USA > Connecticut > The trade of Revolutionary Connecticut > Part 14
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26
-
.
This action met the need fairly adequately as the total working
foros at Salisbury seems to have boon composed of the following:
The maragers and clerk
3
Draftamen of patterns and turners
Founder firemen and zolders
10
Borers of osanca
2
Dressers of Cannon
2
Clay spanker
1
Gattermen
1
Fillers
2 1-
Bankama -
-
$
Ore barzer '
1
Ore pounder
1
Ore wheeler
1
Carpent or
1
.
Colliers end ore diggers
30
Total
3373
.
₹
72 "A. R. W., VII, Doo. 58.
73 A. R. W., VII, Doo. 589.
210.
SALISBURY FURNACE, (In the State of Connecticut)
.
Wanted for said Furnace a great Number of Workmon for several Branches of Business, especially for cutting Wood and making tools. The best Wages and Pay may be expected; and those that engage bero their Country as well as they can any where, and may be encouraged that while they are engaged in this Service they will be excused from all other Service. Those that enter the Service with a View of cutting Wood, are desired to bring their Ax and Blanket. All' Gentlemen Farmers & others, are earnestly invited to lend their aid as speedily as possible, as Cannon for the Continent to be made at said Farnace are much wanted.
April 21, 1779
Benjamin Henshaw, W" Whiting Managers.74 4
In' June, 1779 Whiting again raised the issue with a petition that all of his necessary workers be exempted from military duty. The lower house negatived the petition, but the upper house voted to exempt up to fifty mon. To settle the difference in opinion Messrs. Elmore and Phelps of the laver house conferred with Eliphalet Dyer of the upper house as a joint committee. The lower house reconsidered and finally 75 decided to exempt forty men which compromise was accepted. Then, as more recently, the draft exemption problem aroused strong controversy. Apparently Salisbury did not always fill the ceanon requirements of the State, for Governor Trumbull in January, 1776 wrote Governor Cooke of Rhode Island about the possibility of obtaining omnon from thet
Casette, April 11, May 30, 1777.
TOA. R. W., XIV, Doc. 284. In April, 1780 the Council upon Whiting's request ordered the exemption of Whiting, one clerk, one carpenter, one founder, two firemmi, ons blacksmith, one ore-burner, two fillers together with such others employed there who were not inhabitants of Connecticut. 8. R. II, 542. Jacob Ogden likewise twice petitioned the Council for ezerotion of his key workers at Colebrook. The first time, on August 20, 1779, the Council exempted ton men; the second time, on April 23, 1780, Ogden and eleven of his workers. In each case Ogden was grented exactly what he sought. 8. R. II, 387, 542.
211,
stato. 76 Cooke, in answer to the query, stated that the Providenoe furmco owners already had orders for one lamdred and twenty cannon, but they would be glad to serve Connecticut if enough workers could be secured. 77 There is no evidence available, however, to indicate any actual shipment of cannon from Rhode Island to Connecticut, but it is obvious that Rhode Island camon production locmed large for the Continental causo. 78 : »
' Salisbury camon seem to have ranked at the top both in quality and price. Soon after Congress had requested the loan of cannon from. Connecticut, Roger Sherman wrote from Philadelphia in March, 1777 that many leaders there were very surprised and displeased at the prices quoted by Salisbury managers -- 270 to E30 per ton -- since the price in Pennsylvania was only 240 per ton. Sherman defended the Salisbury prices as being omsed by heavy expenses in robuilding,' 79 the soareity of wood, the high price of charoca1,80 and the long distances which it was carted. Moreover, Salisbury cannon were much lighter in weight so that the total 4
76 Trumbull to Cooke, Jammary 31, 1776, "Correspondenos of Governor Nicholas Cooko," Proceedings of American Antiquarian Society. XXXVI, 302.
Ti Cooke to Trumbull, February 1, 1776, ibid., pp. 302-503.
78 Earlier, in January 1776, Walter Stewart, the Commissary, Journeyed to Rhode Island for cannon, shot, and shells, and commented that the Salisbury furnace was not in blast. Walter Stewart to General Seturyler, Jenuary 23, 1776. Walter Stewart, Force Transcripts, 268:10.
79 At least E1450 was spent in fitting up the furnace. Bishop, I, 511.
Charcoal was used entirely in the smelting of iron in the Salisbury distriet until the latter part of the nineteenth century. Keith and Sharpo, passiz.
212.
cost was not so much higher as most people thought. 81
In January, 1777 the able commissary, Walter Stewart, reported to . a committee of Congress that Salisbury was demanding 170 per ton for nine and eighteen-pounders, and 260 per ton for mraller ones. The . committee decided that the prices were exhorbitant in comparison with those farther South and refused to negotiate on that basis. 82 .
In the same year, however, frequent transactions were satisfactorily completed. An example of a specific transaction between the Salisbury authorities and the Continent is given belows
Bill to United States for Cannon Delivered to Schuyler's Army in 1777 .
18-pound cannon
4
9-pound cannon
10
6-pound cannon
460
10
E-pound caron
200
30
18-pound shot
2:812
120
Sepound shot.
5:15:7
800
. 6-pound shot
14:9:5
22005,13:2
Trom Pay Tablo Office, December 23, 1787.83
· The prices listed here range from E20 apiece for a three-pounder to approximately E125 apiece for an eighteen-pounder. .
The Salisbury Furnace continued to pose problems of finance,
production, supplies, and legal litigation throughout the remainder of
81 Roger Sherman to Governor Trumbull, March 21, 1777, W. C. C. II. 307. In a later letter, Sherman declared: "Those (cannon] made at Salisbury are allowed to be of the best kind."
Halter Stewart to Samuel Adams, January 28, 1777. Walter Stewart, Force Transcripts, 268:14. Stewart to General Schuyler, March 8, 1777, Ibid., 268:39.
88 A. R. W., XXXII, Dos. 231.
213.
the War. Most of the timo some kind of legislative committee was in existeme dealing with one or several of these probl
: At times, dissatisfaction broke out over the management and the failure to produce more. In the winter of 1778 the furnace apparently closed down temporarily, for it was not in blast in May, 1778.85 .
The
accounts got jublød up at times, too. Porter found it difficult to collect just compensation for his work and expenses, both in 1778 and 1780; but he finally got paid after a considerable delay.".
The problem of procuring adequate supplies for the personmel of the establishment at Salisbury constantly cocupied the attention of.the menagers. This concern is clearly reflected in a newspaper notion of October, 1777. Henshaw and Whiting gavo notice that, with legislativo sanction, they would exchange pig iron for the following items: coarse woolen cloth, yarn stockings, tow cloth, shees, leather, cheese, pork, beof, butter, wheat, rye, corn, oats, hay, and siz or eight good teams with drivers. At the same time, those who had engaged to do work for 87
the Furnace and had walked out, were warned to return or faoo prosecution.
The output of camon, shot, swivels, and iron continued at a fairly high rato through most of the war period. In 1778 improvements in equipment were completed which enabled the foundry to east som -
thirty two pounders for the Continental Navy and New York State.
88
A. R. W., XIII, Doos. 105-117.
Ibid .. Doo. 113.
In 1778 Forter asked for 2521 15sh. for 350 day's work. A. R. W .. XIII, Doo. 114. A. R. W., XX, Docs. 294-297. . 87c. c., October 7, 1777.
88Bishop. I, 512. Malcolm D. Rudd, "Lakeville-in the Ameriona Switzerland," Connostiout Magazine, VIII (1903), 355.
.
214.
During most of the period from 1779 to the end of the conflict, William Whiting aoted as manager of the Salisbury establishment on soni-private status in regard to operation. Ho secured periodically renewal of his lease, paid the State a modest rent, and generally' satisfied state officials with his direction. For several years the 89 assembly displayed much uncertainty as to the wisdom of confiscating . the property despite what seemed like adequate proof that Richard Smith, the owner, had gone over to the memy. In February, 1781 the legislature resolved to give public notice for interested parties to appear in May and show cause why the entire estate should not be confiscated as the property of e opomy.50 .More or less by accident, the property sever was confiscated .or sold. Smith returned to America in 1782, appeared before the council of safety in November, and asked permissich to bring in his effects and reside onos more in Connecticut upon his property. The Council referred the problem to the next general assembly which " decided that Smith was sincero in his professions and restored him to full rights as a citizen and property-holder. 91
Salisbury furnace business continued to come up for discussion and action before the Council and legislature to the end of the war and beyond. Whiting on March 27, 1782 represented to the Council that he had entered into a contract to supply the Commissary General of military
8 C. R. II, 248, 351, 613; III, 348-349, 4601 IV, 102, 111-112. In November, 1780 the Assembly refused to renew Whiting's lease and ordered a publio sale of the property. This sale did not work out properly. however. A. R. W., XX. Doos. 802, 509.
90A. R. W., X, Dos. 310. S. R. III, 325.
1 E 91 S. R. IV, 387-558; V, 37.
2
.
-
215.
stores with a large mecunt of shot and shells so that he wished to retain control of the Salisbury property, which right was once again granted. "2
The Salisbury district contributed many hundreds of cannon and huge amounts of shot and shells to the American cause in the period 1776-1783.93 Without these omanon, especially, it is doubtful that the war could have been prosecuted to a successful conclusion. The constant surveillemoo of Governor Trumbull and his council of safety, and the great exertions of William Whiting, Benjamin Henshaw, and Joshua Porter, as managers at different times, contributed greatly to the mocess of the project. The Continental Army in the Forth, the Connecticut militia and costal towns , 94 and many Continental and Stato privateeremen employed Salisbury carmen and ammunition with telling offoot.
Although the Salisbury furnaces provided the Locale for the manufacturing of most of the iron and iron products of revolutionary Commentiout, a few other production centers, nearby and distant, should not be overlooked.
The Colebrook forge where, as already indicated, steel was made under Jacob Ogden's direction produced in close cooperation with the Salisbury works. For example, in Jums, 1781 Ralph Pomeroy, a deputy quartermaster, received a Pay Table Comittoo order on William Whiting for him to provide from Salisbury farnace(s) two tons of pig iron for
92 S. R. IV, 111-112, 272-273.
93 The total of cannon actually ran into the thousands bracket. Middlebrook, Maritime Connecticut, I, 2.
94 Growrich, Stamford, Norwalk, Fairfield, Stratford, Milford, New Haven, and New London were among the towns receiving caron from Salisbury.
216.
use at Colebrook. 95
Captain Samuel Forbes, of Canaan and Caleville, the pioneer iron-master of nortiwestern Connectiont, had set up the first furnace in the Colony for producing cast iron at Lakeville in 1762. This property eventually came into the hands of Richard Smith, so that it merged into the Salisbury history.
Other iron forges scattered about the State actively worked for the patriot cause, but under the handicap of using iren ere inferior to Salisbury's. In 1781 a fergo was ervoted on Nt. Riga by Abner and . Peter Woodin, 9% but its great period of productivity caso after the war's end. At East Hampton, Abijah Hall made iron work for ships, end won rmnam for his trip hammers. 97 In New Kilferd Capt. L. Raggles, Lemuel Warner, and Orange Warner, ran a forge in New Milford, and John Phelps, one in Stafford. 99 Another important establishment was that of Elijah Backus at Yantio where he made cannon and anchors. 100
When one considers that the only good deposits of iron ore in Connecticut were
A. R. W., XVII, Doc. 529. At the end of the war Smith recovered the Colebrook property, and his agent Jared Lane sold it to Joseph and Elisha Duall. Irving L. Manchester, The History of Colebrook (Winsted, Connecticut, 1935), p. 59.
96_ "W. H. C. Fyzohos, "Iron Mining in Connecticut," Connecticut Magasine (May, 1899), Y, 279.
97 Carl F. Price, Yankee Township (East Hampton, Connecticut, 1941), p. 65.
98A. R. W., IIV, Des. 288. Phelps on January 6, 1779 asked exemption for his laborers, but the lower house rejected the request.
Ibid., Doo. 17. Fhelps made grape shet for the fort at Groton. 8. R. III, 113.
100Leonard W. Bacon, "Norwich, Connecticut," Commsotiout Necasino (October, 1896), XV, 177.
217.
located in the northrest corner, the accomplishment of the forges in other sections of the State deserve much praise.
the
·· ·=== ===
. 1.
. .
,
..
1
4
1
...
...
.
5
1
-
218.
7. Ponder ** ** * * * per Madre DE, AT
The war crisis meant that for the first time Connecticut was forced to make a deliberate effort to manufacture powder. A system of bounties was employed to encourage the manufacture of powder and arms sinoe the"" shortage from the start was critical. Hover before in Connecticut's history had so much porder or so many guns bemn needed, and so quickly. . More than fine phrases of exhortation were needed to produce powder. In May, 1775 a bounty of ten pounds for every fifty pounds of salt petre manufactured and of five pounds for every one hamdred pounds of sulphur mofactured was established for & period of one year. ar. 101 1 In December, 1775 the general assembly passed an "act for encouraging the Manufacture of Salt Petro and Gun Powder." Under its provisions ono received -
bounty of ten pounds for each one hundred pounds of salt petre or nitro made in the Colony between June 1, 1776 and January 1, 1777, Inspectors should be chosen to ensure the grade of the products, and every toma. Without works must set them up immediately. As a special incentive, a bounty of thirty pounds mwaited the first and second persons building 103
a perder mill and manufacturing five hundred pounds of good powder." ..
In May, 1776 the legislature ome forward with an elaborate bill consolidating and improving the earlier aots on the subject. A bounty
of four shillings per pound applied to all salt petro made before June 1, 1776, and two shillings, before January 1, 1777, if passed by inspectors. A basio price of three shillings per pound was established ·
101 C. R. IV, 18.
102C. R. XV. 190-191.
105c. R. IV, 191-192.
219.
for salt potre, end of nine dollars per lamdrodweight, for good powder. 10% These bounties constituted a real strain upon the slender. " financial resources of the State, but the crisis would brook no delay .: : "
Yet despite the encouragement offered for making powder, there soom to have been very for each establishments set up in the State ... In ... December, 1775 William and Goorge Pitkin of East Hartford were granted liberty to oreot a powder mill on a stream about three miles from the River. At the same session a license was granted to Jedidiah Kilderkin'
and Nathaniel Wales of Windham for the same purpose. The following
winter on March 19 Admm Babooek of New Haven appeared before the ver: Governor and Counoil in behalf of Jeremiah Atwater, Isaac Doolittle, David Austin, and himself to ask for a permit for a powder-mill. Bo.
obtained full satisfaction in the matter. 105 Another mill was established at Glastonbury in 1776.106 The geographical dispersion of the now powder: mills into the different sections of the state beome fairly completo with the authorisation by the legislature for mills at Stratford and Salisbury in May, 1776. 107
104 C. R. IV, 287-289. Selectmen served as the inspectore, The two houses of the legislature experienced great difficulty in reaching an agreement upon this bill. Differing votes in the two bodies necessitated joint committee action to solve the problem. Connecticut Miscellaneous Papers, 1637-1783.
105 c. R. XV, 204-205, 213-214, 261.
100 Arthur P. Van Gelder and Hugs Schlatter, History of the Explosives Industry in America (New York, 1827), p. 52. The will blow up on August 23, 1777, and six persons were killed. Before that time largo amounts of saltpetre were delivered to the mill by nearby towns. For exmaple, Saybrock sent 1943 1b. 8 oz. on February 20, 1777. A. R. W., ser. 2, XXXIX, 79. The mill mast have been rebuilt because it delivered 60,974. pounda of powder to various towns in 1781. A. R. W., XXXII, Doo. 354.
107c. R. XV, 350-351, 357. Robert Fairchild, Stephen Boroughs, and Abraham Bringende were the Stratford operators; David Griffin, John Williams and John Knickerbocker, those at Salisbury. The Upper House of the legislature showed moh hesitaney about the Salisbury petition, but finally assented. Connecticut Miscellaneous Papers, 1637-1783.
.
220.
The basic legislative acts concerning this phase of powder production for the war period were largely completed by the fall of 1776 Then aots providing for inspectors of powder, and for a system of bonding of producers, rounded out the program. 108
Another phase of powder production also demanded mach attention- the matter of procuring salt petre, an essential in the powder making process. The fundamental act covering this problem was that of May, 1775 which established a bounty of ten pounds for every fifty pounds of salt petre made in the State within one year, and a bounty of five pounds for every one hundred pounds of sulphur, another essential ingredient. 109 Other acts to encourage production followed aleng through 1778, and they closely paralleled those for increasing powder production since the two ware so inseparably bound together. 110 "T
Although there never was a fully adequate supply of porder available in Connecticut to meet all wartimo demands, the rate of production was stepped up greatly. By May 22, 1776 Jedidiah Elderkin and Nathaniel Wales announced to the general assembly that they had constructed their parder mill and made over 1000 pounds of good powder. Therefore, they desired the bounty of L30, which was voted to them,
103 S. R. I. 8-9, 133. A bond of [2000 was required after the Upper House had reduced the requirement from 24000. A. R. W., V, Doo. 345.
:
LoºC. R. XV, 18. Sulphur was acquired during the war from the Wert Indies, especially Dominioa. · Middlebrook, II, 203.
110 C. R. XV, 190, 199, 258, 287,550. Some of the salt petro and sulphur, was sent into Dutchess County, New York for use in making powder. C. R. XV, 101.
111 C. R. XV, 372.
1
. . .. . .
.- 4.
..
221.
. At the local town level, a real effort seems to have been made to help the cause, mostly through encouragement of saltpetra production. For example, Farmington officials gave encouragement to John Treadwell and Martin Bull, and much was produced by them. 112
In Windhan County, the production of saltpetre increased very greatly, probably due partly to the location of the powder mill at Windham. As a sample of the ; .. prevailing industriousness, the towns in the County provided the mill with 42,666 pounds of saltpetre in three months ending in February, 1777. 113 baong those who brought large amounts to the mill were Abel 114 Clark and Nathan Frink, of Pafret, and John Brom of Windham.
Several interesting cases involving saltpetre manufacture came before the general assembly. In one of these, John Soevel and Rosewell Woodward of Guilford, in November, 1776, petitioned to be released from militia service and freed from any penalty for failure to report upon em carlier occasion upon the grounds that they were engaged in making saltpetre. Both houses answered with a resounding negativo. 115
In another case, the general assembly was confronted with a knotty personal problem. Caleb Atwater of Wallingford preferred a lengthy statement to the legislature in which he pointed out that he had spent many months in building a plant and launching the production of saltpetro. Already he had completed 2400 pounds, and he had on hand materials from which he could turn out 1000 pounds more. He had received orders, -
112 Henry Allen Castle, History of Plainville (Plainville, 1918), II, 195. 113 Bayles, p. 78. On December 13, 1777 the mill blow up with the loss of ono life. Lamed, II, 179.
114 "Larned, II, 161.
115 Connecticut Miscellaneous Papers, 1637-1783. A. R. W., Y, Doo. 3290.
222.
meanwhile, to march with the Touth Regimsat, and he was willing to do so. Yet, he felt that the maunfueture of saltpetro was more essential to the public welfare sinoe he was capable of producing 250 pounds weekly. ..... Furthermore, he did go to Bew York in March while his works remained idle. He, therefore, asked to be ralieved from sorvios, which request was boartily ccnourred in by both honsts. 116
This action evidenced an intent on the part of the legislature to consider onoh esse upon its Individual merits, rather than to adopt an inflexible policy in-such mattera.
Although the French Allianos invelred, among its many helpful ramifications, an increase in the amart of powder available from outside sources, it did not mean that Commsetient could curtail or stop its production. The increasing scope of the adlitary campaigns necessitated the utmost efforts to koop production af powder high. More than oneo General Washington wrote to Governor Trzatall about the imperativo nood for additional powder from Connecticut. 117
The output of powder did not alrays measure up to acceptable standards of quality. For instance, Governor Greene of Rhode Island wrote to General Sullivan in Angust, 1778 that a large quantity of the powder from Comeotiout was unfit for uso. 118 The trouble with poor powder apparently continued, for complaints came in from other sources. Peter Colt, ons of the commissaries in the State, lodged with Governor Trumbull a vigorous complaint against the New Haven porder works. He had purchased 3300 pounds
. 4
116 Ibdd. Also, in briefer form, in 8. R. 1, 45.
117 Washington to Trumbull, July 3, 1780, M.H.S.C., L, 183. 118 Collections of Rhode Island Historical Society, VI, 207, 208.
223.
of gun powder, and sent 2900 to Boston for use of privateers. The entire lot hed been condemned as useless so that Colt was enraged and sought quick rectification of the situation. 119 Governor Trumbull immediately referred the complaint to his Council, and the group appointed James '." Wadsworth and Andrew Ward to repair to the powder aill for a careful . investigation.'"No further complaints were brought to the Comoil's attention so that one may assume that an improvement was made. It is certain that the New Haven mill produced large amounts of powder throughout the War. In December, 1780, Ezra Stiles reported that he had been informed by Ismao Doolittle that the powder mill in How Haven had produced 80,000 pounds since its inception in 1776. . 121
From this brief survey it is evident that the powder industry, war-born enterprise in Connecticut, despite occasional inferiority in product and general inadequacy in amount of production, did make a . substantial contribution to the Connecticut and the Continental war ". effort.
.
...
119 Peter Colt to Trumbull, Doomaber 16, 1779, M.H.S.C., LXII, 461.
120 8. R. II, 446-447.
121
Bara Stiles Diary, 1770-1790, III.
224.
8.
In the matter of making guns for the Connecticut militia and the Connecticut regiments in the Continental Arzy, the State was better prepared than for the manufacture of powder er paper. Although gun-zak ing had not been carried on as a large-scale colonial industry, as already has been com, 122 the large mmber ef ective gunsmiths in the State " formed a splendid molous for the much-needed expansion of the war period. Revolutionary gun-asking did not involve any large factories, but rather mm acceleration of effort by individual oraftamon. Hany who had worked part-time, now devoted full time to the work; and some, in addition, directed the efforts of apprentices.
At the outbreak of the war, the general attitude was that each man should provide his own arms. To every man who provided himself with gun "well fixed with a good bayonet and cartouch box" a bounty of ton . shillings was to be paid. If sufficient arms could not be obtained that my, additional arms would be impressed. 125 This : This act of April, 1775 obviously was intended only as a temporary expedient, for the leaders of the State realised that any serious fighting would require a large increase in the member of guns needed.
The real frontal attack upon the problem was launched by the general assembly at its regular meeting the next month. In a comprehensive aot "for encouraging the Manufacturing Fire-Arms and Military Stores" a bounty of five shillings per gun and of ane shilling six pence per gunlock was established as an incentive to gunsmiths. 124 In October, the act was
- 122 Soo p. 93.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.