Midnight Ride, Industrial Dawn

by Robert Martello

  The history of artisans in Europe centers on the dominance and activities of urban guilds. Craftsmen organized guilds in the Middle Ages to protect the interests of all practitioners of a particular craft by defining, monitoring, and regulating acceptable standards and practices through collective action. Guilds amassed numerous regulatory instruments and powers: for example, they usually made guild membership a requirement for all artisans, and individuals who deviated from guild rules often faced eviction from the guild, the loss of legal status, and punitive boycotts. Despite the manufacturing focus of most guilds, the business and managerial aspects of crafts became at least as important as the technical aspects from an early point.16

  Guilds regulated artisan training in order to create a closed labor market with a high demand for skilled labor and unchallenged authority for masters. All artisans first served as apprentices who received training from a master craftsman. “Graduated” apprentices became journeymen and earned wages for several years by working in the shops of master artisans until the journeyman spent enough time and earned enough money to set up his own shop and apply for master craftsman status. Guilds enforced policies to restrict the number of new apprentices, imposed fees upon the families of apprentices, prevented trainees from leaving their masters, maintained stable wages for journeymen, and slowed the rate at which journeymen could become masters. Apprenticeship practices also carried symbolic meanings: for example, apprenticeship promoted the elitism of skilled crafts by serving as a highly selective and public rite of passage. Guilds and craft shops were microcosms of society, illustrating the hierarchy and deference that connected families and craft shops with larger guilds and even governments. Artisan traditions and guild practices created a common ideology that highlighted the importance of maintaining one’s personal honor by exhibiting honesty, independence, and a strong work ethic.17

  Guilds also monitored and regulated the quality and consistency of craft-work, craft standards, and prices. Many guilds conducted inspections or required a conspicuous assessment of crafted items as a way of maintaining the virtuous reputation of all guild members. For example, England’s powerful silversmiths’ guild used its complete monopoly to define standards for “sterling” quality silver and required a guild assayer’s mark on all finished items to certify compliance with these standards. These practices also helped to justify the high monopoly prices charged for guild-sanctioned products by guaranteeing quality and reliability. Many guilds fostered technological development by creating a stable work environment that encouraged technical experimentation and disseminated the ensuing innovations. Guilds preferred technology that enhanced skill and saved capital, valuable innovations from a master’s perspective. Traditionally, artisans and guilds resisted riskier technologies that increased production, created new products, or explored new production techniques, preferring to rely upon their established practices and monopolistic control over all aspects of production.18

  To be an artisan, therefore, implies many things: one is an individual practitioner of a trade; a member of a possibly organized body of practitioners of that trade; and a constituent of a productive segment of society whose members pride themselves on their training, independence, work ethic, and honor.

  When colonists crossed the Atlantic to exploit the opportunities of a new world they carried their culture, a rich collection of familiar practices and attitudes, with them. But culture and society depend upon context, and change in new settings. The natural abundance of land and resources in America, as well as the opportunities and challenges posed by a sparse and distributed population, altered traditional political, economic, and social institutions and created entirely new ones. Artisan traditions evolved on America’s shores while maintaining many connections to their origins.

  Despite their low numbers, artisans had sweeping impacts upon American society. Of course, America’s economy in colonial times, and indeed, its very identity, depended upon the farmers who constituted a vast majority of the population. Although American farmers produced many goods to satisfy their own needs or sell on the market, their demand for more specialized items often exceeded the output of local “jack of all trades” producers and overseas imports. Artisans met this need, and also became important links in growing trade networks. For example, artisans converted raw materials into more valuable and easily transported finished goods, repaired imported items, and produced or repaired tools to increase the productivity of other workers.19 Merchants, planters, farmers, and shopkeepers all depended upon artisans.

  Many craft practitioners may not have exclusively worked as artisans because they also dabbled in other fields. For example, most artisans living in small towns or rural areas doubled as farmers, owning a few acres of land to grow crops or keep livestock. Many others, including Paul Revere in the years after the Revolution, also ran their own retail shops and even referred to themselves as merchants. Southerners often trained slaves as artisans, to the great anger of white craftsmen unable to compete. Estimates of the number of artisans in colonial society vary widely, based on the definition of artisan, the time, and the location. By the time of the Revolution, artisans probably constituted between 10 and 20 percent of the population, and this percentage increased in urban centers to something between one-third and one-half of the population.20

  Urban artisans, the closest American parallel to European and British artisans, usually centered their lives on their craft. Northern craftsmen often worked out of their own houses, which typically had a shop on the first floor and living quarters on the second. Most urban artisans operated on a modest scale: for example, a selection of ninety-six artisan shops in Boston employed a median of three workers and an average of thirteen, often including sons and apprentices in this number. Compared to rural practitioners, urban artisans had steadier employment, served a larger market, worked on a wider range of more specialized and elaborate tasks, and kept their shops open for more of the year. Urban craftsmen usually described themselves with their craft titles, such as “Benjamin Franklin, Printer.”21

  American master artisans had far more authority than their counterparts in England and Europe. Craft guilds never formed in America due to the small number and scattered distribution of artisans, and individual master craftsmen filled the void. The master owned and managed the shop, purchased tools and raw materials, managed apprentice and journeyman labor, designed products, determined what to produce, handled sales and advertising, and oversaw quality control. As head of the household, he also took on a paternalistic role, feeding, clothing, and supporting his family and apprentices. The master craftsman served as a teacher and role model to his charges, and accepted the full and solitary responsibility for planning and delivering an education in the technical, business, and cultural aspects of a craft.22

  Urban artisans constituted a broad segment of American society that included struggling members of the working poor as well as economically prosperous and highly skilled or acclaimed individuals. In spite of the many differences between members of this group, nearly all artisans collectively distinguished themselves from both the merchants and gentry above and the “preindustrial pre-proletariat” laborers and sailors below.23 These poorly defined social classes constrained and shaped the daily life and career expectations of all members of society.

  Pre-Revolutionary America’s class system combined freedom and hierarchical rigidity. Clever artisans and enterprising farmers had the opportunity to amass fortunes, and their non-privileged birthrights did not ruin the possibility of financial or entrepreneurial success. Foreign observers frequently described America as a middle-class world, meaning that poorer members might hope to enter the middle class while wealthier members had to keep the interests of less well-off groups in mind or risk reprisals. At the same time, the upper class remained a breed apart, gifted with exclusive privileges that success in one’s trade could never bestow. Revere became aware of Boston’s amorphous but still influential social classes at an early age,
recognizing that his countrymen would never view or treat him as they did his wealthier “gentleman” cousins. He grew familiar with terminology such as the better, middling, and poorer (or meaner/inferior) sorts, and in particular, he knew that the title of gentleman carried with it a thrilling connotation of authority and advantage. He also encountered tangible manifestations of class differences all the time, for example, through sharp differences in clothing styles: most merchants dressed in velvet or imported wool clothes, silk stockings, linen, knee breeches, and waistcoats, while workers wore buckskin breeches, leather aprons, flannel, felt hats, wool stockings, and cowhide shoes.24 While Revere accepted the existence of deference and privilege, he spent most of his life rebelling against the forces keeping him in a lower role, never ceasing his attempts to raise himself and his family to positions of societal influence.

  Most people recognized the existence of social classes without ever firmly defining or clearly understanding them. Americans drew upon their British heritage, which inculcated deference and respect for someone’s lineage, wealth, land ownership, and education. America’s highest social classes consisted of both the largest property holders, such as landowners and merchants, as well as the most successful professionals, including doctors, lawyers, and government officials. These categories also varied significantly by region. Southern society enforced the most rigid class divisions, with a minority of aristocratic landowners occupying the top of the social hierarchy. Merchants represented the upper crust of northern urban society, and the fairly stable hierarchy of merchant elites possessed nearly as much political and economic power as their southern plantation-owning counterparts.25

  All aspects of early America reflected the prevailing belief in a hierarchical world. Pre-Revolutionary society recognized one division above all others: the vast and almost unbreachable gulf between gentlemen and everyone else. The hazy concept of a gentleman referred to individuals or families who—in the eyes of society—possessed a combination of education, manners, wealth, virtue, and personal honor. Although most colonial gentlemen would merely have fallen into the upper middle class in Britain, they enjoyed many advantages in America.26 Gentlemen had much freer access to education, credit, and influential administrators than others, and used these opportunities to enter prestigious professions befitting the leaders of society. They held a virtual monopoly on higher colonial political offices beginning in the mid-1700s, and the low turnover in these positions restricted members of the middle class to minor local positions. Gentlemen also amassed a large fraction of the total capital in America: in Boston, for example, the top 10 percent of taxpayers owned about two-thirds of the wealth in 1771, and this percentage only increased with the passage of time. The upper class often segregated itself socially and demanded respect and deference from what they termed the middling and lower segments of their communities. The life of a gentleman featured privileged private seating at all public events, membership in exclusive clubs, and special favors from local government officials.27

  No factor divided gentlemen from all other members of society more than the unrecoverable stigma of performing manual labor, which implied the need to work for a living. If a gentleman ever performed nonintellectual labor he lost status in the eyes of other gentlemen, who found the thought of manual workers receiving gentry privileges both ludicrous and terrifying. In the words of political philosopher John Locke, “Trade is wholly inconsistent with a gentleman’s calling.”28 This sentiment had a strong basis in prevailing British attitudes about public service and personal independence. Some contemporary political theorists believed that gentlemen and gentlemen alone should lead the society because of their freedom from occupational constraints and monetary worries.29

  In light of colonial America’s conception of physical labor, artisans could never achieve the full array of upper-class privileges based solely on their craft success. Several routes to social advancement did exist for a small number of well-off artisans, and unsurprisingly, none of them involved continued labor. Artisans most frequently improved their standing by beginning a successful merchant career, often using artisanal contacts with merchants and members of the gentry as well as capital amassed from a prosperous trade. Land speculation, a government appointment, membership in prestigious organizations, or marriage into a prominent family could also convert wealth into social power. Although most artisans never entered the upper classes, some managed to achieve large fortunes and at least adopt the trappings of the gentry.30

  Artisans had a dual and almost contradictory role in society, as manager-entrepreneurs on one hand and as laborers on the other. They worked to distinguish themselves from the non-artisan laborers beneath them, while identifying with those laborers on issues such as dislike of aristocratic pretensions. Master artisans had to pass through apprentice and journeyman stages before earning the right to practice their trade, and as a result they greatly valued their autonomy and responsibilities. In his 1758 essay, “The Way to Wealth,” Benjamin Franklin—an idol to many artisans—wrote, “He that hath a Trade, hath an Estate.” Even though many members of society, particularly its elite members, treated all forms of physical labor with condescension, many artisans took pride in their social role: after all, their productivity provided necessary goods and services that directly contributed to their communities’ well-being. Labor therefore had moral and social dimensions beyond the economic. Artisan organizations increasingly advocated for respectful treatment, including a voice in societal decision making and the prospect for security at the end of a lifetime of skilled labor. This pride played a major role in the Revolution and its aftermath.31

  Master artisans, happily independent and in charge of their own craft shops, fell into different categories based upon the status of different craft trades and the reputation of individual artisans within each trade. For most of the eighteenth century, artisans primarily classified themselves according to their craft. These divisions resulted in an informal craft hierarchy that roughly correlated to the capital and skill requirements of each trade. At the bottom of the craft pyramid were the trades that involved the smallest startup costs, material costs, and skills, such as tailoring, shoemaking, and candle making. These crafts often featured smaller apprenticeship periods and lower-priced goods. Blacksmithing, carpentry, and other fields requiring greater skill, risk, and investment capital to purchase more expensive tools and raw materials filled the middle of the hierarchy. Since silversmiths typically produced highly visible objects for the most wealthy and powerful segments of society, earned high salaries, and required extensive skill and capital, the silverworking trade lay near the pinnacle of the pre-Revolutionary craft hierarchy along with printing. This craft hierarchy was poorly defined at best, and tradesmen such as millwrights, cabinetmakers, and clockmakers also carried considerable prestige commensurate with their high skill and capital requirements.32

  Most social and economic variation took place between individuals in each trade. Artisans spanned a vast economic range, with some staying one step ahead of abject poverty and others achieving tremendous wealth and prosperity. Many artisans in colonial times could afford to set up their own shop after earning several years of income as journeymen, although limited quantities of investment capital posed a great challenge, especially during economic downturns. Artisans aspired through hard work and astute business instincts to become “respectable” or “reputable” tradesmen, which usually involved ownership of one’s own shop and property, acknowledged craft skill, the ability to read and write (if not a greater education), material success, and participation in charities or service organizations. In contrast, less skilled and poorer “inferior mechanics” often performed simpler tasks or even worked for other artisans. The wealthiest and most skillful artisans supervised larger operations and dressed and lived in ways that set themselves apart. Although practitioners of the same craft often shared an esprit-de-corps in spite of their differences in status, by the end of the colonial period the divisi
on between the haves and have-nots began to widen. Wage labor grew increasingly common, and workers and craft masters formed different groups to protect their separate interests.33

  Boston’s 1789 parade, in honor of George Washington, clearly and publicly illustrated societal classifications and ranks. The parade organizers carefully arranged groups of marchers according to their profession, and the order of these professions says much about their prestige and precedence in the eyes of society. “Professionals,” the educated group of gentlemen consisting of town officials, clergy members, doctors, lawyers, merchants, and ship owners, led the procession. The second group consisted of forty-six different artisan trades, and the final group consisted of sailors. Common laborers had no place in the parade at all. Interestingly, the numerous artisan groups within the second category of marchers appeared in alphabetical order to avoid giving any trade a distinction over the others, although the wealthiest practitioner of each craft prominently led his group.34 This parade stands in for the overall social climate in colonial and Revolutionary America: everyone recognized the differences between individuals and professions, but calling attention to these differences was not always proper or even possible.

  Educational pedigree held the same importance in Paul Revere’s day as it does today, and society judged young artisans according to the reputation of the craft master who instructed them. Paul Revere fared very well in this regard because his pedigree led to his father’s instructor, the esteemed John Coney. From the 1690s until his death in 1722, Coney’s reputation among his peers had no equal. He mastered three artistic styles throughout his long career, and surviving pieces attest to his versatility and productivity. In particular, his skill at engraving distinguished him from his contemporaries and earned him a commission to engrave the paper money for Massachusetts in 1702. Other silversmiths purchased more ornamental hollowware items (large, hollow-centered cups, bowls, and teapots), the most lucrative of all silver commissions, from Coney than from any other practitioner. Governments, churches, and colleges repeatedly turned to him for their most elaborate orders, and his output even remained high during the economic instability between 1710 and 1720. A valuation of his estate placed him among the wealthiest 10 percent of all Bostonians.35