What do you think?
Rate this book
The Industrial Worker, 1840-1860: The Reaction of American Industrial Society to the Advance of the Industrial Revolution
Besides the slavery issue, one of the major notes of American life in the years preceding the Civil War was created by the Industrial Revolution. It produced remarkable social and industrial upheavals which were repugnant to an astonishingly large numbers of Americans. Despite national prosperity, industrial workers suffered severe losses of economic status and independence; in protests grounded in religion and politics, they sought to hold on to what they had, and later to win material gains. Mr. Ware's illuminating book analyzes the conditions which brought on the Industrial Revolution, and traces and interprets the labor struggles that developed in response to the factory system.
288 pages, Paperback
First published April 25, 1990
8 people are currently reading
410 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
January 27, 2013
A must read for anybody curious about labor history. Here Ware compiles a wonderful collection for the early labor press.
April 16, 2016
A studious compilation of labor history that gives context to current struggles.
December 16, 2024
Are there any parallels between the contemporary societal shifts caused by the advance of Information Technology and those to do with the Industrial Revolution?
This is the question that drew me to reading this book.
My answer is yes, there are parallels. Especially on three fronts:
1. Anti-immigration sentiment
2. Incapacity to unite and organise
3. Impoverishment of the creative and cultural faculties of individuals
Sandwiched between the 37-39 Depression and the American Civil War, 1840-1860, was a period of general prosperity where the industrial worker lost ground. Wealth getting concentrated in a few hands, making the great mass poorer.
Immigration didn't help forming unions bringing their case because they were asking less than the American worker, whom in turn was getting sacked.
The Spirit of the Age was contradictory:
- 'Hot air' era: an era of lost causes e.g. Phrenology, Millerites, etc.
- The struggle of the liberal spirit of the 18th century vs. exploitative spirit of 19th.
- Big hopes and dreams (discovery of Gold in California) for the 'self', slow degradation and loss of community, unitary thinking.
The primary problem for the industrial worker 40-60 is found in the changes (degradation) in his status and standards of living. The case is made for shoemakers, needle trades, printers, handloom weavers, hatters, cabinet makers and labourers.
The Factory controversy was that corporations and owners had all the interest to attract humans (often seen on a par as machinery) into their factories. And factory systems where boarding was provided came to a great deprivation of freedom for the maker: intellectual and of time. Newspapers were often established by corporations for propaganda. Often take overs of publications that had originated by factory workers.
Entire communities, cities (like Lowell, Massachussets where a later Kerouac was from) were created around mills / factories. Corporations. Where the corporation had a say over what the worker ate, where they slept, their intellect, God, and politics. Nepotism arose.
The degradation of the operatives: they were increasingly asked to work more and paid less. Strikes and protests were hard to organise as workers would be dismissed and marked (i.e. so they couldn't find employment anywhere else).
10 hours days of work, instead of 12-14, involved much wrangling.
Increasing pressure on workers in matters of hours, wages, discipline, speed made it for a high turnover. Where classes of workers like the 'New England girls' were replaced by immigrants more desperate.
The 10-hour movement first failed but in between 50-60 acquired more political relevance.
In dealing with the industrial situation 40-60, 3 theories of reform and groups of reformers exist: the Associationists (aka Fourierists, Socialists, Labor Reformers); the Land Reformers (National Reformers or Agrarians); the Cooperators (consumers/producers cooperation).
New industrialism seen as ruthless and destructive, killing independence and security. Not acknowledging the creative side of humans. Fourierism gained traction too. But the reforms proposed were seen to lack realism, to be romantic, impractical. So people moved on.
Land reformers wanted the equal distribution of American land and the return to townships. Like Associationists they were marked as intellectualists.
Cooperatives were more realistic in approach. But though they worked in Europe, they didn't in the USA. Mainly to do with the extreme mobility of the American industrial population. Which didn't allow for vocational stability required by cooperations and trade unions.
Industrialism was a new thing for the worker in the first half of the 19th century. It was aggressive, revolutionary and destructive. The reaction of the worker was defensive and to a certain degree incredulous of the deep and enduring change. They saw the hopelessness of their protests, moving towards specialised unions for the attainment of aggressive action.
The labor movement of the 40-50 was defensive of old positions. Developed on territorial rather then occupational lines. In the 50-60 the nature of it was more aggressive, mainly in cities. All in all the labor movements of 40-60 amounted to nothingness. They lacked the ability of consistent organisation.
This is the question that drew me to reading this book.
My answer is yes, there are parallels. Especially on three fronts:
1. Anti-immigration sentiment
2. Incapacity to unite and organise
3. Impoverishment of the creative and cultural faculties of individuals
Sandwiched between the 37-39 Depression and the American Civil War, 1840-1860, was a period of general prosperity where the industrial worker lost ground. Wealth getting concentrated in a few hands, making the great mass poorer.
Immigration didn't help forming unions bringing their case because they were asking less than the American worker, whom in turn was getting sacked.
The Spirit of the Age was contradictory:
- 'Hot air' era: an era of lost causes e.g. Phrenology, Millerites, etc.
- The struggle of the liberal spirit of the 18th century vs. exploitative spirit of 19th.
- Big hopes and dreams (discovery of Gold in California) for the 'self', slow degradation and loss of community, unitary thinking.
The primary problem for the industrial worker 40-60 is found in the changes (degradation) in his status and standards of living. The case is made for shoemakers, needle trades, printers, handloom weavers, hatters, cabinet makers and labourers.
The Factory controversy was that corporations and owners had all the interest to attract humans (often seen on a par as machinery) into their factories. And factory systems where boarding was provided came to a great deprivation of freedom for the maker: intellectual and of time. Newspapers were often established by corporations for propaganda. Often take overs of publications that had originated by factory workers.
Entire communities, cities (like Lowell, Massachussets where a later Kerouac was from) were created around mills / factories. Corporations. Where the corporation had a say over what the worker ate, where they slept, their intellect, God, and politics. Nepotism arose.
The degradation of the operatives: they were increasingly asked to work more and paid less. Strikes and protests were hard to organise as workers would be dismissed and marked (i.e. so they couldn't find employment anywhere else).
10 hours days of work, instead of 12-14, involved much wrangling.
Increasing pressure on workers in matters of hours, wages, discipline, speed made it for a high turnover. Where classes of workers like the 'New England girls' were replaced by immigrants more desperate.
The 10-hour movement first failed but in between 50-60 acquired more political relevance.
In dealing with the industrial situation 40-60, 3 theories of reform and groups of reformers exist: the Associationists (aka Fourierists, Socialists, Labor Reformers); the Land Reformers (National Reformers or Agrarians); the Cooperators (consumers/producers cooperation).
New industrialism seen as ruthless and destructive, killing independence and security. Not acknowledging the creative side of humans. Fourierism gained traction too. But the reforms proposed were seen to lack realism, to be romantic, impractical. So people moved on.
Land reformers wanted the equal distribution of American land and the return to townships. Like Associationists they were marked as intellectualists.
Cooperatives were more realistic in approach. But though they worked in Europe, they didn't in the USA. Mainly to do with the extreme mobility of the American industrial population. Which didn't allow for vocational stability required by cooperations and trade unions.
Industrialism was a new thing for the worker in the first half of the 19th century. It was aggressive, revolutionary and destructive. The reaction of the worker was defensive and to a certain degree incredulous of the deep and enduring change. They saw the hopelessness of their protests, moving towards specialised unions for the attainment of aggressive action.
The labor movement of the 40-50 was defensive of old positions. Developed on territorial rather then occupational lines. In the 50-60 the nature of it was more aggressive, mainly in cities. All in all the labor movements of 40-60 amounted to nothingness. They lacked the ability of consistent organisation.
Read
April 6, 2024I read about 90% of this book for the sole purpose of citing it in my final research paper over labor reform. So I'm counting this for myself. Thanks Norman 😗😗
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews