(Page 6 of 20) - Machinists in Networks: Building America�s Earliest High Technology Industries authored by Meyer, David.

durables in existence by 1880 rested on a substantial antebellum legacy, one which I
argue, had been forged by networked machinists. Nevertheless, we are left with puzzles:
why did these machinists constitute their networks in the face of such apparent obstacles,
how did they form these networks, and how did they operate in them in such a way as to
achieve so many advances in a wide array of pivotal producer durables by the 1850s?

Machinists as Virtuous Bourgeois

Throughout the antebellum years the demand for machinists typically exceeded

their supply. To acquire metalworking skills, they had to undergo extensive training, first
under a formal or informal apprenticeship, and, subsequently, they improved their skills
by moving among machine shops to gain experience or by learning from co-workers if
they remained in one shop. They commanded wages which were among the highest of all
industrial workers in the eastern United States, premium salaries if they were part of
management, or profits from the firm if they had ownership stakes. To be sure, these
machinists sometimes suffered during economic downturns, but, for the most part, those
making the highest wages among the shop and factory workers, and especially those on
salary or with ownership stakes, certainly would be termed bourgeois. Given their strong
position in the labor market of highly skilled people, it would be logical to also consider
them prototypical homo economicus, that is, their talents were for sale to the highest
bidders.

The visages of legendary machinists who were active in the antebellum years

adorn the pages of many books and articles covering nineteenth century manufacturing;
sometimes these are lithographs produced before 1860 and others are photographs taken
after that date. These legends, for example, include the textile machinery great, Samuel
Slater, the locomotive giants, Matthias W. Baldwin and Thomas Rogers, and the
incomparable machine tool builders, Frederick W. Howe, William Bement, and William
Sellers. The images show them as quintessential successful bourgeois men. They
typically appear as serious, sometimes stern looking, most wore beards, they are dressed
in business suits, and they are shown in the later years of their life. Some of the
lithographs were created before 1860, and even then, they usually reveal them in their
fifties or sixties. Photographs taken after 1860 usually show them at an age from their late
fifties to their eighties; some of them were retired and a few were still working.

While the lithographs and photographs were meant to portray the machinists’

bourgeois character, behind the images lurks a fascinating tale which unsettles modern
stereotypes of them. Certainly, they, and others like them, were highly successful, thus
they strategically captured the financial benefits of their strategic positions in the
antebellum economy. Observers from the left of the political-economic spectrum critique
them as bourgeois who appropriated the labor surplus of others, whereas observers from
the right side of the spectrum applaud their pursuit of self-interest. And, both sets of
observers would agree that these machinists followed an ethic of prudence, they took care
of themselves. However, the ethics of these machinists were far more nuanced than this

J. Leander Bishop, A History of American Manufactures From 1608 to 1860, 3 vols.

(Philadelphia, PA: Edward Young & Company, 1866), vol. 2; Eugene S. Ferguson, ed., Early
Engineering Reminiscences (1815-40) of George Escol Sellers (Washington, DC: Smithsonian
Institution, 1965); Guy Hubbard, “Development of Machine Tools in New England,” American
Machinist, vols. 59-61 (1923-1924), series of 23 articles; Joseph W. Roe, English and American
Tool Builders (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1916).