Wiki for Dr. McClurkens Courses

I find it is crucial to notice the ways that social inequalities and the development of industry modify each other. We notice in Pursell's chapter 2 that many of those who had rioted against the dams in New Hampshire were “toward the bottom of the region's economic structure”and led by two men with their own personal vendettas (52). Nonetheless, much of the contention rose from those who were not directly benefitting from the textile mills, and therefore against any degree of change that could set them even farther back in comparison with the rest of society. Also, in the Smith and Clancey readings, we hear how race and gender played a major role in how individuals contributed to industry. For example, Smith and Clancey point out that “men's work tended to become mechanized while women's work did not”(152). Also, racism contributed largely to the neglect African American's faced in the workplace, leading them to be physically abused without any right to defend themselves or face “death by Lynch law” (156). In no way does industrialization alleviate the social issues perturbing the society, but instead brings them to a head in a way that must be confronted and resolved. If not, industry could suffer the consequences. - — Taylor Heather L. 2017/02/01 20:55

In the introduction, Pursell states, “Like most changes, those in technologies produce losers as well as winners. Not surprisingly, the winners are often those with the best access to money and political influence, and the losers are left with relatively few resources with which to resist their subordination” (purses 39). This means that the winners are the ones who profit most from the changes and have the political power to get away with it, and the losers are the ones who suffer because they are losing money, and they don't have any real legal way to fight back. The “losers” are not anti-technology, but they are against things that harm them personally, like any other rational person. They frustration grows when they try and go down the legal routes to fight these big companies, only to be overruled in the courtroom. This is a dynamic that I had not thought of before. Most of the time, people look at technological change as progress, not as something harmful. It is interesting to see technological change from the other side. – Heidi Schmidt

Steinburg emphasizes that the struggle of nature to industrial capitalism. While workers were fighting and striking for for wages during the industrial age, the fight for who controlled and would profit from the natural world was also started. Josiah French made an intuitive statement of the tensions towards Lake Company, “The control and use of water [at some point] foreign to the interest of of [sic] the people on the Lakes… is and will be more and more, looked upon as an infrignment upon the interests of their neighborhood, town, and state…” (Pursell 47) - Madison White

We discussed this in class a bit but I found it interesting in one of the letters it was mentioned how workers were once able to come and go as they please but in may of 1842 regulations started to be enforced and made sure that workers had fixed hours and labor to get paid because being able to have flexible hours did not work for private workshops. The reason it didn’t work was because many workshops relied on work being done in an order and relies on all employees doing their part. Megan Liberty

Despite the dangerous working conditions for children, Factory life doesn't seem that bad from what I have read. There are some things that would need to change if this form of industry were to be brought back. But ultimately I feel that this would actually be a preferable outcome to the actual job market today. Housing could be provided, a company store that held all the essentials for living, and if you need actual money you can exchange company coupons for actual money that you have earned. Thomas Lanier

Steinburg points out the common misconception that technology emerged amidst the anti-technology camp. He instead asserts that sides fought over natural resources. In the case of the Lake Company, they used the lakes of New Hampshire to bring water to Lowell and Lawrence. Both Lowell and Lawrence had sizable factories which used water as a power source. Steinburg asserts that Lake Company’s story shows the conflict of who “would control and profit” rather than simply a class or workers versus bosses’ issue. Instead, Steinburg points out that control of nature served as the main conflict between Lake Company and local economy. — James, Emily B. 2017/02/01 19:47

I thought Steinberg’s research was very interesting because I have never thought about the environmental side of industrialization beyond the negative impact of pollution and the destruction of the environment. Steinberg’s research demonstrated how important the environment was to the living of those who were not a part of the industrializing. As Steinberg demonstrated, the impact that industrialization had on the relationship between those not involved in the industrialization and the surrounding environment resulted in violence. Such an extreme reaction to the impact of industrialization was surprising to me, although it should not have surprised me, considering that there have been (and always will be) opposing views in history. – Shannon Keene

In Steinberg's account, The Great Falls company is successful in their pursuit of legal action against James Worster's efforts to due damage to their dams, because “Worster sought to abate the nuisance himself - an action which was legal at the time.” Steinberg presents Worster as a man of dubious character. Though this particular case is when we see the courts beginning to acknowledge companies rights in terms to how they make use of technology and property. Without full transcripts of the case hearing if this case did in fact go to trial we only have the Great Fall's company petition to the court so discerning James Worster's defense to these accusations or the full details of the verdict. But this case does allow a dam company in the future to take further action against Worster in 1853. - Laurabeth Downs

This reading was super interesting as it was a couple entries from letters. Focusing on the “Lt. Col. Talcott to Jno. C. Spencer, Ord. Office, May 17, 1842.” (Smith and Clancey 153) part, I wanted to note the effective tone of the “boss” in the midst of a challenge to the boss vs. worker relationship. Reading the end of this letter explained the fears of workers afraid to unionize. These managers and factory owners made a point to say that it was a privilege to work at the armories; the workers could be replaced easily, because the factory was receiving “about forty applications per week of first rate mechanics,” (Smith and Clancey 154). The workers wanted better conditions, but they did not have much leverage against the company as individuals or a small group, due to their jobs' vulnerability. In the end, the Lt. Col. says that they will double down on their position that the workers heed to their current regulations or they could find work elsewhere. This small gathering of resistance gave me a glimpse of the upcoming labor unions, and reminded me of the importance they would soon have in helping workers obtain better working conditions and representation against authoritarian-type bosses. — McGowan Khayla J. 2017/02/01 19:32

The workers at the Armory were facing what many Americans were facing in the labor force: bad working conditions and a surplus of workers. For every man who would quite due to the conditions, there were three willing to take his place. Something I found interesting in this reading is that the Armory felt not only were they a great company to work for, but that they were much more easy going than companies similar to them, stating that they had better hours (153). It would be interesting to see if this were actually true because if the hours were in fact better than other places, you would think there wouldn't be as much protest as the work hours are the proposed basis of the workers anger. –Kasey Mayer

The quote, “here are our Regulations, if you will not abide by them-go elsewhere- for we know as many good or better workmen can be had at any moment. They answer-no, we will not leave the armory. We insist on working for the United States and will fix our own terms” caught my attention because it reminded me of the strikes we talked about in class and why they failed. It showed a real life example of the fact that the workers couldn’t challenge the corporations because they could be replaced due to the amount of immigrants that were coming to America and wanted/need jobs. It was cool to see what we learned in class applied in the text.-Kelsey Dean

I found this to be an important passage because Douglass is able to eloquently describe his understanding of white working-class men and their growing resentment with working alongside African-Americans. As Douglass explains, white working-class men viewed free African-Americans as being threats to their job security. This racial tension resulted in white working-class men intimidating, provoking and assaulting both free and enslaved African-Americans. These men felt empowered to do this because nobody would hold them accountable for their actions. I was struck by how the word 'abolitionist' was used as if it were a vulgar term. All of this is informative because it provides readers with a first-person account of what it was like to work in a shipyard as a slave with resentful co-workers and that tension foreshadows what ultimately unfolded in the following 25 years. — Yousef M Nasser 2017/02/01 13:24

“I could think of nothing, scarcely, but my life; and in thinking of my life, I almost forgot my liberty. I have observed this in my experience of slavery, –that whenever my condition was improved, instead of its increasing my contentment, it only increased my desire to be free, and set me to thinking of plans to gain my freedom.” (Smith and Clancey, 157) This quote stood out to me because it showed that no matter how much “better” the condition of slavery was; it was freedom that the enslaved were fighting for and that they were stopping at nothing for that freedom. I also found it interesting that any type of contentment or kindness towards African Americans would make you a supporter of abolition, which created more of a divide between the two races. – Jessie Cavolt

I found this passage on Fredrick Douglass to be very interesting because it shows his understanding of the white community with African American. This racial tension resulted in white working-class men intimidating, provoking and assaulting both free and enslaved African-Americans. These men felt empowered to do this because nobody would hold them accountable for their actions. I also found it interesting that any type of contentment or kindness towards African Americans. which than created more of a divide between the two races.

This passage gives insight to the hardships that people of color faced in the work place. At first, blacks and whites worked side by side until whites felt threatened by blacks. Douglass refers to the white carpenters who refused to work alongside blacks influenced by the idea that blacks could eventually take over the carpentry business for themselves if they were able. Even though they were capable of the same laborious work, people of color were not given the same rights as whites. Douglass mentioned that he had to surrender all of the wages that he earned to his master, “not because he had any hand in earning it -not because l owed it to him, nor because he possessed the slightest shadow of a right to it; but solely because he had the power to compel me to give it up.” (157). This passage highlights how divisive race became in the work force in the 19th century. It foreshadows later events including the Civil War. -Nicole Spreeman

I found the section describing the tension between the white men and African American in the really interesting and I saw parallels to what is being said about illegal immigrants today. In the reading, the white men were afraid that the African Americans were going to steal all their jobs. This fear led to the white men beating both free and enslaved African Americans. This remind me of the discussion America is currently having over illegal immigrants and the fear that they are also stealing jobs from hard working Americans, which has led to hateful rhetoric against immigrants and an overall escalation of tension between whites and immigrants. - Helen Salita

Frederick Douglass is always a very interesting author to read. He's very articulate, and really manages to show you what it was like for him when he was a slave. This section manages to have a universal feeling. Some of the language seems reminiscent to modern problems. “Their reason for [not wanting to work with freed men], as alledged, was, that if free colored carpenters were encouraged, they would soon take the trade into their own hands, and poor white men would be thrown out of employment”​ (155). This sounds exactly like the complaints of “​they'​re stealing our jobs” you hear today. So, even if slavery was abolished, some of the racial issues from Douglass'​ lifetime still continue today. -Nick Skibinski ​

Like many before me have mentioned, the parallels between the text that Douglass had published in 1835 and what is currently taking place in our country is uncanny. Douglass gives a well written explanation for the phenomenon that occurs when it comes to racial tension and the ideology of white supremacy. When racial tension is discussed in the essay, it reflects how easily many people dehumanized African Americans to better prop themselves up in society. The pervasiveness of white supremacy eventually leads to a climax, and the fight becomes the physical manifestation of this ideology. Those in power, even if not holding much of it themselves will occasionally view practices of equality or equity as a threat to their own place in society. - Danielle Howard

I thought that this article was incredibly interesting! I thought that it was interesting that when the paper mills became mechanized that the dangers of the job dramatically increased. Typically, when we think of mechanization we think that it would make the job safer whereas this article contradicts that for the men working in the mills. Women on the other hand did not face the same dangers because their jobs were not mechanized. Women were limited in the work that they were allowed to do and limited in the amount of hours that they were allowed to work and yet they were expected to be extremely flexible employees. Mill owners would only hire men that specialized in a specific task whereas when hiring women no prior skill or knowledge was required. Women on the other were interchangeable and could be asked to switch between mills based on the current level of demand (p170). I thought that it was notable that despite women being viewed as lesser their jobs were not mechanized because no machine could sort paper and do tasks in the rag room as well as a they could. -Emma Baumgardner

I found this article interesting as well, especially the section about the idea of “shared manliness” within the industry during its mechanization. McGaw states that “workers viewed themselves first and foremost as men and, thus, as the mill owners’ equals” (163). To me this notion seems both idealistic and antiquated. The idea that maleness/manliness alone is the characteristic that brings about equality is clearly problematic, but the idea that supervisors are less “remote or superior beings” and more equals seems positive and more modern (163). - Megan P.

While suggesting that the paper mills gave women flexible hours and help accommodate their lifestyles, family situations and even gave them time off and the ability to later return to work, the fact that women were so expendable by the male overseer is still problematic. Here was the most interesting part in the essay to me: “The ease with which large numbers of women learned papermaking tasks exchanged one task for another, and adjusted to different mills helped confirm the impression conveyed by emergent differences between men's and women's work: that women's work was unskilled, natural, and God-given.” (170). These last three words are laughable and even a little insulting reading these as a woman in the twenty first century, but at least gives the women a little bit of agency. Not much. Obviously the fact that women could work at all at this time period is considerable. But the fact that they performed such mundane behind-the scene tasks, sustained by each other’s conversation while they multitasked (a skill attributed to housewifery) doesn’t change the fact that, while earning money, were still pigeon-holed into a specific niche in the mill and the work world. -Anna Collins