Theodore L. Steinberg’s article Dam-breaking in the 19th-century Merrimack Valley: Water, Social Conflict, and the Waltham-Lowell Mills discusses an example of American dispute between a company and residents of the Merrimack Valley regarding land use.

In 1859, the Lake Village dam at Folsom’s Falls was attacked by a group of townspeople who were fed up with the Lake Companies perceived misuse of waterways. Decades prior, the Lake Company claimed that their top priorities were “navigation and waterpower,” (44) claims made to ease the worry of citizens who did not wish to see their farming, mercantilism, steamboat operations, and more disrupted by lack of water. Because the Lake Company demanded year round control of the water supply, compromises were in terms of control of the waterways or levels of water. Before the attack, Josiah French, the Company’s proprietor, was well aware of discontent amongst locals, but this awareness did not cause the Lake Company to change their practices. Steinberg argues that the 1959 attack on the damn is indicative of the “struggle over nature to Industrial capitalism.” (57)

While Pursell introduces Chapter 2 as a narrative regarding American resistance to technological change, the attacks seen in the Merrimack Valley are indicative less of shear resistance to change than they are dissatisfied with a company’s mismanagement of resources, robbing a region of its chances to become a textile powerhouse, and most importantly - failure to keep promises. (57) (–Glynnis Farleigh)

I thought it was interesting and important story to tell. The attacks on the dams illustrate the viewpoint of the American people who were facing industrialization problems. It is important to remember the extended length it took to make the transition from a more rural and agricultural society to the industrialized capitalist nation we are known to be. Another very important idea that this article brings up is that industrialization has it's set backs that, when not limited, can spiral into an area being drained of its resources and its residents left with a hollow shell of their former homes. These are aspects that are critical, but often overlooked and this chapter helps change that. - Kendell Jenkins

The Winnipisiogee Lake Company v Worster was a “ bill filed in the clerk's office on the 18th of April,1853.” p(60). The bill focuses on water fall and mill privileges being “seized and possessed” on the Winnipisiogee river. To resolve the issues between plaintiffs and the defendant, “a temporary injunction was granted, ex parte, by one of the justices of this court (p.63).” This was only under the condition that “ the complainants should give bonds in the sum of $5,000, for the security of the defendant.” In the end, the defendant went under investigation. “The motion to dissolve was denied.” –Erika M.

The Great Falls v. James Worster was a court case between the Great Falls Manufacturing Company, with the company itself having 5 cotton mills and the Corporation duly establishing a law that the petitioners use, occupy, and improve the mills and machinery in manufacturing cotton into cloth to enable them profitably and success. “Using the mills and machinery for that purpose is necessary for said petitioners to use the water that runs into Salmon Fall River to drive the machinery in the mills” (p. 64) – Hunter Dykhuis

Amidst the caulker riots in Baltimore of 1836, Frederick Douglass - who was a national leader of the abolitionist movement, was violently beaten by white ship carpenters. These white-workers presumably belonged to one of the white, working-class gangs of the 19th century - such as the Tigers, who were on strike against black-labor competition.

In what manner did the caulker riots demonstrate how institutional structures of power in politics and at the workplace impact job-related racial conflict? How prevalent is this issue today among the growing racial tensions within our political climate? (–Nate Stringer)

Why were men proud to have been paper makers, but not makers of other domestic products? This is the first I’ve seen men write about how proud they are of their work that isn’t related to agriculture, war, politics, or business. Was it pay? Relation to currency and bank note production? Or simply the mention of a lack of frequent supervision, allowing themselves to self-manage and feel in control? If the latter is true, why weren’t other industries initially operated in the same way to allow white men a better sense of control over various manufacturing processes? - Dillyn Scott