Midnight Ride, Industrial Dawn

by Robert Martello

  To start at the beginning, I must offer my deepest thanks to MIT, and in particular to the generous support offered by the HASTS program and the Dibner Institute during my Ph.D. research. My debts to individuals at MIT are too numerous to recount here; so many people at MIT make it their job to ask penetrating questions, locate resources, and demonstrate how intense work can also be a lot of fun. I am particularly indebted to fellow students David, Rebecca, Greg, Tony, Kendall, Brendan, Eden, Ben, Rachel, Tim, and Nina, and also to TEAM-mates Pete, Kris, Carlos, Sarah, Doug, April, Eric, Cara, and Jake, for minimizing the midnight rider jokes but maximizing the midnight camaraderie. I must also thank the faculty at MIT, particularly Leo Marx, Deborah Fitzgerald, Wyn Kelley, Roz Williams, and Peter Purdue, who offered great assistance to my research while also trying their best to educate me. And most of all, I am in lifelong debt to my dissertation committee, Pauline Maier, Harriet Ritvo, and Roe Smith, whose wise advice and unfailing support continue to pay dividends in my research, my teaching, and everything else. I can truly identify with Paul Revere when I think of the amazing apprenticeship I experienced, and the craft masters who taught me the “art and mystery” of history.

  Continuing in Revere’s footsteps, I have been most fortunate to live and work near Boston, where I could benefit from two of our nation’s finest historical organizations. From literally the first day of my research I received generous support from the Paul Revere Memorial Association. I cannot praise this organization enough, specifically their farsighted president Nina Zanneri and their insightful research director Patrick Leehey, both of whom I now proudly consider my friends. Whenever we discuss Paul Revere I half expect him to stroll into the room and pull up a chair, and anyone who visits the Paul Revere House in Boston can experience this feeling firsthand—walk through the door, talk to the staff, and enter a different world. I have also had the great pleasure and honor of receiving funding and scholarly support from the Massachusetts Historical Society (MHS), my home away from home during the main years of my research. Indeed, without the patient advice of so many wonderful MHS employees I would still be reading microfilm there today. My friends and colleagues at the MHS are far too numerous to mention but I cannot fail to specifically thank Conrad White, Len Travers, Beth Krimmel (still my fairy godmother), Bill Fowler, Brenda Lawson, and Elaine Grublin. And of course I must draw attention to the indescribable Peter Drummey, the Western Hemisphere’s greatest research librarian, the man who can describe my research better than I can and cite scholarly information on any topic imaginable. If you think I exaggerate, have coffee with Peter.

  Since 2001 I have had the great opportunity of working at the Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering in Needham Massachusetts, getting the “rarer than once in a lifetime” chance to help build a college and embrace its innovative spirit. I must gratefully acknowledge the generous research support provided to me by Olin’s research and innovation program, support that enabled me to speed my progress and hire inspired and insightful student researchers such as Kathy King, Juliana Connelly, Lauren Cagle, and Laura Firstenberg. Heartfelt thanks must also flow to Olin’s first eight cohorts of students, the classes of 2006 through 2013, for all of their questions, comments, ideas, and goodwill whenever I subjected them to draft chapters or random Revere analogies. The Olin library has enthusiastically offered ideas and support of all kinds from the very moment it came into being, and I am greatly in debt to all of the wonderful past and present librarians, particularly my great allies David Ware and Dee Magnoni. Olin’s faculty and staff are more like a family than anything else, and I wish I could use the next eleven pages of this book to properly thank each of them for the many ways that they have inspired me, supported me, and made me excited about coming to work each day. I must call attention to those who directly helped me on this project, the wonderful Gillian Epstein, and Professors Lynn Andrea Stein, Debbie Chachra, and Mike Moody, who is already dearly missed. A special thank you goes to Professor Caitrin Lynch for her cheerful and penetrating insights on my draft chapters, and for putting up with bizarre email questions and jokes at all hours of the day and night. Finally, I profoundly thank Professor Jon Stolk, the co-instructor of our “Stuff of History” course, who became my partner in crime the moment we met on our shared first day of work and who continues to help me understand and appreciate the connection between materials science and the history of technology. I am indebted to Jon for so many reasons, perhaps most of all because he named Olin’s rolling mill “Big Paul.”

  I also extend sincere thanks to everyone at the Johns Hopkins University Press for such generous aid throughout the preparation of this manuscript. The experienced editorial advice of Bob Brugger, the constant guidance and support of Josh Tong, the marketing savvy of Becky Brasington Clark, the thorough and professional copyediting of Maria denBoer, and the competent services of so many other members of this press have been invaluable. My work also depended upon the brilliant editing of my dynamic friend Professor Sara Pritchard, who maintained perfect penmanship and much-needed humor throughout all of my chapters. And I would not be where I am today without the enthusiasm and support of all of my friends and grant partners at the Savannah-Chatham school district and Georgia Historical Society. Candy Lowe and Leah Colby have been my advisors and support team for years now, and I wish I could properly thank them for believing in me, opening doors on my behalf, teaching me the power of southern charm, and for carrying Revere’s message into the lucky schools throughout the Savannah-Chatham district.

  And finally, most important, I thank my family, old and new, parents and siblings, in-laws and outlaws, near and far. You made this work, and make everything else that I do possible. I dedicate this book, along with my infinite and eternal love, to Tristan, Chiara, Lorelei, and Marybeth.

  Appendix 1

  Major Events in the Narratives of Paul Revere and America

  The following captures some of the major events and milestones facing Paul Revere and America throughout his lifespan. The left column indicates events in Revere’s life, while the right column indicates selected major events in early American history pertinent to his story.

  Appendix 2

  Four Proto-industrial Production Factors and Major Linkages

  Appendix 3

  Prevalent Craft and Industrial Practices in the Proto-industrial Period

  Appendix 4

  Selected Revere Engravings

  Appendix 5

  Furnace Startup Expenses for 1787–1788

  The listing below is sorted from most to least expensive. Each entry combines all similar expenses from Revere’s ledger. For example, ten different listings for nail purchases are combined into the “Nails” row. The largest expense, more than 53 pounds for iron, is not a startup cost in the strictest sense since Revere undoubtedly used this iron as casting material and not to build the furnace. However, he may have used iron for practice casts, and its inclusion in the startup costs makes more sense if we assume that he could not sell some of the output of these early attempts.

  Appendix 6

  April 1796 Payments to Faxon

  The tasks listed above the first subtotal required large equipment and specialized skills. The two largest charges above the first subtotal correspond to the boring and turning work on Revere’s first two contracts: ten howitzers for the federal government, and twelve smaller cannon for Massachusetts. The second subtotal includes an additional charge of more than 430 pounds for drawing copper bolts. Note: Some of Revere’s superscript notations have been removed, and parenthetical comments were added by the author.

  Appendix 7

  Revere’s Second Letter to Benjamin Stoddert, February 26, 1800

  Dear Sir,

  In Decem 1798 I had the honor of addressing a letter to you respecting Malleable Copper, wherein I mentioned that I manufactored either old or new copper into Bolts, Spikes, or any Matereals that was wanted in Ship Building.

  In consequence of some conversations with Col
. Humphries, since his arrival in Boston, I have been induced to trouble you again on that subject. I learn by that Gentleman, that there are no persons in either Philadelphia or New York that can make copper so Malable that it can be drawn in Bolts, Spikes, +c under the Hammer.

  Within the last 16 months I have Manufactored into Bolts, Spikes, +c, upward of 10000 thousand weight for the Ships Boston & Essex. And upward of 13000 lb for the Merchants of Boston & Salem. I melt it into Pigs of 250 lbs each & draw it hot down to the size I want, some of it I have done into 10 penny nails.

  Col Humphries tells me you have it much at heart to finish all the Ships built for our government with copper from mines in the United States and that there is a mine in Maryland & another in the Jerseys which produce a large quantity of Copper Ore but they cannot find any person that can smelt it so as to make it Malleable. I have never tryed, but from the experiments I have made I have no doubt I can do it & if Government will send me ten or fifteen hundred weight of Oar & will pay my expenses I will Build a Furnace on purpose this furnace is different from a Common Air Furnace & will endeavor to perfect myself in it. I have two sons who are concerned with me, if I make my self Master of the Business I will teach them. If these matters are worthy of your Notice, you know my character from his Excellency, the President of the United States, & from the Hon. Harrison G. Otis, member of Congress, to whom I am personally known.

  If Government are not provided with bolts & spikes for the Ship which is to be built here, I shall be glad to supply one, or two, tons; which I suppose will be the most I shall be able to git old copper for. But if Government can purchase old copper sufficient for the whole, I will undertake to make all the Bolts & Spikes & cast work for her. The wrought work such as Bolts, Spikes, Dove tails, Brace Nails, +c for which I find the copper at 50 cents pr pound the cast work at 41 cents. I will allow 26 cents pr pound for all copper turned in by Government.

  Col. Humphries has been at my works & after examining the Bolts & Spikes +c. He had the frankness & goodness to say that He saw my letter to you & that he really believed He was the cause why there were no attention paid to it, for he then thought that no person in America could do it & but few in Europe.

  Appendix 8

  Employee Salaries, 1802–1806

  Appendix 9

  Typical Stages in the Growth of

  a Large Technological System

  Notes

  Introduction

  1. Carl Bridenbaugh, The Colonial Craftsman (New York: New York University Press, 1950), p. 87.

  2. Appendix 1 recaps some of the highlights from Paul Revere’s life, intertwined with the larger national context.

  3. This freedom and the rapidity of change must not be overstated. America remained completely within the British mercantile sphere well into the 1800s, and American cycles of prosperity and depression were directly related to European wars and Britain’s willingness to retract credit or flood the American market with inexpensive goods. In 1775 British America still operated in a preindustrial manner that combined almost medieval technologies with a colonial economy. See John F. Kasson, Civilizing the Machine (New York: Hill and Wang, 1979); Carrol W. Pursell Jr., Technology in America (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1981); Eric Hobsbawm, The Age of Revolution (New York: Vintage Books, 1962); and John McCusker and Russell Menard, The Economy of British America (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1985), esp. pp. 70, 327.

  4. The nationwide transition between craft and industrial labor is discussed in many excellent works, including (but by no means limited to) Thomas C. Cochran, Frontiers of Change: Early Industrialism in America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1981); Kasson, Civilizing the Machine; Walter Licht, Industrializing America (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995); Jonathan Prude, The Coming of Industrial Order (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983); and Merritt Roe Smith, Harpers Ferry Armory and the New Technology (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1977).

  5. For example, mill villages, initially organized around textile production in New England, usually offered a mix of paternalism and economic opportunity to the many families involved in the putting-out process, a system allowing merchants to coordinate the division of labor. Industrial single-product cities such as Lowell (textiles) or Lynn (shoes) featured large outlays of capital, extensive mechanization, collection of labor into factories or huge workshops, and modern business management practices. And diversified manufacturing centers also appeared in urban areas not dominated by a single production line, featuring a mix of smaller factories, home manufactures, and artisan shops that produced great product variety in numerous work settings. Licht, Industrializing America, pp. 22–34.

  6. According to proto-industrial theory, agricultural productivity also increased as a result of this shift to manufacturing because more laborers left their marginal farms to engage in manufacturing, and population grew thanks to lowered ages of marriage among laborers with higher incomes. Sheilagh Ogilvie and Markus Cerman, “The Theories of Proto-industrialization,” in European Proto-industrialization, ed. Sheilagh Ogilvie and Markus Cerman (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 1–5. The theory’s initial formulation can be found in Franklin F. Mendels, “Proto-Industrialization: The First Phase of the Industrialization Process,” Journal of Economic History 32, no. 1 (March 1972): 241–261, and additional modifications are presented in Gay L. Gullickson, “Agriculture and Cottage Industry: Redefining the Causes of Proto-Industrialization,” Journal of Economic History 43, no. 4 (December 1983): 831–850.

  7. As a predictive theory proto-industry has many failings: for example, its projected impacts such as factory expansion and population growth do not always occur. Regardless of the theory’s dubious ability to explain European industrialization, its applicability to America is far weaker. American farmers had access to large quantities of land, especially in the early years, and these farmers engaged in land clearing, animal raising, or other high-paying jobs in addition to household manufacturing. Therefore, the impact of household manufacturing on their transition toward factory labor is small. These farmers had little trouble producing enough food for the growing factory population, and also had the income to buy manufactured goods from the start. Kenneth Pomeranz, The Great Divergence: China, Europe, and the Making of the Modern World Economy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001), pp. 288–289. Proto-industrial weaknesses are described in D. C. Coleman, “Proto-Industrialization: A Concept Too Many,” Economic History Review 36, 2nd series (August 1983): 443–447; S. R. Epstein, “Craft Guilds, Apprenticeship, and Technological Change in Pre-industrial Europe,” Journal of Economic History 58, no. 3 (September 1998): 706; Kenneth Morgan, The Birth of Industrial Britain (New York: Longman, 1999), pp. 33–38; Sheilagh Ogilvie and Markus Cerman, “Proto-industrialization, Economic Development and Social Change in Early Modern Europe,” in European Proto-industrialization, ed. Sheilagh Ogilvie and Markus Cerman (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 228–229.

  8. Appendix 2 illustrates some of the connections that unify the capital, labor, technology, and environmental factors.

  CHAPTER ONE: Artisan, Silversmith, and Businessman (1754–1775)

  1. The phrase “and the world he lived in” is taken, with great respect, from the title of Esther Forbes’s seminal work, Paul Revere and the World He Lived In (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1969). Some information about Revere’s arrangement with Copley was taken from Deborah Anne Federhen, “Paul Revere, Silversmith: A Study of His Shop Operation and His Objects” (master’s thesis, University of Delaware, 1988), p. 34, and also from Revere’s daybooks in “Waste Book and Memoranda (1761–1783),” Revere Family Papers (hereafter RFP), microfilm edition, 15 reels (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1979), reel 5, vol. 1.

  2. The terms silversmith and goldsmith were completely interchangeable at this time. Because all American artisans using this title worked far more with silver than gold, I use the term silversmith throughout this book.


  3. Patrick M. Leehey, “Reconstructing Paul Revere; an Overview of his Ancestry, Life, and Work,” in Paul Revere—Artisan, Businessman, and Patriot (Boston: Paul Revere Memorial Association, 1988), pp. 21–23.

  4. The “Bumpkin” quote is taken from a January 12, 1775 letter from Paul Revere’s cousin John Rivoire to Revere, in “Loose Manuscripts 1746–1801,” reel 1, RFP. John Rivoire is quoting an earlier letter from Paul in this letter, so apparently Paul offered this reason for his father’s name change. Also see Leehey, “Reconstructing Paul Revere,” pp. 19–21. To distinguish him from his son Paul, the “midnight rider” and subject of this book, the name Apollos Rivoire will be used throughout this book even though he was referred to as Paul Revere after a certain point.

  5. The North End was the poorest section of town in 1771 and declined further by 1790. Allan Kulikoff, “The Progress of Inequality in Revolutionary Boston,” William and Mary Quarterly 28, no. 3 (July 1971): 397–398; Russell Blaine Nye, The Cultural Life of the New Nation, 1770–1830 (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1960), p. 126.

  6. These agricultural improvements included policies, practices, and technologies: the adoption of the enclosures policy shifted land ownership from commonly to privately held fields; new crop rotation practices allowed farmers to replenish their soils without losing productivity; the development of the seed drill gave farmers the ability to seed fields more efficiently; and improvements to plowing technology, including the use of a lighter and stronger iron plow to better lift and break up soil.