Midnight Ride, Industrial Dawn

by Robert Martello

  55. Revere to Joseph Carson, September 8, 1809, and Revere to Joseph Carson, December 28, 1810, both in “Letterbook 1809–1810,” reel 14, vol. 53.4, RFP.

  56. Wages listed on page beginning with “15 Nov 1805,” in “Canton Ledger 1802–6,” reel 10, vol. 29, RFP. Also see Horwitz, The Transformation of American Law, pp. 186–187; Cochran, Frontiers of Change, pp. 27–28.

  57. Thomas Dublin, Women at Work (New York: Columbia University Press, 1979); Smith, “Eli Whitney and the American System of Manufacturing,” pp. 51–53.

  58. Revere to Joshua Humphreys, December 19, 1803, “Letterbook 1801–1806,” reel 14, vol. 53.2, RFP.

  59. Revere to Mr. Bosworth, October 19, 1805; Revere to Mrs. Bosworth, December 21, 1805, “Letterbook 1801–1806,” reel 14, vol. 53.2, RFP.

  60. “Canton Ledger 1802–6,” reel 10, vol. 29, RFP. This ledger is summarized in Appendix 8.

  61. Receipt from Paul Revere to Willaby Dexter, September 20, 1803, “Loose Manuscripts 1802–1813,” reel 2, RFP; Revere to the Selectmen of the Town of Canton, February 20, 1808, “Loose Manuscripts 1802–1813,” reel 2, RFP.

  CHAPTER EIGHT: Becoming Industrial: Technological Innovations and Environmental Implications (1802–1811)

  1. Revere’s copper sheathing lasted for longer than its expected lifetime, as it remained in use at least until 1810, seven years later. However, by that time the sheathing had lost its effectiveness and the Constitution’s hull was covered with barnacles, mussels, oysters, and seaweed, ruining its speed and maneuverability. Ian W. Toll, Six Frigates: The Epic History of the Founding of the U.S. Navy (New York: W. W. Norton, 2006), p. 319; U.S. Office of Naval Records and Library, Naval Documents related to the United States Wars with the Barbary Powers, vol. 2 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1939), pp. 414, 426, 462; Columbian Centinel, June 18, 1803.

  2. Thomas Hughes, “The Evolution of Large Technological Systems,” in The Social Construction of Technological Systems, ed. Wiebe Bijker, Thomas Hughes, and Trevor Pinch (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1987). Technological systems theory is recapped in additional detail in Appendix 9. In brief, technological systems theory posits five stages of system growth: invention, development, innovation, transfer, and growth. The invention phase generally involves technical improvements to products or processes, the subsequent development and innovation phases facilitate the commercial implementation of these inventions, and the transfer and growth phases enable the system to expand into new areas. Paul Revere’s copper-rolling experience most closely follows technological system theory because he was the first American to “invent” this technology, with little help from Britain’s example other than the valuable knowledge that such a process actually did exist. The term radical invention describes the key groundbreaking development that inaugurates a new system, and Revere’s radical invention involved the establishment of his rolling mill and the associated knowledge regarding annealing and work-hardening. Entrepreneurs improve systems by developing and innovating “conservative” inventions that enable the primary technology to function in a real-world setting, and Revere achieved this when he set up the Canton mill; determined how his rollers and waterwheels might best utilize the suboptimal flow of the Neponset River; learned to heat copper bars and sheets to the proper temperature before rolling them; and so on. The preceding description simplifies Hughes’s complex theory, which itself simplifies actual conditions. For example, Hughes indicates that systems do not always proceed through these stages in a linear manner as implied here.

  3. Nathan Rosenberg, Technology and American Economic Growth (New York: M. E. Sharpe, Inc., 1972), pp. 1–2, 5–6.

  4. Thomas C. Cochran, Frontiers of Change: Early Industrialism in America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1981), p. 8.

  5. S. R. Epstein, “Craft Guilds, Apprenticeship, and Technological Change in Pre-industrial Europe,” Journal of Economic History 58, no. 3 (September 1998): 703–704; Brooke Hindle, Emulation and Invention (New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1981), pp. 18–19.

  6. Doron S. Ben-Atar, Trade Secrets: Intellectual Piracy and the Origins of American Industrial Power (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), pp. xiv–xv; Hindle, Emulation and Invention, p. 129; Brooke Hindle and Steven Lubar, Engines of Change: The American Industrial Revolution, 1790–1860 (Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1986), pp. 77–79, 81–83.

  7. Revere to Josiah Quincy, December 12, 1808, “Letterbook 1805–1810,” Revere Family Papers (hereafter RFP), microfilm edition, 15 reels (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1979), reel 14, vol. 53.5.

  8. Court rulings often endorsed entrepreneurial endeavors and ruled that attempts to improve property took precedence over attempts to perpetuate existing uses. Robert B. Gordon and Patrick M. Malone, The Texture of Industry (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), p. 101; Cochran, Frontiers of Change, pp. 9, 11, 15.

  9. Bond quotations in Neil York, Mechanical Metamorphosis: Technological Change in Revolutionary America (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1985), pp. 172–173. Also see Stuart Bruchey, The Roots of American Economic Growth, 1607–1861 (New York: Harper, 1965), p. 180; Rosenberg, Technology and American Economic Growth, pp. 23–24; David R. Meyer, The Roots of American Industrialization (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003), pp. 64–65; Gordon and Malone, Texture of Industry, pp. 38, 386; Hindle, Emulation and Invention, p. 128; Cochran, Frontiers of Change, pp. 11–12.

  10. The importance of skilled labor emigration, particularly during America’s colonial and post-Revolutionary years, is told in great detail in Ben-Atar, Trade Secrets. Also see John F. Kasson, Civilizing the Machine (New York: Hill and Wang, 1979), p. 26.

  11. Revere to William Ben[noch], May 12, 1802, “Letterbook 1801–1806,” reel 14, vol. 53.2, RFP.

  12. An identifiable American machine-tool or machine-producing sector appeared between 1840 and 1880. Nathan Rosenberg, “Technological Change in the Machine Tool Industry,” Journal of Economic History 22 (1963): 416–417.

  13. David Jeremy, Artists, Entrepreneurs, and Machines (Brookfield: Ashgate Publishing, 1991), p. 5.

  14. Various passport documents are all contained in “Loose Manuscripts 1802–1813,” reel 2, RFP.

  15. All quotations in the following section pertaining to Joseph Warren’s trip are taken from “Joseph Warren Revere Journal and Letterbook,” reel 15, vol. 56, RFP.

  16. Young, “Origins of the American Copper Industry,” p. 127; Henry J. Kauffman, American Copper and Brass (Camden, N.J.: T. Nelson Publishers, 1968), p. 27; Revere to Hollingsworth, September 1, 1808, and Hollingsworth to Revere, May 10, 1809, “Loose Manuscripts 1802–1813,” reel 2, RFP.

  17. HM Salomon to Revere, May 2, 1810, “Loose Manuscripts 1802–1813,” reel 2, RFP.

  18. Revere to H. M. Salomon, May 8, 1810, “Loose Manuscripts 1802–1813,” reel 2, RFP.

  19. HM Salomon to Revere, February 9, 1810, May 2, 1810, and May 31, 1810, and Revere to H. M. Salomon, May 8, 1810; all in “Loose Manuscripts 1802–1813,” reel 2, RFP; Mark Bortman, “Paul Revere and Son and their Jewish Correspondents,” Publications of the American Jewish Historical Society 43 (1953–1954): 199–229.

  20. Naomi R. Lamoreaux, “Rethinking the Transition to Capitalism in the Early American Northeast,” Journal of American History 90, no. 2 (September 2003): 7–8, 10.

  21. Historian of technology David Hounshell observed that mass production is a grammatically ambiguous term, potentially implying either “large scale production” or “production for the masses.” Since mass production did not enter widespread usage until the twentieth century, other terms will be used in this book. However, many of the connotations of mass production apply to Revere’s operations. David Hounshell, From the American System to Mass Production (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984), pp. 1–12. Also see Hindle, Emulation and Invention, pp. 6–8.

  22. Ferguson quote taken from Hounshell, American System, p. 15. Also see Cochran, Frontiers of Change, p. 55;
Alfred Chandler, The Visible Hand (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1977), p. 241.

  23. Revere to Josiah Snelling, October 26, 1810, “Letterbook 1805–1810,” reel 14, vol. 53.3, RFP.

  24. Revere letters to Messrs Heywood, Flagg, Howell, July 5, 1802, and August 30, 1802, “Letterbook 1801–1806,” reel 14, vol. 53.2, RFP.

  25. Pitt Clarke to Revere, May 29, 1810, “Loose Manuscripts 1802–1813,” reel 2, RFP.

  26. Quote in Revere to Joseph Carson, September 22, 1810, “Letterbook 1805–1810,” reel 14, vol. 53.5, RFP. Revere hired two machinists from North Providence, Abraham and David Wilkinston, to install a lathe for him in June 1804. This might pertain to his cannon-turning device, but probably describes a different piece of equipment used for smaller jobs. Receipt to Abraham and David Wilkinson, June 28, 1804, “Loose Manuscripts 1802–1813,” reel 2, RFP.

  27. Revere to Levi Lincoln, February 26, 1802, “Letterbook 1801–1806,” reel 14, vol. 53.2, RFP.

  28. Joseph Carson to Revere, September 25, 1810, “Loose Manuscripts 1802–1813,” reel 2, RFP.

  29. Revere to Beck and Harvey, October 29, 1803, “Letterbook 1801–1806,” reel 14, vol. 53.2, RFP.

  30. Revere to Beck and Harvey, November 20, 1803, “Letterbook 1801–1806,” reel 14, vol. 53.2, RFP.

  31. Revere to Hollingsworth, September 1, 1808, and Hollingsworth to Revere, May 10, 1809, “Loose Manuscripts 1802–1813,” reel 2, RFP.

  32. Revere to Hathaway and Davis, March 1, 1805, “Letterbook 1801–1806,” reel 14, vol. 53.2, RFP.

  33. “Bank Book Boston 1806–1812,” reel 14, vol. 52, RFP.

  34. “Learning by doing” is the process of on-the-job experimentation and practice. It is particularly valuable where theoretical knowledge and practical experience are lacking. Paul A. David, Technical Choice Innovation and Economic Growth (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975), pp. 101–111, 163–165.

  35. Revere to Joshua Humphreys, December 19, 1803, “Letterbook 1801–1806,” reel 14, vol. 53.2, RFP.

  36. Paul Revere to Robert Smith, May 24, 1802, “Letterbook 1801–1806,” reel 14, vol. 53.2, RFP.

  37. Revere to Robert Smith, July 1, 1803, Robert Smith to Revere, July 22, 1803, and Revere to Robert Smith, October 29, 1803, all in “Letterbook 1801–1806,” reel 14, vol. 53.2, RFP, and “Loose Manuscripts 1802–1813,” reel 2, RFP.

  38. Paul Revere to Robert Smith, May 24, 1802, “Letterbook 1801–1806,” reel 14, vol. 53.2, RFP; “Bank Book Boston 1806–1812,” reel 14, vol. 52, RFP.

  39. John S. Morgan, Robert Fulton (New York: Mason/Charter, 1977); Cynthia Owen Philip, Robert Fulton (New York: Franklin Watts, 1985); Morton J. Horwitz, The Transformation of American Law (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1977), p. 122.

  40. John Livingston to Revere, October 8 1808, “Loose Manuscripts 1802–1813,” reel 2, RFP; Revere to Livingston, October 12, 1808, “Letterbook 1805–1810,” reel 14, vol. 53.3, RFP.

  41. John Livingston to Revere, November 25, 1808, “Loose Manuscripts 1802–1813,” reel 2, RFP; Robert Fulton to Revere, February 24, March 8, and July 28, 1814, “Loose Manuscripts 1814–1964, Undated Material,” reel 3, RFP.

  42. Revere to William Torrey, February 10, 1810, and Revere to Robert Fulton, December 15, 1810, “Loose Manuscripts 1802–1813,” reel 2, RFP.

  43. Revere to Joseph Carson, March 6, 1809, “Letterbook 1805–1810,” reel 14, vol. 53.3, RFP; Joseph Carson to Revere, June 6, 1809, “Loose Manuscripts 1802–1813,” reel 2, RFP; Revere to George Cabot, September 11, 1809, “Letterbook 1805–1810,” reel 14, vol. 53.3, RFP.

  44. Charles K. Hyde, Copper for America (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1998), p. 10; Maxwell Whiteman, Copper for America: The Hendricks Family and a National Industry, 1755–1939 (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1971), p. 47.

  45. Revere to Robert Smith, June 10, 1803, and Revere to Jacob Crowninshield, March 30, 1805, both in “Letterbook 1801–1806,” reel 14, vol. 53.2, RFP.

  46. Revere to Robert Smith, October 29, 1803, “Letterbook 1801–1806,” reel 14, vol. 53.2, RFP; Revere to Joseph Carson, October 21, 1809, “Letterbook 1805–1810,” reel 14, vol. 53.3, RFP; Whiteman, Copper for America, pp. 55–56.

  47. Interestingly, Revere seems to have purchased more wood than charcoal, which is peculiar because charcoal burns at a far higher temperature and would probably be the only fuel able to actually melt copper or iron. Revere may have included wood purchases for other uses, such as heating his home, in his company records. Edgard Moreno, “Patriotism and Profit: The Copper Mills at Canton,” in Paul Revere—Artisan, Businessman, and Patriot (Boston: Paul Revere Memorial Association, 1988), pp. 107, 112.

  48. Coxe, Statement of the Arts and Manufactures of the United States of America for the year 1810, p. lviii.

  49. Hindle and Lubar, Engines of Change, p. 10; Gordon and Malone, Texture of Industry, p. 87.

  50. Dirk J. Struik, Yankee Science in the Making (New York: Dover Publications, 1991), p. 175; Hindle, Emulation and Invention, pp. 6–7.

  51. J. E. Conant & Co., The Plant (Real Estate) of the Revere Copper Co. (Lowell: Butterfield Printing Company, 1909). Waterpower discussion in Gordon and Malone, Texture of Industry, p. 87.

  52. Gordon and Malone, Texture of Industry, p. 89.

  53. Hendricks wrote this letter in response to Revere’s tariff proposal, which would have increased the duty on the finished copper products Hendricks imported. He maintained a productive working relationship with Revere after this petition fell through, and after starting his own rolling plant in New Jersey he collaborated with Revere on a subsequent petition. Whiteman, Copper for America, p. 78, quoting an undated 1807 letter from Harmon Hendricks to Gordon S. Mumford.

  54. Theodore Steinberg, Nature Incorporated (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1991), pp. 33–35. The Neponset and Charles rivers had been connected by a diversion in 1639 to alleviate flooding along the Charles.

  55. Massachusetts passed the first mill act in 1713, and a more comprehensive version appeared in 1795. The mill acts reached their greatest extent after revisions in 1825 and 1827, which allowed virtually unlimited flooding of lands both above and below the dam, and permitted dam owners to avoid all damage payments if they could prove that the flooding provided economic benefits. Beginning in 1830, the courts reversed their support of the mill acts in response to widespread protest from small landowners. Horwitz, The Transformation of American Law, 1780–1860, pp. 47–52; Jonathan Prude, The Coming of Industrial Order (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), p. 11; Louis C. Hunter, A History of Industrial Power in the United States, 1780–1930, vol. 1 (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1979), pp. 140, 142, 147, 148; Gary Kulik, “Dams, Fish, and Farmers: The Defense of Public Rights in Eighteenth-Century Rhode Island,” in The New England Working Class, ed. Herbert Gutman and Donald Bell (Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 1986), pp. 191–194; Gordon and Malone, Texture of Industry, p. 102; Robert B. Gordon, American Iron, 1607–1900 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996), pp. 52–54.

  56. Kulik, “Dams, Fish, and Farmers,” pp. 193–195.

  57. A small group of local smiths and millers pulled down Slater’s second mill dam in 1792, prompting lengthy legal action. This coalition also increased the height of their own older mill dam months later in an attempt to raise the level of the river enough to produce “backwater” that would submerge Slater’s waterwheels. Kulik, “Dams, Fish, and Farmers,” pp. 204–205.

  58. Horwitz, Transformation of American Law, pp. 49–50; Kulik, “Dams, Fish, and Farmers,” pp. 195–197.

  59. Steinberg, Nature Incorporated, pp. 140–141, and Horwitz, Transformation of American Law, pp. 34–38.

  60. Horwitz, Transformation of American Law, pp. 38–45. New Hampshire’s water law followed a similar but slower pattern, with common law dominating until about 1820, followed by a hodge-podge of principles that finally led to the reasonable use doctrine in the late
1850s. Steinberg, Nature Incorporated, pp. 140–147. The doctrine of prior appropriation (“he who is first in time is first in right”) survived longer in the western United States because large land developers and industries preserved it. Donald Worster, Rivers of Empire (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985), pp. 89–91.

  61. Horwitz, Transformation of American Law, p. 35.

  62. Quote taken from Revere’s eleven pages of unlabeled legal notes, dated March 10, 1804, “Loose Manuscripts 1802–1813,” reel 2, RFP.

  63. A list of Revere’s payments to Leonard and Kinsley was submitted to the clerk’s office of the court of common pleas on September 20, 1803. Leonard and Kinsley expense sheet, September 20, 1803, “Loose Manuscripts 1802–1813,” reel 2, RFP.

  64. The following analysis is taken from Revere’s eleven pages of unlabeled legal notes, dated March 10, 1804, “Loose Manuscripts 1802–1813,” reel 2, RFP.

  65. Ephraim Williams, Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Judicial Court of the State of Massachusetts from September 1804 to June 1805 (Northampton, 1805), microfilm roll 2, pp. 91–95.

  66. Leonard and Kinsley to Revere, April 20, 1808, “Loose Manuscripts 1802–1813,” reel 2, RFP.

  67. Deposition from Abner Crane, dated “1808?,” “Loose Manuscripts 1802–1813,” reel 2, RFP.

  68. Revere to the Selectmen of the Town of Canton, February 20, 1808, “Loose Manuscripts 1802–1813,” reel 2, RFP. This citation applies to all of the quotations in the following paragraph as well.

  69. Gordon Wood, Radicalism of the American Revolution (New York: Vintage Books, 1993), pp. 347–351.

  Conclusion

  1. “Cantondale” is an undated loose document in reel 2 of the Revere Family Papers, although “1810” was written in the corner at a later date.

  2. The pastoral ideal is discussed at great length in Leo Marx’s The Machine in the Garden (New York: Oxford University Press, 1964).

  3. Indenture documents, March 1, 1811, Revere Family Papers (hereafter RFP), microfilm edition, 15 reels (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1979), reel 2. Paul Revere III was Paul Revere’s grandson and the oldest son of Paul Revere Jr., who still managed his own silver 1 in Boston. Thomas Eayres Jr. was also Paul Revere’s grandson, the son of Revere’s daughter Frances, who had died in 1799, and Thomas Eayres Sr., the promising young silversmith who apprenticed with Paul Revere, started his own shop, and eventually succumbed to mental illness.