US Textile Production in Historical Perspective

A Case Study from Massachusetts

Susan Ouellette

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2007
• ISBN:
  9781135862480
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Historia
• Subtopic: Historia del mundo

This book explores the development of a provincial textile industry in colonial America. Immediately after the end of the Great Migration into the Massachusetts Bay colony, settlers found themselves in a textile crisis. They were not able to generate the kind of export commodities that would enable them to import English textiles in the quantities they required. This study examines the promotion of domestic textile manufacture from the level of the Massachusetts legislature down to the way in which individual communities organized individual productive efforts. Although other historians have examined early cloth production in colonial homes, they have tended to dismiss domestic cloth-making as a casual activity among family members rather than a concerted community effort at economic development. This study looks closely at the networks of production and examines the methods that households and communities organized themselves to meet a very critical need for cloth of all kinds. It is a social history of cloth-making that also employs the economic and political elements of Massachusetts Bay to tell their story.

Chapter One
Sheep Flocks and Wool Harvests

“The Lord has been pleased to increase sheep extraordinarily of late”

—Captain Edward Johnson, 1642¹

In his New World narrative, Wonder-Working Providence of Sion’s Savior in New England, Captain Edward Johnson described the material wealth accumulated by his fellow colonists between the years 1628 and 1651 with great detail. In terms nearly as reverent although not as poetic as Edward Taylor, Johnson extolled the phenomenal growth of Massachusetts’ livestock herds. His interest is not surprising. In the agricultural economy of early New England, domestic animals were an essential ingredient which, when combined with land, became a primary source of wealth and prosperity. Moreover, an abundance of domestic animals guaranteed the future growth and prosperity of the new settlements.²

In Johnson’s estimation, the population growth of Bay Colony livestock was nothing less than miraculous:

There are supposed to be in Massachusetts [Bay] government at this day [1651], . . . about fifteen thousand acres in tillage, . . . cattell about twelve thousand neate, and about three thousand sheepe.³

The expanding population of Massachusetts’ domestic animals fired Johnson’s imagination and he was especially jubilant over the sheep flock for although “cattell” provided food and leather products, sheep’s wool provided much-needed warm clothing and bedding. Describing the prolific growth of sheep in the colony as “extraordinary” proof of divine approval, Johnson pointed out that access to woolen cloth “hath not been cut short” and uncertain supplies from England were about to become a specter of the past.

Divine approval was not restricted to the Bay Colony. The sheep populations in Rhode Island and Connecticut dramatically expanded in the seventeenth century as well. A 1654 observation held that there were “thousands in Rhode Island.” Willingness on the part of Rhode Islanders to export their surplus into Connecticut assured those farmers of a steady supply from their neighbor’s flocks.⁴

For an infant economy struggling to cope with debt and the vagaries of sea-based supply lines, this was welcome news. Johnson’s 1651 estimate forecast a ready supply of over six tons of raw wool in Massachusetts for that year with a potential doubling of each year’s harvest thereafter.⁵ John Higgenson, the New Haven farmer responsible for the 1654 assessment, forecasted a similar yield for Rhode Island.⁶ Reserves of such magnitude permitted more than an adequate basis for domestic textile manufacture of a considerable scope.⁷ Sheep and wool were extremely important to New England and the proof was their relative value to the rest of the economy.

Edward Johnson’s enumeration of 1651 reveals that at least 15 percent of all domestic animals in Massachusetts were sheep. In certain areas, such as Charlestown or Ipswich, the percentage was much higher with equal numbers of sheep and cattle grazing the town commons.⁸ In Rhode Island and coastal Connecticut, the relative percentage of sheep to other livestock may even have been higher. Although not all families in Massachusetts owned sheep, all of them owned at least some wool, wool yarn or woolen clothing for their own use. Seventeenth-century probates reveal that in many households, cloth, cloth furnishings and clothing accounted for a substantial proportion of the household’s wealth. Thus, the collective assets of the colony were influenced directly by domestic manufacture of woolens and, while divine providence may have helped to increase New England’s flock, economic imperatives influenced colonial investment choices.

Even before Edward Johnson celebrated the size of New England’s aggregate sheep flock, colonial legislatures expressed a deep interest in sheep. Urging that they be brought from England, a 1645 order from the Massachusetts Bay General Court read:

. . . all ye towns in general and every one in particular within the jurisdiction, seriously to weigh the premises and accordingly that you will carefully endeavor the preservation and increase of such sheep as ye already have, as also to procure more . . . those such as have an opportunity to write to their friends in England . . . [and] advise them to bring as many sheep as conveniently they can . . . ⁹

In this proclamation, the General Court acknowledged the damage done in England and in Europe by protracted wars that destroyed a large percentage of European flocks and made cloth expensive as well as difficult to obtain. Furthermore, although supply ships made regular visits to Massachusetts Bay, an adequate supply continued to be unpredictable. In the court’s opinion, the absolute necessity for warm clothing in the cold and wet climate of New England made a home-based wool industry a necessity.

Restrictive legislation as well as official encouragement also characterized the Court’s activities. At a session held on the 22nd of August 1654, the court set limits on slaughtering sheep for food and ordered a moratorium on the export sale of breeding animals. “No ramme or wether under two years can be butchered except by their owners until they reach two years . . . No person or persons shall transport any ewe or ewe lamb upon the forfeiture of five pounds each.”¹⁰

By regulating the slaughter of rams and wethers less than two years old, the Court ensured the wool clip of two seasons before the animal was consumed.¹¹ Preserving rams past their first year also guaranteed at least one useful breeding season for that animal as well. Constraints placed upon the sale of the breeding ewes protected the fertility of the flock and prevented flock owners from succumbing to the high premiums paid for sheep in adjacent New England colonies as well as the mid-Atlantic region.¹² More to the point, such legislation prevented outsiders from siphoning off Massachusetts Bay’s potential animal and wool production.

A similar trend can be found in the legislative efforts of Connecticut’s General Assembly. In 1660, sheep were valued at 15 s. each for the purpose of “ye list of rates.” Six years later, the Assembly took action again to promote the growth of sheep flocks when it exempted sheep from the list of rates making them an attractive asset. In addition, the Assembly required that tanners retain the ears of sheepskins when processed to prove ownership, prevent theft and confirm the proper age of the animal. Turning to management concerns, the Assembly established a formal provision for clearing suitable pasturage. By 1670, the Assembly emphasized the growth of Connecticut flocks when it confirmed the need for more sheep pasture and ordered every able-bodied male above the age of 14 to “work one day in the year sometime in June yearly” to speed the clearing of acreage.¹³

Some anticipated that their wool production could grow beyond meeting provincial needs and offer monetary enrichment: “[The Court] . . . having an eye to the good of posterity, . . . how profitable a merchandise it [woolen cloth] is likely to be, to transport to other parts [as staple trade items] . . .”¹⁴

By 1699, this potentiality became evident when England reacted negatively to New England’s expanding wool industry. Enacting restrictive legislation of their own, English lawmakers sought to remedy merchants’ complaints that wool and woolen cloth produced in New England seriously affected their own market viability. Resolved that “no person may export in ships or carry by horses” to anywhere outside of their own colony “any wool or woolen manufactures of the English plantations in America,” the English Board of Trade moved to prevent further colonial competition with England’s manufacturers. The penalties were stiff. Any Americans who defied the order risked forfeiture of their ships and cargo as well as the payment of a £500 fine in English money.¹⁵

The threat to English woolen manufactures sprang from the enthusiasm with which colonists responded to the encouragement provided by the colonial governments of New England from 1645 onwards. In Massachusetts, probate inventories recorded in the period leading up to the 1699 order reveal the expansion of sheep ownership in the Bay Colony over the period.

In the first decade of settlement under study, only three probate inventories reported sheep in Essex and Suffolk Counties. After the 1645 appeal from the Massachusetts General Court, however, inventories reporting sheep multiplied. In the first decade after 1645, approximately 12 percent of all inventories reported sheep; between 1650 and 1690 more than onethird of all inventories contained them.

When the numbers for Essex and Suffolk Counties are examined more closely, Suffolk seems to experience a decline after mid-century, but this may be related to the fact that the town of Boston quickly became an urban hub and very different from the rest of the towns in the county. A considerable number of Boston’s probate inventories after 1650 were those of single transient men; these were mostly sailors who tended to die young and with little personal property to distribute. The expansion of Boston as a seaport increased the number of young transient sailors and this distorts Suffolk County’s overall rate. In addition, the rapid general growth of Boston restricted access to common pasture and this undoubtedly would have reduced opportunities for livestock ownership. As Edward Johnson commented, in just 14 years of settlement “Boston, the which of a poor country village, . . . is become like unto a small city.”¹⁶

As a result, the number of Boston town inventories reporting sheep actually decreased over the period. Yet, when Boston’s probates are extracted from Suffolk County’s probates overall, the remaining towns show growth strikingly similar to Essex County’s. Taken together, probate inventories recorded in the two counties indicate that sheep production began early in Massachusetts, especially north and west of Boston, and expanded at a fairly stable rate throughout the period. In this context, Johnson’s 1651 estimate becomes a benchmark in the overall economic progress of the Bay colony.

Probate inventories in Connecticut and Plymouth Colony broadens that understanding. In Plymouth Colony probates available for the years 1633 to 1669, the number of inventories with sheep increased at a steady rate. In Plymouth Colony, wills and probate inventories recorded between 1633–1650 reveal eleven households that specifically listed sheep and several more listed “other cattel” beyond the oxen, calves and cows. Thus, 18 percent of Plymouth Colony households held sheep; this matches the situation in the Bay Colony. In the period from 1650 to 1669, Plymouth flocks expand to more than 20 percent of households. In the more prominent households flocks become larger; the inventories of William Bradford and Captain Myles Standish indicate they owned about 25 ewes, rams and lambs apiece. While the Plymouth Colony records do not extend beyond 1669, the trend towards larger flocks and more sheep seems clear.¹⁷

A small sample of probates taken from the colonial records of Connecticut indicates that the numbers of sheep reported are much the same as Massachusetts in the early years between 1639–50. Out of 46 inventories, seven report sheep. The repeated interest of the Connecticut Assembly after 1650 and their drive to provide more and better pasturage indicates that flocks were important and sheep were a familiar part of the farm landscape.

While the number of sheep on New England pastures generally indicates a successful husbandry, the numbers say little about strategies employed to manage or propagate them. Again, official documents provide some hints. The Massachusetts General Court issued regular proclamations covering pasture divisions and use as early as the 1630s. These chiefly directed all towns to allow liberal common usage for freemen developing sheep flocks. Between 1640 and 1645, the court also dispatched several orders encouraging sheep acquisition and propagation as well. Each order issued by the Court shared a common formula: each cited the essential nature of cloth to the continued success of the colony, the unreliable nature of imported sources and the economic hardship that imports placed on the immature economy.¹⁸ Naturally, colonial legislative orders were implemented at the town level and it is there in various town selectmen records that local strategies can be observed:

Whereas the [Massachusetts] General Court hath left it in the Selectmen of every Town to make orders for the clearing of their commons for the better keeping of their sheep.¹⁹

Thus, as a rule, selectmen of the town established the guidelines and allotments of common grazing, but always within the broad legislative recommendations of the Massachusetts Bay government. In this way, towns were able to add the particulars of their specific circumstances and needs while serving the larger interests of the colony. Indeed, all towns did not have the same access to common grazing land nor did every town have the same priorities.

In coastal towns, for instance, islands or small grassy peninsulas jutting into the sea offered perfect grazing areas that required little fencing or protection from predators. Likewise the animals were less likely to need fencing to protect meadows and crops. These areas were ideal, but by their very nature limited in capacity. After the first two decades, many coastal towns found themselves with grazing management problems as their herds and flocks multiplied. The minutes to the meetings of Ipswich (MA) selectmen (1634–1662) reveal the problems and solutions faced by one of the larger coastal towns’ administration.

Although individuals owned sheep flocks, Ipswich sheep were usually pastured and managed as a single group for at least part of the year. Beginning in the 1630s, most of Ipswich common lands were made available for grazing from March to November. Very often, because their demand on the pasture grasses was far less stressful than that of the larger pasture animals, sheep were the first to move out to common pastures. Their small hooves and light body weights minimized potential danger to the sod, especially in the damp spring weather. In the fall, sheep were the last grazers brought in because they could glean sustenance from the dying fields longer than the larger foragers. In between, individuals kept flocks on their home lots, especially through the early spring lambing period.

Originally, Ipswich selectmen hired one or two herdsmen to take all of the town’s livestock out to the commons each day between April and November. Sheep, goats and cows intermingled with little distinction made between the livestock species. All of the grazing animals had similar needs of water and grass meadows and, at first, a shared pasture made sense since one or two herdsmen could be hired to tend the entire town’s “great Herd.”

One can almost imagine William Fellows, the herdsman engaged by the town in January, 1639, moving from houselot to houselot collecting animals into the ungainly parade bound for Jeffries Neck, the first town common. In the misty morning just a half-hour after sunrise, Fellows would drive the animals out, perhaps with the help of his sons and maybe his dog. Once out on the Neck, Fellows closed the gate constructed by order of the town across the narrow strip of land connecting it to the mainland. Throughout the day, he guarded them against attack by stray dogs, wolves or other predators, but, more importantly, he prevented them from wandering back, pushing through the gate and laying waste to town gardens and fields. At the end of the day, “not before half an hour before sunset,” the herd would retrace its steps, each animal probably turning eagerly in without prompting at the home gate.

For his pains, Fellows, and the other herdsmen who would be hired over the years, was paid in corn and grain, but also fined if the herd wandered and damaged property while under his care. Fellows, one of the town’s sheep shearers, must have been a competent herdsman, since no fines associated with mismanagement was recorded in the Ipswich meetings through the period of his tenure.²⁰

Under the watchful eye of William Fellows, the Ipswich livestock population quadrupled in less than 15 years. With such an enormous increase, the town’s original common grazing land was no longer adequate and the selectmen began the process of dividing the “great herd.” By 1654, the first common area, Jeffries Neck, was so over-grazed that only the sheep flock was allowed to pasture there. Four years later, the town subdivided the flock and hired the family of John Payne, living on Jeffries Neck, to provide a fold and care for half of the town’s flock. Thomas Manning was contracted to put the rest on a new common cleared on the north side of the river.²¹

Under continued pressure from the expanding livestock population, selectmen worked to extend the town’s pasturage and to regulate the commons already in use. Restricted from Jeffries Neck, cows, oxen, goats and horses needed additional pasture...