augustine did claim that labor helped mankind fulfill God’s plan for them, he also associated work with hierarchical servitude, and later European philosophers throughout the middle and early modern ages continued to cast physical labor as social control that helped the lower classes overcome idleness and vice. In colonial America, even a famous and respected painter such as John Singleton Copley was regarded by many of his wealthy clients merely as a skilled laborer, which infuriated him. These attitudes dramatically changed after the Revolution when the “useful arts” were viewed as a vital productive element in a successful enterprising society. Quote from Wood, Radicalism, p. 37. See also Bridenbaugh, The Colonial Craftsman, p. 96; Wood, Radicalism, p. 23; Wood, Revolutionary Characters, p. 15; Gilje, “Identity and Independence,” p. xiii; Farr, Artisans in Europe, pp. 11–13.
29. Office holding was often cited as a societal obligation or burden; for example, Benjamin Franklin and others had to give up their lucrative business interests in order to be taken seriously as candidates. Adam Smith cited the British landed gentry as ideal rulers because their assured income put them above the demands and influences of the marketplace. Alexander Hamilton concurred in Federalist No. 35, contending that lawyers and other scholarly professionals rose above the selfish interests of the marketplace and therefore deserved positions of leadership. Wood, Revolutionary Characters, pp. 16–17, 20, 237–238.
30. Historian Gordon Wood contends that Revolutionary-era artisans had difficulty “establishing their self-esteem and worth in the face of the age old scorn in which their mean occupations were held.” Wood, Radicalism, p. 278; Billy G. Smith, The “Lower Sort”: Philadelphia’s Laboring People, 1750–1800 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990), pp. 138–142.
31. In its strongest incarnation, the artisan perspective took an almost Marxist stance, equating an artisan’s skill and service with the property that most non-artisans accepted as the determinant of wealth and status. Ronald Schultz, The Republic of Labor: Philadelphia Artisans and the Politics of Class, 1720–1830 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), p. 5; Ronald Schultz, “The Small Producer Tradition and the Moral Origins of Artisan Radicalism in Philadelphia, 1720–1810,” Past and Present, no. 127 (May 1990): 87–89, 99; Foner, Tom Paine and Revolutionary America, p. 40; Bridenbaugh, The Colonial Craftsman, pp. 165–173; Gilje, “Identity and Independence,” p. xii; Howard B. Rock, Artisans of the New Republic (New York: New York University Press, 1984), p. 8.
32. As cities achieved greater populations and concentrations of wealth, craft trades split into subcategories with increasing specialization. For example, blacksmiths split into at least a dozen different sub-trades, including ornamental ironworkers, coppersmiths, whitesmiths, or anchor forgers. Bridenbaugh, Cities in Revolt, pp. 272–273; Wood, “The Enemy is Us,” p. 300; Rorabaugh, Craft Apprentice, p. 6; Barbara McLean Ward, “Boston Goldsmiths, 1690–1730,” in The Craftsman in Early America, ed. Ian Quimby (New York: W. W. Norton and Co., 1984), p. 129; Nash, The Urban Crucible, pp. 235–239.
33. Nash, The Urban Crucible, pp. 235–239; Kulikoff, “Inequality in Revolutionary Boston,” p. 387; Bridenbaugh, The Colonial Craftsman, p. 162; Farr, Artisans in Europe, pp. 113–114; Sharon V. Salinger, “Artisans, Journeymen, and the Transformation of Labor in Late Eighteenth-Century Philadelphia,” William and Mary Quarterly 40, no. 1 (January 1983): 63; Foner, Tom Paine and Revolutionary America, pp. 28–29, 32.
34. In general, these “wealthiest practitioners” had net worths valued in the tax records 225 percent higher than the average wealth in each group. Kulikoff, “Progress of Inequality in Revolutionary Boston,” pp. 385–388; Jeannine Falino, “‘The Pride Which Pervades thro every Class’: The Customers of Paul Revere,” in New England Silver & Silver smithing, ed. Jeannine Falino and Gerald W. R. Ward (Boston: University Press of Virginia, 2001), p. 159.
35. McLean Ward, “Boston Goldsmiths,” pp. 131–138; Kathryn C. Buhler, American Silver from the Colonial Period through the Early Republic in the Worster Art Museum (Worster: Worster Art Museum, 1979), pp. 10–11; Kathryn C. Buhler, American Silve
r in the Museum of Fine Arts (Meriden: Museum of Fine Arts, 1972), p. 39; Hood, History of Style, p. 74.
36. Leehey, “Reconstructing Paul Revere,” pp. 19–20. No records reveal whether he borrowed money to pay this indenture fee and buy the initial equipment and raw materials needed to start a silversmith shop. Perhaps he paid it from his journeyman income.
37. Janine E. Skerry, “The Revolutionary Revere: A Critical Assessment of the Silver of Paul Revere,” in Paul Revere—Artisan, Businessman, and Patriot (Boston: Paul Revere Memorial Association, 1988), pp. 43–46.
38. Skerry, “The Revolutionary Revere,” p. 45; Stephanie Grauman Wolf, As Various as their Land (New York: HarperCollins, 1993), p. 184; McLean Ward, “Boston Goldsmiths,” p. 147; Farr, Artisans in Europe, pp. 52–53.
39. Leehey, “Reconstructing Paul Revere,” p. 25; Wolf, As Various as their Land, pp. 124–128; Bridenbaugh, The Colonial Craftsman, p. 130; Jayne E. Triber, A True Republican (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1998), p. 13. Many schools required students to fill out preprinted pages of mathematical exercises in “copybooks” that would later be retained as a reference guide. Although Revere’s surviving records do not include a copybook, he might have used one to learn to add, subtract, multiply, and divide in a manner consistent with the complex and often inconsistent currency and measurement units of his day. Patricia Cline Cohen, A Calculating People: The Spread of Numeracy in Early America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982), pp. 120–123.
40. In America, merchants, lawyers, doctors, and clergymen also acquired their skills through versions of apprenticeships (although they were not formally called apprenticeships), studying and practicing under an established mentor for a fixed amount of time. Apprenticeship periods varied from 2 to 12 years in different countries, and apprentices began their training between ages 10 and 20. France and Germany typically adopted shorter terms than England, and certain trades required less training than others. After 1563, England’s Statute of Artificers required at least seven years of apprenticeship, in part to correct the chronic unemployment problem. Exceptions in apprentice policies often took place even within the same trade: some apprentices never became masters while others did so without finishing their terms. Farr, Artisans in Europe, p. 35; Epstein, “Craft Guilds, Apprenticeship, and Technological Change,” p. 689; Ian Quimby, “Some Observations on the Craftsman in Early America,” in The Craftsman in Early America, ed. Ian Quimby (New York: W. W. Norton, 1984), p. 5; Edmund S. Morgan, American Slavery, American Freedom; the Ordeal of Colonial Virginia (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1975), p. 66; Ruth Schwartz Cowan, A Social History of American Technology (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), p. 47; Bernard Elbaum, “Why Apprenticeship Persisted in Britain but not in the United States,” Journal of Economic History 59, no. 2 (June 1989): 339.
Midnight Ride, Industrial Dawn Page 47
