Artistry and Industr

NOTE TO USERS

Copyrighted materials in this document have not been scanned at the request of the author. They are available for consultation in the author's university library.

Figure pgs 74-118

This reproduction is the best copy available.

® UMI

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ARTISTRY AND INDUSTRY IN CAST IRON

BATSTO FURNACE, 1766-1840

Megan Michelle Giordano

A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the University of Delaware in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Early American Culture

Spring 2005

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number: 1428756

INFORMATION TO USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

® UMI

UMI Microform 1428756 Copyright 2006 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ARTISTRY AND INDUSTRY IN CAST IRON

BATSTO FURNACE, 1766-1840

Megan Michelle Giordano

Approved: DonaldL.F enrtimore. Professor in charge of thesis on behalf of the Advisory Committee

f Approved: J. Ritchie Garrison, Ph.D. Director of the Winterthur Program in Early American Culture

Approved: Conrado M. Gempesaw'fiy'Ph.D. Interim Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences

Approved: Conrado M. Gempesaw'-ff; Ph.D. Vice-Provost for Academic and International Programs

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First I would like to thank Donald L. Fennimore, M.A., for his patience and

guidance throughout this project. His affection for iron is contagious. Thanks also to

Gretchen Buggeln, Ph.D., who graciously offered insightful comments and advice,

proving that distance is no obstacle. To John Fea, Ph.D., Joseph Huffman, Ph.D., James

LaGrand, Ph.D., and my friends from Messiah College: I am ever grateful for their

unfailing support and encouragement in all things. Thank you to the staff of Wharton

State Forest, particularly at Batsto and Atsion. I am especially indebted to Patricia

Martinelli and John Morsa from Batsto for their enthusiastic support for this project,

generosity with their time and their willingness to go beyond the call of duty for the sake

of scholarship. I have also been fortunate to work with the staff of George Washington’s

Mount Vernon, especially Carol Borchert Cadou, who demonstrated amazing generosity,

openness and kindness. I must thank the Burlington County Historical Society and the

Gloucester County Historical Society for their kind research accommodations. On a

personal note, I owe Patrick Giordano a huge debt. His technical assistance was

desperately needed and much appreciated. Also Domenic and Patricia Giordano: to

thank them for their eager participation in this process is grossly understating their

contributions to the cause. Thanks also to my roommate, Emily C. Cline, who has

blessed me beyond measure with her indefatigable support, humor and compassion. And

lastly, to Arthur Pierce, for his pioneering work and unfailing devotion to Batsto.

iii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. This manuscript is dedicated to:

My parents, for their endless enthusiasm, encouragement and love;

for always appearing interested;

and for helping me to never give up.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT...... xi

Chapter

1 BACKGROUND FOR BATSTO: WHO, WHAT, WHERE, WHEN, WHY AND HOW...... 1

The Furnace that Charles Read Built...... 2 Who Says those Pines are Barren? ...... 4 Town and Country: Urban Capital and Rural Resources...... 7 Ironworks Unlimited, or, What is that Thing? and How does it Work? 9 Laborious Industry and Industrious Labor: How the Ironworks Works... 12

Working the Far Jobs...... 13 Working at the Stack...... 16 Life at the Works ...... 19

From Colonial Pig to Continental Shot: The Revolution Comes to the Pines...... 22

2 A NEW ERA BEGINS: THE RICHARDS ARRIVE...... 26

William Richards: Ironmaster Extraordinaire ...... 26 Mr. Pettit Writes to Washington: National Identity, National Iron ...... 29 Keeping it in the Family: The Richards’ Dreams of Empire ...... 36 The Richards’ Boys Come of Age: Manifest Destiny in the Pines ...... 39

3 ARTISTRY AND INDUSTRY: HOW TO MAKE A GOOD FIRST IMPRESSION...... 44

The Mold and the Marvelous, or, The Art of Casting Iron...... 44 Artistic Aspirations and Inspirations, or, the Art of Cast Iron ...... 47

The Fabled Side Plates of Batsto ...... 49

Share and Share Alike, or How to Make the Most of Your Assets...... 55 Democratic Decoration: Patterns Designed for Mass Production...... 58

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Authority and Power, or Illusions and Delusions about Who’s Really in Charge ...... 60 They Mold and They’re Bold, or They got Away with WHAT? ...... 65 For Example: The McAnniny Family ...... 68 Breaking the Mold: Changes at Batsto ...... 70 Post Script...... 72

APPENDIX...... 74 REFERENCES...... 119

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Map of the coast of New Jersey from Bamegat Inlet to Cape May ...... 74

Figure 2 Map of New Jersey...... 75

Figure 3 Map of the Waterways...... 76

Figure 4 Excavation of Batsto Furnace...... 77

Figure 5 Ore raisers harvesting bog iron...... 78

Figure 6 Ore Boat...... 78

Figure 7 Colliers at the Jobs ...... 79

Figure 8 Hopewell Furnace, Pennsylvania...... 80

Figure 9 Diagram of a furnace...... 81

Figure 10 Sketch of Batsto...... 82

Figure 11 Pig Iron...... 82

Figure 12 Moulders...... 83

Figure 13 The Forge...... 83

Figure 14 William Richards, 1738-1823...... 84

Figure 15 William Richards by Rembrandt Peale ...... 84

Figure 16 Samuel Richards by Thomas Sully...... 85

Figure 17 Jesse Richards...... 85

Figure 18 Photograph of the Richards Mansion at Batsto Ironworks ...... 86

Figure 19 Batsto Mansion...... 87

Figure 20 Batsto Mansion...... 87

vii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 21 Samuel Richards’ Mansion, 1826, Atsion New Jersey...... 88

Figure 22 South Elevation...... 88

Figure 23 Fireback and jambs, 1787, Mount Yemon...... 89

Figure 24 Fireback and jambs, 1787, Mount Vernon ...... 89

Figure 25 Fireback and jambs, 1787, Mount Vernon...... 90

Figure 26 Fireback and jambs, 1787, Mount Vernon...... 90

Figure 27 Mahogany Stove Plate Pattern, 1766-1790 ...... 91

Figure 28 Mahogany Stove Plate Pattern, 1766-1790 ...... 91

Figure 29 Detail of pattern ...... 92

Figure 30 Detail of pattern...... ,...... 92

Figure 31 Detail of the pattern...... 93

Figure 32 Detail of the pattern...... 93

Figure 33 Side Plate...... 94

Figure 34 Six Plate Stove, also cast from the pattern shown in Figures 27-32...... 94

Figure 35 Ten Plate Stove...... 95

Figure 36 Side Plate, 1766-1775 ...... 96

Figure 37 Side Plate, 1766-1790 ...... 96

Figure 38 Side Plate A, 1766-1780 ...... 97

Figure 39 Side Plate B, 1766-1780 ...... 97

Figure 40 Six Plate Stove, 1766-1780 ...... 98

Figure 41 Six Plate Stove, 1766-1780 ...... 98

Figure 42 End Plate, 1766-1790 ...... 99

viii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 43 End Plate, 1766-1790 ...... 100

Figure 44 Franklin Stove...... 101

Figure 45 Fireback, 1766-1775 ...... 102

Figure 46 Fireback, 1766-1775 ...... 102

Figure 47 Fireback and j ambs, 1800-1815...... 103

Figure 48 Fireback and jambs, 1800-1815...... 103

Figure 49 Fireback and jambs, 1800-1815...... 104

Figure 50 Fireback and jambs, 1800-1815...... 104

Figure 51 Fireback and jambs, 1820-1830, Atsion Mansion...... 105

Figure 52 At left, another one of six similar back and jamb sets in situ at Atsion...105

Figure 53 Above, Fireback, 1805-1820...... 106

Figure 54 At left, Jambs, 1800-1815...... 106

Figure 55 Fireback and jambs...... 107

Figure 56 Fireback and jambs ...... 107

Figure 57 Fireback and jambs ...... 107

Figure 58 Fireback and jambs, 1815-1835, Made at Atsion Furnace...... 108

Figure 59 Fireback and jambs, 1815-1835, Made at Atsion Furnace...... 108

Figure 60 Fireback and jambs, 1815-1835, from Samuel Richards’

Atsion Mansion...... 109

Figure 61 Cast Iron Lintel, c. 1810...... 110

Figure 62 Cast Iron Lintel, c. 1810...... 110

Figure 63 Date Marker...... I l l

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 64 Frog Door Stop...... 112

Figure 65 Cast iron pot...... 113

Figure 66 Cannonballs ...... 113

Figure 67 Tombstones ...... 114

Figure 68 T ombstones...... 114

Figure 69 Tombstones...... 114

Figure 70 Outbuildings at Batsto Village, nineteenth century...... 115

Figure 71 Outbuildings at B atsto Village, nineteenth century...... , ...... 115

Figure 72 Outbuildings at Batsto Village, nineteenth century...... 115

Figure 73 Outbuildings at Batsto Village, nineteenth century...... 115

Figure 74 The Franklin Stove in use...... 116

Figure 75 The decorative funstionof the stove could take on a different meaning during the summer months...... 116

Figure 76 During the warm summer months, cast iron stoves could be moved aside for the sake of convenience and used for alternate purposes...... 117

Figure 77 Robert Wellford’s bill for ornamenting stove patterns ...... 118

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ABSTRACT

Located in the Pine Barrens of New Jersey, Batsto was a charcoal burning

furnace. Over the course of its industrial life (1766~1850s), Batsto contributed greatly to

the regional economy, and also participated in a wider network of Atlantic commerce.

The Richards family of Batsto operated many local ironworks, including Batsto, Atsion,

Weymouth, Martha, Hampton and Speedwell. Working together to establish hegemonic

control of the region’s resources, brothers Samuel and Jesse dominated the local iron

industry for half a century. Batsto can be viewed as a case study of the various factors

encountered in iron production, especially labor concerns and technological advances.

Batsto’s products, especially the stoves and firebacks, speak to changes in the social and

cultural spheres. The design choices and ornamentation reflect fashionable motifs and

demonstrate the significance of cast iron as an interior decoration

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chapter 1

BATSTO BACKGROUND: WHO, WHAT, WHERE, WHEN, WHY AND HOW

Standing on the shore of Batsto Lake is a serene experience. The stately trees

stand silently beside the gentle, richly colored water. The only audible sound is the

movement of the wind through the pines. People today enjoy Batsto’s picturesque charm.

It is a lovely place to fish, walk a dog, picnic with family or simply stroll. Several

historic buildings are open to visitors inclined to ruminate on the site’s past. Yet for all

of its natural beauties and antique curiosities, the stately calm that pervades Batsto today

totally misrepresents the truth of Batsto’s history. In the eighteenth century, Batsto was

an ironworks. The billowing furnace stack dominated the landscape. In the distance, the

steady, pounding rhythm of the forge hammers shattered the stillness.

The ironworks was a place devoted to productivity and profitability. The

ironmaster coordinated a complicated system of discrete but intimately related jobs at the

furnace, and craftsmen labored at the hearth with glowing streams of metal. Workers

from Batsto village labored around the clock producing cast iron objects for the growing

American market. The molten iron was supremely adaptable. The ironworkers created

objects of utility and beauty, constantly evolving to suit the circumstance, technology, and

fashion of the time. They cast iron hollowware for cooking, stoves and firebacks for

household heat, machinery parts for burgeoning industries and pipes for the expanding

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. cities. And a furnace always produced pig iron, a staple commodity for local, regional,

National and Atlantic exchange.

Batsto Ironworks was a typical Mid-Atlantic charcoal burning furnace. In many

ways, it is unremarkable. It experienced years of booming business and periods of

financial scramble. Objects from Batsto are scattered in local museums and historical

societies. Part of Batsto’s allure, both academically and otherwise, is the combination of

extant objects, documents and the preservation of much of the original site. Using the

landscape and buildings, the furnace daybooks and records, and the objects made at

Batsto, it is possible to reconstruct a compelling story about the ironworks, its owners,

workers and its broader significance. From 1766 to the 1850s, Batsto’s experiences were

representative of larger economic trends. As a microcosm of America’s early

experimentation with industrial methods, Batsto also provides a case study of the various

factors encountered in iron production, especially labor concerns and technological

advances. The objects, meanwhile, speak to both subtle and drastic changes in the social

and cultural spheres, particularly through design selection and ornamentation. In order to

fully explore these facets of Batsto, it is necessary to begin at the beginning.

The Furnace that Charles Read Built

Charles Read is generally credited with bringing full-scale iron production into the

Pinelands region of New Jersey. Read was hardly a seasoned veteran of the colonial iron

industry when he put his chain of furnaces into blast in the 1760s. Like so many of his

peers, he was a successful entrepreneur who considered iron a safe investment. Bom and

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. raised as a shopkeeper’s son in Philadelphia, Read received an education in London. He

joined the British Navy and served on a vessel in the West Indies. Although he did not

take to a life at sea, he made the most of his tour. He married Alice Thibou, the daughter

of one of Antigua’s most influential and wealthy planters.1 Read then returned to the

American colonies with his new wife and new fortune. They stayed for a short time in

Philadelphia, but soon moved across the Delaware River to the town of Burlington, New

Jersey. There Read began his career modestly as the Court Clerk of Burlington County,

but rose quickly through the local political ranks.2 He became a powerful force in New

Jersey’s colonial development, serving as a member of the Assembly and the Governor’s

Council, and holding various positions and appointments from Indian Commissioner to

Associate Justice. Over the years Read put his considerable wealth to use, including

heavy investments in agricultural improvements, land speculation, and later in life,

ironmaking.

Charles Read was 51 years old when he began construction on his ironworks.

Furnaces involved an enormous amount of legwork before investment. The quantity and

quality of water power and ore deposits had to be carefully studied. Thousands of acres

were necessary for both timber and ore, and water rights were a major consideration.

Although the undertaking required research, skill and luck, it seems that Read enjoyed the

labor. In 1766, his cousin William Logan wrote of Read: “He is quite hearty and very full

1 Pierce, Iron in the Pines: The Story o f New Jersey’s Ghost Towns and Bog (New Iron Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1957), 21.

2 Ibid., 22.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. o of spirits and his iron works scheme.” Through shrewd negotiations, and no doubt

owing in part to his personal prestige, Read acquired the necessary acreage as well as the

right to dam streams, cut timber and mine the ore. By 1768, Read had built and fired a

chain of ironworks in the New Jersey Pine Barrens, including Etna, Taunton, Atsion and

Batsto.

Who Says those Pines are Barren?

For any burgeoning iron industry, location was critical. Prospective ironmasters

had to consider several key issues, such as the supply of the requisite resources. Furnaces

required enormous amounts of raw materials in order to keep in full operation, or “in

blast” in iron parlance. The raw materials necessary for iron-making are fairly simple:

raw iron, a flux to remove the impurities, and fuel to heat it to a molten state.

Fortunately, the Pine Barrens had iron, flux and fuel in abundance. The furnaces and

forges of southern New Jersey used bog iron. Then as now, the cedar waters of the

Pinelands have a very high content of decayed vegetable matter. The soil in the

streambeds and swamplands contain a soluble form of iron. As the water seeps up

through the soil, the bits of iron are lifted to the water’s surface, where they oxidize. The

oxide deposits gather along the streams beds, particularly in the many languid coves,

swamps and pools. These deposits mix with mud and then eventually harden into rocky

-2 Qtd. in Pierce, Iron in the Pines, 23.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ore beds known as bog iron.4 Eighteenth-century traveler Julian Niemcewicz described

his understanding of the process:

Water seeping through bogs grown over with cedars, draining through ground made ofSilex or flint sand forms this ore. What is more interesting is that the metal dug out, renews itself, and in such quantity, that in the course of 28 years the ore has been dug out of the same place three times and three times it has renewed itself.5

In his enthusiasm over the bog ironworks, it is probable that Niemcewicz exaggerated the

speed of the renewal cycle. Current estimates suggest that iron deposits regenerate every

18-25 years. A busy furnace could outpace this natural process, however, and ironworks

like Batsto supplemented their own supply with imported ores.

The iron ores contained many impurities that workers had to draw out using a

flux. Bog iron was in a chemical class called brown hematite which has less than 60%

iron content.6 A variety of fluxes could be used during the refining process. The most

logical choice for flux at Batsto was a seashell flux, either oyster or clam. The furnace

required huge amount of flux. For instance, in 1828 the Batsto Day Books show that the

furnace purchased and transported shells every few months. In March, they received 753

bushels of oyster shells; in June, 1,490 bushels; in October, 700 bushels; and in

4 Pierce, Iron in the Pines, 11.

5 Julian Niemcewicz,Under the Vine and Fig Tree: Travels through America in 1797 - 1799, 1805 with some further account of life in New Jersey, Metchie J. E. Budka, trans. (Elizabeth, NJ: Grassman Publishing Company, Inc., 1965), 223.

6 Arthur Cecil Bining, Pennsylvania Iron Manufacture in the Eighteenth Century (Harrisburg: Pennsylvania Historical And Museum Commission, 1979. Second edition, second printing), 56.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. December 1,225 bushels. The price per bushel averaged $16 in 1828.7 According to the

“recipe” Niemcewicz recorded in his travel journal, Batsto used one part of flux to 15

o parts charcoal.

The furnace blast required huge amounts of fuel to produce the necessary heat.

Pinelands ironworks relied on charcoal. The furnace had a tremendous appetite. Henry

Drinker, who owned one of Batsto’s neighboring furnaces, estimated that a typical stack

required 800 bushels of charcoal for a twenty-four hour period (producing two tons of

iron).9 Accepting his figures, it took approximately twenty cords of wood to produce

sufficient charcoal for a day’s blast, which translates into nearly an acre of land.10

Enormous acreage was necessary to keep a furnace in full blast at peak production, and

the Pineland tracts were ideally suited to bear such a burden.

In addition to the natural advantages the Pine Barrens afforded in ores, flux and

fuel, the land offered one further advantage to a perspective ironmaster like Charles Read.

The ironworks had ready access to an extensive system of waterways. The streams and

rivers of the Pinelands, most notably the Mullica and Wading Rivers, carried Batsto’s

products to markets like Philadelphia and New York. Extensive and efficient trade routes

carried Batsto’s products to a wide regional market (Figure 1 and 3). The Pineland iron

7 Batsto Day Book #2, Records of Historic Batsto Village, New Jersey State Archives (NJSA).

8 Niemcewicz, 223.

9 Bining, 63

10Bining, 63.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. gained a fine reputation for quality around the British Atlantic world. Paul Revere sought

out Batsto’s iron for his Boston forge.11 In 1784, The Pennsylvania Gazette touted

“Batsto pig-iron, of superior quality for making barr-iron and fine castings, and in high

estimation• in England.” 12 In order to participate in these far-flung networks, Batsto relied

on an intricate system of transportation routes. Scows plied the shallow waterways near

the furnaces and forges, carrying their heavy loads to the sloops and schooners waiting in

the deeper waters. A contemporary description offers an explanation of the site’s many

advantages to potential buyers:

At the forks of Little Egg-Harbour, in New Jersey, 38 miles from Philadelphia by land, and within one day's sailing from New York; the river communicating with the sea by the best inlet on the coast of New Jersey, is navigable within a few miles of the works for vessels of 200 tons burthen or upwards, and those of 100 tons may approach within one mile; flats and scows may load or unload at the walls of the mill.13

Town and Country: Urban Capital and Rural Resources

The isolation of the ironworks was deceptive. The massive tracts of land which

fed the furnace created estates of vast proportions set apart from towns and villages.

Although its remote location seemed far removed from civilization, the ironworks was

intimately involved in a wide and sophisticated network of contacts and connections.

11 Paul Revere’s agent John Blagge wrote to Revere that Atsion pigs would not be available until spring, and then for £10 pound, but Batsto, “in very good repute for hollow ware,” had pigs available for £9 /10: Renee Emay, “The Revere Furnace, 1787-1800,” (Master’s Thesis, University of Delaware), 7.

12 The Pennsylvania Gazette, Oct 13, 1784.

1 The Pennsylvania Gazette, March 31, 1784.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Establishing a successful ironworks could be equated to founding a successful colony or

settlement. The entrepreneur truly became an adventurer,14 risking his honor and fortune

on his ability to judge the quality and character of land, materials, and men. The

ironworks may have functioned like an outpost in the wilderness, but its survival

depended upon strong ties with urban centers. The ironworks needed to move products

quickly and easily from their rural complexes to market. In order to assure the best prices

and contracts, ironmasters used all the means at their disposal to guarantee a good return

on their investment.

For prosperous merchants hoping to diversify their holdings, ironworks were

considered a safe investment.15 Merchants were likely to have significant amounts of

convertible capital to finance the tremendous start-up costs. In addition to the cost of

employees’ wages, the ironmasters required the capital outlay to build the furnace,

storage areas, bams, docks, and often a saw and grist mill. Ironmasters constmcted

housing for all of the employees and kept a well-stocked company store to supply their

needs and desires. The ironworks functioned like a self-contained city and the

ironmasters had many services to supply. If the works prospered, various ancillary works

would be added, such as a forge, a slitting or a rolling mill. After initial costs, the

14 John Bezfs-Selfa explores this concept fully in his book Forging America: Adventurers, Ironworkers and the Industrious Revolution (University of Pennsylvania, 2004).

15 Thomas Doerflinger’s Vigorous Spirit of Enterprise (New York: W.W. Norton, 1986) discusses the factors which motivated many Mid-Atlantic merchants to invest in ironworks.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ironmaster still had other costs for damming streams and ponds, as well as maintenance

and repairs on the races, wheels, helves and hammers that broke with frustrating

regularity.

Capital was critical, but perhaps most important for the merchants, personal iron

investments provided a dependable supply of iron, which was a reliable commodity on

the London exchange. Additionally, an ironworks was a relatively easy investment for a

wealthy merchant. The merchant had access to money and markets; it required very little

personal attention. The financier took on a partner, or agent, who could supply the

knowledge and background to actually oversee daily operations. Charles Read used both

his urban connections and rural resources. He served as a tireless promoter, salesman,

recruiter and taskmaster. Read enlisted professionals to assist in the site selection and

construction, then he selected a complement of skilled and trustworthy tradesmen to run

the day-to-day operations on-site. He also hired a large number of men to execute a

variety of tasks, both mundane and highly specialized. With competent money

management from the urban investors, and skillful on-site management, an ironworks

stood a good chance of success.16

Ironworks Unlimited, or What is that Thing? and How does it Work?

The furnace was the literal and figurative heart of most ironworks and her rhythms

dictated the lives of the ironworkers. Typically built out of local stone, the furnace stack

16 Doerflinger, 152; John Bezfs-Selfa, Forging a New Order: Slavery, Free labor, and Sectional Differentiation in the Mid-Atlantic Charcoal Industry, 1715-1840 (Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1995), 94.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. physically dominated the landscape. The stack resembled a squat pyramid, with a base of

roughly 25 square feet and rising up to 40 feet high (Figure 4). Because the furnace was

fed from the top, stacks were often built into small hills or rises to expedite the filling

process. Wooden bridges connected the bank to the top of the stack, called the tunnel

head. Workers called fillers put raw materials called charges directly into the top of the

stack (Figures 8 and 9). The fillers crossed the bridge to empty their loads into the

opening in the tunnel head. The charge collected in the inner chamber of the stack.

The interior of the furnace stack was lined with insulating layers of brick and

mortar. 17 At its widest point, known as the bosh, the chamber was approximately ten feet

in diameter. Beneath the bosh a cylindrical reserve, or crucible, collected the molten

iron. The sturdy walls of the bosh and the crucible supported the massive weight of the

charge while blasts of heat melted, reduced and refined the iron. The blasts of air entered

the crucible through the tuyere. The founder worked at the hearth at the bottom of the

stack. He was the immediate authority at the furnace, responsible for maintaining the

blast and overseeing the other hands. Several times a day,18 the founder tapped the

furnace. He had two taps at the hearth (Figure 9). One released the molten iron for

further processing. The other drew off the slag of impurities which had floated to the top

during refining.

17 Bining, 177.

18 Every eight hours according to Julian Niemcewicz, 224.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The hearth was enclosed in a wooden frame structure known as the casting shed

(Figures 8 and 9). Adjacent to the casting shed was the waterworks structure which

supplied the air blast to the furnace. A furnace was dependent upon a reliable source of

water power. Failure to correctly estimate the intensity and duration of the water flow

could cripple an ironworks. In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, many

ironmasters installed overland races and overshot wheels to maximize their waterpower

potential. The late eighteenth century also saw technological improvements in air supply.

The old bellows, larger versions of the typical fireside variety, gave way to more efficient

blowing tubs. Two large wooden cylinders functioned like pistons to keep a steady flow

of air into the furnace. Bellows occasionally broke, and often needed repairs, costing the

furnace valuable time in stoppages.19 Surplus or lack of water also caused considerable

trouble for furnaces. Too much rain caused the water to back up, which slowed or

stopped the wheel. 9 0 Droughts and freezes stopped the supply altogether. An

advertisement in The Pennsylvania Gazette boasted that at Batsto “The stream affords

plenty of water in the driest seasons for three or four pair of mill-stones, besides

supplying the iron-works. An excellent dam, which has stood for many years, is well

secured against the danger of freshes, and the works are seldom injured .. .”21 A furnace

19 April 20,1831 and October 10, 1832, Time Book 1830, Item 46, Records of Historic Batsto Village, NJSA.

20 October 9-11, 1831, Time Book 1830, Item 46, Records of Historic Batsto Village, NJSA.

21 The Pennsylvania Gazette, March 31, 1784.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. like Batsto was regulated by the seasons and could theoretically remain in blast until the

winter weather froze up the water supply. But a hungry furnace relied on far more than

water power to stay in blast.

Laborious Industry and Industrious Labor: How the Ironworks Works

A “Furnace is a Fickle Mistress and must be Humoured & her Favours not be

depended upon” declared John Fuller.22 Many ironmasters would have echoed this

sentiment. Despite their best efforts and vigilant attention, the furnace was often

unpredictable and unforgiving. In order to keep a furnace in blast and productive, the

ironworkers had to fulfill their jobs quickly and correctly. Failure at any level of labor

meant costly delays, or worse, stoppages. A successful ironworks functioned without

interruption, around the clock, until something broke or the water supply ended. Once a

furnace was in blast, ironworkers labored around the clock seven days a week to satisfy

her enormous appetite. Labor at an ironworks was segmented for efficiency. Each group

was assigned to complete a specific job.23 Henry Drinker believed that the success of an

ironworks depended upon the ability of the “respective departments execute the parts

entrusted to their Care.”24 Managers organized a myriad of discrete tasks into a smooth,

22 Qtd. in Bezfs-Selfa, Forging America, 35.

23 “The specialized tasks and distinct stages of iron production divided [workers] by occupation,” Ibid., 27.

24 Qtd. in Bezfs-Selfa, Forging a New Order, 1.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. continuous operation. They kept the furnace and men in perpetual motion, sometimes for

up to eight or nine months.

A brief summary of the various jobs may give a more full impression of daily

operations at an ironworks such as Batsto. The men who filled the furnace stack relied on

a steady supply of raw materials. Those responsible for the raw materials had critically

important jobs. The iron was provided through the soggy labor of the ore-raisers, who

harvested the raw iron from the banks and bottoms of the dark cedar waters. In the Batsto

books, Thomas Graham received $24.00 “for 1 V2 mo raiseing ore.”25 Graham’s men,

usually in shallow-bottom boats, used rakes, picks and shovels to remove the heavy

masses from the sandy earth (Figures 5 and 6).

Working the Far Jobs

Teams of colliers provided the fuel for the furnace. Coaling began with chopping

wood. Felling trees, stripping them and chopping them into cords was intensive but

uncomplicated labor. Many ironworkers supplemented their incomes with chopping,

particularly during the winter months when the furnace was out of blast. Once the wood

stockpiles had dried, the colliers turned the cords of wood into charcoal. The coaling

grounds were located quite a distance from the furnace so the colliers worked in relative

isolation. At Batsto, a dozen colliers worked two coaling grounds known as the Near and

Far Jobs. 0 f \ Each job required an overseer. Batsto’s Time Books record the agreement

25 Feb. 5, 1828, Records of Historic Batsto Village, NJSA.

26 Time Book 1830, Records of Historic Batsto Village, NJSA.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. reached with Master Collier Samuel Warner. He received $21 per month for performing

“in a masterly & workman like manner and to do his best endeavour to give satisfaction

&c &c.”27 Arguably, the Master Collier had one of the most important jobs at the

furnace. If his teams failed to produce, the furnace simply could not operate.

Good coaling grounds were dry, sandy and offered protection from the wind. The

colliers cleared a circular area, and began stacking the wood to make the pit (Figure 7).

They formed an opening in the middle, much like a chimney, and then built the pile up

and out. The pile could reach a height of fourteen feet, with a diameter of over thirty feet.

Once the cords had been arranged, the colliers would place small sticks and chips into

the remaining cracks, filling every crevice to seal the pit. A thick layer of leaves would

then be added and finally a layer of dirt. In addition to the center “chimney” hole, colliers

poked holes into the side of the pit for ventilation. Once the colliers lighted the pit, it

required constant attention. Maintaining the slow bum necessary to create charcoal

demanded vigilance, patience and agility. Too much air could cause the whole pit to

ignite, burning up weeks of work in minutes. To avoid this calamity, colliers walked on

the top of the smoldering pile, jumping lightly to tamp down the cover and poking into

the pile to settle the live coals beneath.

27 Time Book 1830, Records of Historic Batsto Village, NJSA.

28 Bezfs-Selfa, Forging America, 30.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Considering the inherent risks of “jumping the pit,” the isolation of life at the

coaling grounds, and the importance of the task, colliers were reasonably well paid. Most

of Batsto’s colliers received at least $20 per month, and often additional perks. John

Bollin and James Kean were each entitled to a pair of shoes, no doubt due to the high

wear factor. Negligence resulted in severe penalties when the clerk reckoned accounts.

Both “Bolin” and “Kain” were docked for “scant loads of coal average about half each.”29

Jesse Peterson lost a dollar and a half due to “bad loads” and fellow collier John Erwin

was “subject to very heavy dockage as he has sent team in three times without any

coal.” 30 Docking employees for poor performance was one tool at the manager’s

disposal. In extreme cases, often for repeated offenses, an employee might be fired mid

season.

The colliers often shared blame for lost loads with the teamsters who hauled the 01 charcoal back to the furnace. Teamsters were paid slightly less than colliers, at $19 a

month. Since Charles Brewers collected a full $171 for nine months driving the coal

teams, it is clear that he brought in full loads to the furnace.32 Hauling fresh coals could

be a precarious prospect: the load could easily spark and ignite a fire. John Castle lost an

entire load of coal and “Came very near burning up box and wagon and set the woods on

29 Time Book 1830, Records of Historic Batsto Village, NJSA.

30 Time Book 1830, Records of Historic Batsto Village, NJSA.

O 1 See Bezfs-Selfa, Forging a New Order, Chapter 5.

32 Dec. 31, 1827, Time Book 1830, Records of Historic Batsto Village, NJSA.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. fire.” Jesse Ford was not so fortunate; he managed to lose “wagon, coal and box.”

Water could be just as damaging as fire. Rains often ruined loads before or during

transport. Rain also wreaked havoc on the sandy roads connecting the expansive

ironworks. James Estelow’s wagon got mired and he lost two loads in one day, one from

each job.34

However, mishaps were not always caused by natural forces. Teamsters often lost

loads through accidents. Wilsey Horn inexplicably “broke his wagon” and so did Willetts

OC *1(1 Southard. Ben Norcroft broke his wagon twice in less than a month. Norcroft was a

particularly problematic teamster. In 14 months, he managed to bum himself, break three

wagons and lose as many loads.37 When he died suddenly one autumn, his son Ben

Junior took over his team. The two Bens were apparently cut from the same cloth.

Within a month the second Ben Norcroft’s name appears in the books for “fooling about

■30 to get to stay in” and two days later because the “far J. Load completely on fire.” The

Norcrofts’ negligence cost the furnace time and money: no charcoal, no blast; no blast, no

iron.

33 April 2, 1833; June 22, 1833, Time Book 1830, Ibid.

34 June 8, 1831, Time Book 1830, Records of Historic Batsto Village, NJSA.

35 Aug. 22,1831; Mar. 2, 1833, Ibid.

36 Aug. 30, 1832, and Sept. 30, 1832, Ibid.

37 Aug. 24, 1831; Dec. 9, Aug. 30, Sept. 20, 1832, Ibid.

38 Nov. 24, 26,1832, Ibid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Working at the Stack

The hands at the furnace depended upon their distant co-workers for the supplies

they needed. Fillers waited for the teamsters to arrive with their wagons, laden with the

raw materials from the ore-raisers and coaling grounds. Once in blast, the fillers charged

the stack every half hour to forty-five minutes around the clock.39 On average at Batsto,

they were paid $25 a month.40 The founder managed the blast. Not only did he watch the

progress of the smelting, he also supervised a disparate group of workers. Organization,

judgment and endurance were vital to a founder’s success. Ironmasters went to great

lengths and great cost to procure the services of an experienced founder. The unique set

of skills required for founding somewhat defy explanation. Largely anonymous,

tradesmen like founders were disinclined to record their observations for contemporaries

or posterity. Theirs was knowledge gained through blood and sweat, and guarded for the

valuable commodity it was. Historians Robert B. Gordon and Patrick M. Malone discuss

the modem disconnect with such trade philosophy:

A central part of artisans’ skill is the capacity to carry out complex industrial processes in the face of incomplete understanding and incomplete information on which to base decisions. In puddling iron . . . decisions had to be made about the temperatures to be used, the rate of charging . . . and the amount of slag to be drawn off. The [founder] had no instmments to read and no analyses of the raw materials; the progress of the process and the quality of the product had to be judged through subtle indications conveyed by sight, sound, smell, and touch 41

39 Bezfs-Selfa, Forging America, 33.

40 Feb. 5, 1828, Roll 4, Records of Historic Batsto Village, NJSA.

41 Robert B. Gordon and Patrick M. Malone, The Texture of Industry: An Archaeological

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The founder used his experience and instinct to coax usable iron from the furnace

(Figure 9). When he tapped the furnace, the molten iron flowed into trenches dug into the

hearth’s sandy floor. The main trough had many small branches which filled as the iron

overflowed the primary trench. It is said that because the resulting formation resembled a

sow suckling her piglets, the men called it pig iron. Pig iron was a staple product of most

furnaces. During his visit to Batsto, Julian Niemcewicz was filled with awe as he

watched the founder tap the furnace for pigs. He even sketched the process in his journal

(Figure 10). “I was looking at this metal flowing in a fiery stream, and on the half-naked,

and baked cyclopes, dripping with sweat, busy over it,” he wrote, “I thought, how useful

how much more valuable than gold it is, if it is turned into ploughshares and farmers’

tools, but how diabolic if swords or murderous cannons are cast from it.”42

Batsto pig certainly fulfilled both pastoral and military purposes, but the pig iron

from the hearth was too brittle to be beaten into functional objects. Once the iron had

cooled, the pigs were broken apart and sent for further refinement. Some pig was sold

and refined off-site. Many furnaces, Batsto included, constructed a forge to hammer the

pigs into bar iron (Figure 13). Bar iron could then be transformed into a myriad of

utilitarian and decorative wrought iron forms under the hammer of a blacksmith. Not all

of the molten iron flowed into pig trenches. Moulders were also employed at the furnace

View of the Industrialization of North America (New York: Oxford University Press, Inc., 1994).

42 Niemcewicz, 224.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. to cast the iron into various forms, such as hollowware, firebacks, stoves, and machinery

parts (Figure 12). Batsto took full advantage of the growing domestic market and ever-

increasing demand for iron goods.43

Life at the Works

There was also a large supporting cast at the ironworks who labored in relative

anonymity. The furnace employed a number of apprentices, journeymen, and assorted

assistants who completed the specific tasks assigned to them by their masters. Men also

labored in the mills, producing lumber for construction and flour for the store and export.

The skills of the carpenters were also in demand at Batsto, not only for building housing

and storage structures, but also to repair the endless breaks and damages which occurred

in the daily function of the furnace and her support machinery. Blacksmiths also

produced and repaired essential items for industrial and domestic use at the ironworks.

The wives and children of the ironworkers also participated in the village economy,

although their contributions are hard to identify and even harder to quantify. In short, the

ironworks was more than a furnace stack. It was an entire community that lived and

labored to support the profit-producing ironwork. Self-sufficient and isolated, the

ironworks were islands of intense productivity in the midst of the Pine Barrens

43 Bezfs-Selfa, Forging a New Order, 76.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. wilderness. Batsto had a school, a church, a post office, a grist mill and a store. Items

they could not make or grow on-site, such as dry goods, could be imported, traded for

iron or surplus crops. Julian Niemcewicz believed the ironworkers lived a quasi-utopic

lifestyle, observing that:

these people do not know the cares and troubles of domestic life. The owner keeps a store, from which he provides food, drink and clothing, etc., taking the money from their pay and reserving 10 per cent for himself.... They are bom and die charcoal burners and iron workers.44

But ironworkers were not carefree. In reality, their lives revolved around the furnace and

forge. The employees intermarried, labored side by side, served in the same militia units,

attended the same churches, drank at the same taverns, and when they died they were

buried in the same cemetery. Their discrete tasks and individual lives were incorporated

into the collective.

In the past, scholars defined ironworks as iron plantations. The system of

operations at the ironworks was related to a medieval manor. Arthur Bining and Charles

Boyer, who wrote about Southeastern Pennsylvania iron regions and New Jersey’s

furnaces and forges respectively, typify the early scholarship of the Mid-Atlantic iron

industry. Both men made extensive use of primary documents to parce out the complex

systems at ironworks. Their studies were the first useful explanations of the birth and

growth of the charcoal iron industry, and its subsequent decline. Boyer and Bining also

44 Niemcewicz, 229.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. included detailed accounts of the complicated social interrelations among iron elite. They

established the family relations, political liasons, and commercial ties which formed the

web of investment and ownership among regional ironworks. The ironmasters were

generally depicted as beneficent patriarchs (with the occasional tyrannical despot) who

wielded nearly unequivocal power over his iron kingdom.

The resulting ironmaster myth, though perhaps exaggerated, is not entirely

without foundation. An ironmaster provided a steady source of capital as well as a

commanding presence at his “manor.” His employees toiled on his land, ultimately

dependent upon his favors for their livelihood. He built their homes, paid their wages,

stocked the store, and supplied them with references for later work. The ironmaster’s

manor house was typically called “the big house” and sat upon a slight rise. The mansion

at Batsto, described as a “commodious” house, boasted a “spacious, well cultivated

garden, in which is a well chosen collection of excellent Fruit trees of various kinds, and

adjoining it a young bearing orchard of about 2000 apple trees, mostly grafted.”45 The

entire landscape was carefully arranged for maximum productivity and efficiency, but

also for optimal surveillance. The home’s elevation provided the ironmaster with

unlimited observation of his works. The house overlooked the casting shed and furnace

(Figure 18). The prototypical, paternalistic ironmaster also furnished sturdy, attractive

housing for his employees. At Batsto, the workers lived “over the dam,” on the opposite

side of the lake from the furnace, grist mill and big house. The worker’s village was a

45 The Pennsylvania Gazette, July 2, 1783.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. tidy community. John Fanning Watson, who grew up at Batsto, fondly described his

homestead as “positively romantically beautiful - So many white houses along three

regular streets - gleaming through Green trees & gardens . . . Then beyond, mills, races,

furnaces, many out houses & all denoting a busy place of strong headway & capital.”46

From Colonial Pig to Continental Shot: The Revolution Comes to the Pines

Apparently, Charles Read misjudged the amount of capital and energy the

ironworks would demand. His personal and financial resources were pushed to their

limits. Read began taking on additional investors. In 1770, his poor health kept him

away from the ironworks, which suffered accordingly from lack of direct supervision.

Batsto was the first of his enterprises to go; Read sold his interest in the works to the

other three investors. By late 1770, these investors had also sold out their interest in the

Batsto Furnace. By 1773, after a series of contracts and sales, Batsto was firmly under

the authority of a Philadelphia merchant named John Cox. John Cox’s administration at

Batsto initiated a season of intense productivity and prosperity. In 1775, Cox took out the

following advertisement in The Pennsylvania Gazette, which gives a glimpse of Batsto’s

production:

MANUFACTURED at BATSTO FURNACE, in West New Jersey, and to be sold, either at the Works, or by the Subscriber, in Philadelphia, a great variety of iron pots, kettles, Dutch ovens, and oval fish kettles, either with or without covers, skillets of different sizes, being much lighter, neater and superior in quality to any imported from Great Britain; potash, and other large kettles, from 30 to 125 gallons; sugar mill gudgeons, neatly rounded,

46 Watson Family Papers, Item 189, “Excursion Notices 1855-58,” 83x174.6, Aug. 9-11, 1856, The Winterthur Library, Joseph Downs Collection.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and polished at the end; grating bars of different lengths; grist mill rounds; weights of all sizes, from 30 to 56; Fullers plates; open and close stoves, of different sizes; rag wheel irons for sawmill; pestles and mortars; sash weights, and forge hammers, of the best quality. Also Batsto Pig Iron as usual, the quality of which is too well known to need any recommendation.47

Batsto’s list of products soon expanded to include a wide array of munitions. As the

events surrounding the American Revolution unfolded in Philadelphia, John Cox took an

active role in the Committee of Correspondence and the Council of Safety. As the owner

of an ironworks, Cox found himself in a peculiarly advantageous position. Batsto’s

ordnance contracts were guaranteed, and the furnace churned out cannon, shot, camp

kettles and sundry other implements for the Continental Army (Figure 66) 48

In 1776, John Cox received a contract worth £ 2,481/55/0 for cannon shot, but he

had great difficulty with the order. Once completed, he could not transport the

cannonballs. The presence of the British ships in the Delaware made water shipment

nearly impossible. Batsto’s efficient waterways were useless. Alarmed by the proximity

of the British, Cox kept a watchful eye on their movements from Batsto. He sent detailed

reports of their movements to the Council of Safety and petitioned for a garrison to fortify

the inlet at Little Egg Harbor.49 Cox was reluctantly forced to transport the shot overland

47 The Pennsylvania Gazette, June 5, 1775.

48 Pierce, Iron in the Pines, 124.

49 Charles Boyer, Early Forges and Furnaces in New Jersey, (Philadelphia: Universtiy of Pennsylvania Press, 1931), 179.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. in wagons, but even then there were not enough teams to haul the order.50 The Council

finally sent wagons from Philadelphia to the furnace to secure the shot, a four day round

trip. The vigilance of the British Navy had negated Batsto’s natural advantage. The

hardship did not daunt the ironworks, however. Cox was asked to raise a militia and

serve as its commander. He continued to supply the Revolutionary forces with iron

necessities, even casting evaporation pans for salt production.51

In the midst of the war, John Cox decided to sell Batsto, perhaps due to his

questionable health and perhaps because of his increasing responsibilities among the

Revolutionary elite (John Cox had been appointed Assistant Quartermaster General).

Cox left Batsto permanently in 1778 with a huge profit. He had purchased the works for

£2,350; his manager, Joseph Ball, bought Batsto for £55,000.52 Over the next few years,

Ball made a series of dizzying financial moves, and the various percentages of Batsto’s

investors changed hands a number of times. In 1780, Charles Pettit bought 2/12 shares of

Batsto and began to handle the furnace’s Philadelphia affairs. Pettit was another well-

connected Philadelphia merchant who, like his predecessor John Cox, had been appointed

Assistant Quartermaster General under Nathanael Greene. Pettit wrote to Greene to keep

him apprised of Batsto’s progress on the ordnance. In the summer of 1780, Pettit wrote

50 Ibid., 182.

51 Boyer, 183.

52 No doubt war inflation affected this pricing, but the gain was still substantial; Pierce, Iron in the Pines, 125.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. that even though Batsto had been exclusively engaged in casting “shot and shells,” it

would still take another two months to complete the contract for 100 Tons.53

Under Ball and Pettit, the ironworks continued to prosper and expand. Most

importantly, they directed the construction of the Batsto Forge. The forge greatly

enhanced the production capacity of the works. Batsto was finally capable of refining its

own pig iron on site. Batsto’s forge, with four fires and two hammers, was located about

half a mile from the furnace and could process 200 tons of bar iron a year.54 The trip

hammers and the huge cylindrical bellows were powered by the stream.55 The constant

din of the hammers and the ever-present blast of the furnace stack, were unmistakable

signs of Batsto’s prosperity. But the end of the Revolution brought an end to munitions

contracts. As Batsto settled into a post-war slump, Ball and Pettit needed to take on

additional investors. Joseph Ball’s advertisement, designed to entice the prospective

buyers, offered a sketch of the ironworks:

A FURNACE, sufficiently large and commodious to produce upwards of 100 tons of pigs and castings per month, and from the mild and kind quality of the ore, may be continued in blast for two years or upwards, on the same hearth. The metal is remarkable well adapted for castings, both of hollow ware and cannon, in which experience has sufficiently proved it to excel, as well as in producing extraordinary bar iron . . . A Rolling and Slitting Mill, which, from the strength and construction of the works, and large head of water, is capable of great execution. On the same Dam are also a Saw Mill and small Grist Mill... A Forge with four fires and two

CO Qtd. in Jack Boucher, Of Batsto and Bog Iron, (Egg Harbor, NJ: Batsto Citizens Committee, 1980), 13.

54 The Pennsylvania Gazette, March 31, 1784.

55 Niemcewicz, 225.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. hammers, nearly new, well constructed and in good order, now at work, distant about half a mile from the Furnace, on another well adapted stream; on which is also an excellent, newly built Saw Mill; and near the Forge are some Tenements for workmen, and a large new Coalhouse.56

Chapter 2

A NEW ERA BEGINS: THE RICHARDS ARRIVE

William Richards: Ironmaster Extraordinaire

56 The Pennsylvania Gazette, July 2, 1783

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Joseph Ball finally succeeded in selling one-third of the Batsto Ironworks to his

uncle, William Richards (Figure 14 and 15). William Richards had been waiting his

entire life for such an opportunity. Richards was not a merchant, trader or financier from

the city. He was an ironworker. His move from the hearth to the big house was the

culmination of a lifetime of learning and labor. He grew up in the iron-rich regions of

southeastern Pennsylvania. William Richards was sent to the ironworks at age 14. In the

glowing heat of the hearth, Richards not only developed the physical skills of the craft, he

also gained an increasing awareness of the workings of the furnace as a whole.

Apprenticed to John Patrick of Warwick Furnace, the young Richards developed a close

bond with his master as well as his master’s family. In 1764, after eleven years of labor

under John Patrick’s careful tutelage, William Richards celebrated the end of his

indentures by marrying John Patrick’s daughter, Mary.1 Over the next nine years,

William Richards held positions at various local ironworks. Richards followed the work

while his young family grew up at Warwick. At some point he left the Pennsylvania

furnaces for the new ironworks ventures opening in the New Jersey Pinelands. His

experiences in the Pennsylvania furnaces had taught him the practical skills necessary to >y manage operations. By 1773, he was the on-site manager at Batsto, but he left this

position the next year to serve in the Chester County militia.3 Apparently, his tenure as

1 Pierce, Family Empire in Jersey Iron (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1964), 9.

The Pennsylvania Gazette, November 23, 1774.

a Pierce, Family Empire, 10.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. manager had left a positive impression on his superiors. In 1781, Charles Pettit sent

Richards a letter inviting him back:

I have for some time had it in contemplation to make some proposals to you respecting the management of Batsto Works, with which you are well acquainted .... [Mr. Ball] tells me you were lately at the Works and that you intimated a willingness to engage in this Business.4

Richards’ readiness to engage in the iron business was a natural extension of his intimate

knowledge of the industry. Richards understood production from the bottom up. He had

also seen enough of management to fully grasp both the demands and opportunities of the

financial aspects of the business.5

William Richards became the “Lord of the Manor” when he purchased the

majority share of Batsto in 1784. With that transaction, he effectively set the foundation

for the vast “Richards’ Empire.”6 Over the next century, his sons and grandsons would

multiply his investments and holdings, ultimately amassing one of the most impressive

intrastate industrial complexes of the early nineteenth century. But in 1784, Richards

4 Qtd. in Ibid., 12-13.

5 Charles Boyer, Early Forges and Furnaces in New Jersey, (Philadelphia: Universtiy of Pennsylvania Press, 1931),187.

6 This is the entire premise of the Arthur Pierce’s Family Empire in Jersey Iron.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. merely understood his action as a significant financial risk with unpredictable

consequences. With no capital to offer for such a purchase, he bought Batsto by

promising future payments from the profits on the iron he would produce.7

The arrival of Richards at Batsto was certainly momentous in that family’s

personal history, and would prove to be a significant development in the unfolding story

of Pinelands iron. But life at Batsto was not drastically different in the early years of

Richards’ administration. Although Richards’ role at the ironworks had expanded, he had

been a dominant presence at Batsto well before his ascension to ownership. Through the

person of William Richards, Batsto maintained a stable internal identity through the

transitional post-war period. Even the public face of the furnace remained the same since

Joseph Ball and Charles Pettit both remained involved with the works. Each retained a

partial interest in Batsto for another decade. Pettit also stayed on with Richards as

Batsto’s Philadelphia agent. Pettit provided the link between Batsto’s past and its future.

He still embodied the traditional connections to the Philadelphia Revolutionary

generation and set the tone for Batsto’s emergence into the markets of the early National

period.

Mr. Pettit Writes to Washington: National Identity. National Iron

7 Pierce, Family Empire, 20.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. George Washington and Batsto had something in common in the late 1780s. Both

had witnessed success and acclaim throughout the American Revolution. And as the

new nation struggled to make something functional out of its new liberty, both needed to

reconcile with domestic concerns. For Batsto, production (quite literally) slipped back

into pre-war patterns of utilitarian and decorative domestic goods. Molds for hollowware

replaced ordnance, and teamsters hauled loads of firebacks instead of cannon down to the

docks. For George Washington, the responsibilities of a statesman replaced the duties of

a General. In the early summer of 1787, he was in Philadelphia planning the new

government. He was also keeping close track of the ongoing renovations at Mount

Vernon. From his Philadelphia quarters, Washington received updates and issued

instructions through correspondence with his nephew, George Augustine Washington. In

addition to his many directions concerning the farm, Washington also turned his attention

to his fireplaces. It is somewhat intriguing that during the first full week of the

Constitutional Convention he was contemplating redecorating his fireboxes. In June, he

wrote to his nephew requesting “the exact dimensions of the Chimney in the New room

that I may get neat castings for the back & sides, of the precise size; in doing this mention

the height of it also, that the castings may be proportioned thereto, for they do not go all

the way up .. .”8

8 Twohig, Dorothy, ed. The Papers o f George Washington. Confederation Series. Abbot, W.W., ed., 5 February - December 1787 (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 1997), 218.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Washington was clearly planning to order customized firebacks for Mount

Yemon. Firebacks were plates of cast iron, attached to the rear wall of the firebox, that

protected and prolonged the life of the brick and mortar of the chimney. Firebacks were

available in a variety of shapes and sizes. Sometimes a single plate from a cast iron stove

was used as a fireback. Often firebacks came in a set with jambs, or side panels. Jambs

fit to the side walls of the firebox. Firebacks and jambs could be plain or fancy, elaborate

or simple, according to the wishes or means of the buyer. Furnaces often produced sets of

backs in standard sizes, as well as custom orders according to specific measurements.

Because Washington wanted a custom fit, he requested detailed measurements for his

firebacks from his nephew. He forwarded the figures to Charles Pettit, whom he had

contacted about the iron work.

Later in the summer, Washington had given more thought to his fireboxes.

“I also request that you wd send me the dimensions (in the same way you did the former

one) of the Chimneys in the parlour, common dining room, and your Aunts bed

Chamber,” he wrote again to Mount Vernon, “and let me know if the present back and

sides of the one in the dining room can be fitted to any other chimney that has no plates,

and which is in common use.”9 Washington’s nephew complied. By September,

Washington compiled a detailed order and contacted Charles Pettit with the following

information:

Having received the dimensions of three more of my Chimneys for which I want castings, I have to request them as follows.

9 Twohig, August 26, 303.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3. 6 Vi high in front 1. 6 Vi deep First 3. 3 Wide at the back

3. 2 Vi high in front 1. 6 Vi Deep Second 3. 5 Wide at the back

3. 1 high in front 1. 10 Deep Third 10 3. 5 Wide at the back .

Since Washington had already ordered a custom pattern for the fireback, he

presumed it could be reused to complete the additional orders by “reducing it first to the

largest of the above Chimneys- then to the second size- and lastly to the smallest-the

crest and Cypher to each.”11 The Washington family crest is an eagle rising from a ducal

coronet. Washington added his own initials in the cartouche beneath the crest. A brief

notation in his ledgers may reference this modification: “By Cutting a Cypher on my

Seal 0.15.0."12 The design of the initials matches the cypher that Richard

Humphreys engraved on the bottom of a small camp cup for Washington in 1774. 13 The

fireback was simple and elegant, with no decoration save a thin molded edge and the crest

(Figure 23-26). The pattern and instructions had been sent by Washington through Pettit

on to Batsto. When Pettit received the firebacks from the furnace, he was not entirely

10 Twohig, Sept 7, 316.

11 Ibid., Sept 7, 316.

12 August 12;Ledger B Nov 3, 1784 - March 7, 1789, Mount Vernon, 253.

13 Kathryn C. Buhler, Mount Vernon Silver (Mount Vernon: The Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association of the Union, 1957), 37-38.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. pleased with the results. He wrote to Washington apologetically, “They are executed as

well as we could get our Workmen to do them, but with less Elegance than I wished

considering the Crest & Cypher they bear; but they are nevertheless far from bad.” After

further equivocation about the product, Pettit passed along some advice on maintenance:

“After scrubbing the Faces with a hard Brush, a Coat of black lead mixed with Whites

and Eggs & a little Sugar & Water will embellish their Appearance.”14

Pettit understood that his client demanded a degree of perfection. Washington

wanted to be quite clear about the calculations to ensure a proper, close fit. After

securing the proper measurements from his nephew, he wrote to remind Pettit that “The

above being the exact size of the Chimney (already built and in use) it is not to be

forgotten that the thickness of the back plate is to be deducted from the width of those on

the sides or vica versa as shall be adjudged best.”15 Washington’s clarification was not

lost on Pettit. Pettit’s reply demonstrated not only his attention to Washington’s

concerns, but also gives a glimpse into some of the myriad of considerations facing

ironworkers:

Some of the Backs are rather longer than a proportion to the side Plates; this was unavoidable without the Expences of more Patterns. It may easily be remedied by inserting so much of the Back below the level of the Hearth as to bring the Top to the proper Line with the Side plates. Some little Allowance is also made in the width of the Plates for occasional swelling by Heat. The workman who made the Patterns thought this necessary & that any Vacancy that might happen on this Account between the Plate & the Wall should be filled up with thin Mortar so as to form a

14 Twohig, November 1, 1787, 401-402.

15 Ibid., Sept. 7,316.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. solid Bed for the Plate. He also recommends a small, tho’ very small space to be felt between the front Edge of the side Plate and the marble Facing, lest the former on swelling should urge the latter out of Place.16

The craftsman responsible for the pattern had taken into account installation

concerns as well as the inevitable environmental strain the object would undergo. The

expansion and contraction of the fireback and jambs caused incremental changes in the

design calculations. Therefore, it was important that the carver accommodate the

physical properties of the iron in the design of the pattern. The pattern was most likely

carved out of wood. The moulders used the pattern to create a mold in sand and cast the

finished fireback and jambs. Transmission of the design from Washington to pattern

maker, from pattern to moulder, and from mold to iron, might slightly alter Washington’s

original design intention.17

While the moulders at Batsto worked on Washington’s order, Washington

returned to Mount Vernon. By the First of October, he had seen enough of the

renovations to place an additional order with Pettit as follows:

By the charming Polly Capt. Ell wood I send you patterns for the hearths of Chimneys which I beg may be cast and sent to me by the first conveyance to Alexandria-the cost you will please to annex to the other plates, bespoke before I left the City... 18

16 Twohig, November 1, 1787, 401-402.

17 The Mount Vernon firebacks can be traced through Pettit’s list of charges on the order, which reads: “The Charges for Patterns are the Sums actually paid to the Workmen who made them in this town. The Carriage to the Works & the alterations made there to accommodate them to the different Sizes successively, are not charged.” Twohig, November 6, 1787, 414-5.

18 Twohig, October 2,1787, 351.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Pettit would receive yet another addendum. Washington decided to order two additional

hearths, with dimensions of 3' 9" square, for his green house. Washington wanted them

“quite plain and full as thick as they areusually cast for Chimney backs.”19 By the time

Captain Ellwood transported the letters to Philadelphia, Charles Pettit had already

received the first order of Washington’s firebacks from the furnace. On November 6,

Pettit loaded four sets of firebacks and jambs onto the Charming Polly bound for

Alexandria.20 Two weeks later, their arrival is duly noted in Washington’s ledgers: “By

Freight of 4 Backs & 8 Jambs from Philadelphia.” 91 Apparently pleased with his order,

Washington directed his Philadelphia agent, Clement Biddle, to “pay Mr. Charles Pettit’s

bill for 4 Backs & 8 Jambs sent to me which amounts to 18.5.1."22 The firebacks were

installed under Washington’s supervision. Two of the four backs are still in situ at Mount

Vernon in the West Parlor and the Bedchamber (Figures 23-26).23

19 Ibid., October 14, 1787, 375.

20 Ibid., November 6, 1787,414-5.

21 Ledger B, Nov 3, 1784 - March 7, 1789, 257.

22 Twohig, Dec 3, 1787.

23 Arthur Pierce made the preliminary connections between Batsto and Mount Vernon. He published his findings in Family Empire in Iron, 265-7. In 1864, Thomas H. Richards, the grandson of Batsto’s William Richards, sent a small, damaged casting to the New Jersey Historical Society. Thomas recalled that “Col. Lewis Washington was at this place, and upon seeing this casting took a seal ring from his finger upon which was engraved the same design with the exception of the cypher (G.W.).” Thomas thought the cypher was an architectural ornament. In actuality, he had discovered either the pattern or a test casting of the cypher for the Mount Vernon firebacks. The eagle had lost its head.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The survival and preservation of Washington’s voluminous correspondence offers

scholars a rare chance to read about the considerations surrounding production of cast

iron. Most often, details about such a ubiquitous material are lost to posterity.

Washington’s letters make it clear that selecting, designing and ordering firebacks could

be a key part of interior decoration. He thought about Mount Vernon’s cast iron as an

aesthetic decision. Washington’s order also reflected William Richards skill as an

ironmaster in forming and maintaining important personal relationships with his clients

through the extensive, impressive contacts of his Philadelphia agents. However, much of

Batsto’s production was on speculation, which required an alternate set of managerial

skills. Richards had to keep close watch on styles, trends and demand in order to produce

desirable products for market sale. The urban agent was responsible for sensing the pulse

of the market and relaying the information to the ironworks.

Keeping it in the Family: The Richards’ Dreams of Empire

Charles Pettit was a busy man. When other interests finally forced him to

give up his agency for Batsto, William Richards inserted his son Samuel into the

position. Although still a young man, with no formal education to speak of,

Samuel presided over the company’s financial affairs in the city with the skill and

acumen of a professional. Like his father, Samuel seemed to take an early and

eager interest in the industry. Samuel arrived at Batsto with his family at age

fifteen, and had worked at his father’s side. As Samuel matured, William

willingly relied on him for crucial information about the market, and looked to

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. him for insight on demand and pricing. Samuel did not disappoint. By 1805, he

had even secured a deal with the Eagle Iron Works (taking 2/3 interest) on

Philadelphia’s Schuylkill River which assured yet another outlet for Batsto pig

iron.24 By assuming control of the Philadelphia agency and acquiring forge

facilities in the city, as well as retaining control of the entire operation in the

Pinelands, the Richards had successfully consolidated multiple levels of

production. They owned the ground which held the ore, ran the furnaces that

produced the pig, operated the forges that refined the pig, owned the boats which

carried the products to market and controlled the accounts that handled sales.

According to biographical sketches of the Richards, William was a

successful but mildly discontented ironmaster. William’s incessant grumbling

about life at Batsto finally caused his son Samuel to exclaim, “there is no

necessaty for your confining yourself so much at home. It would make me

perfectly happy to see you enjoy yourself visiting your friends and shaking off the

Chare of business you have so long been burdened with.”25 Before the

Revolution, William’s life at Batsto had been filled with friends and joy. Philip

Vickers Fithian was one of the many visitors who enjoyed the Richards’

hospitality. After a speaking engagement at nearby Pleasant Mills, Fithian

remarked on his “useful conversation” with William’s “friendly and agreeable

24 Pierce, Family Empire, 21.

25 Qtd. in Pierce, Family Empire, 23.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. wife,” and also on their sleigh ride to Singing School.26 But these happier times

were long past; William’s prosperity in the iron business had come at a high

personal cost. During his tenure at Batsto, he lost four adult children, a three year

old son and his wife of 20 years to various sicknesses. At age 59, the ironmaster

married 24 year old Margeretta Wood. She quickly bore him three sons. The big

house at Batsto once again echoed with the sound of children.

As the nineteenth century approached, William Richards once again had

ample cause for satisfaction. Julian Niemcewicz encountered Batsto during this

period. On a tour of the New Jersey coastal regions in June 1799, his party

stopped at Batsto because he had been “told that the owner willingly accepts

on travelers into this home.” Niemcewicz was clearly impressed by the Richards’

simple graciousness:

This hospitality so common in simpler times in America, so much praised by various writers, I found here for the first time. Unknown as we were, carrying no letters of introduction, Mr. Richards greeted us with frank openness but without any excess, without even any compliments. His son helped to bring our things into the house. There was no scurrying about the house; the host and his wife did not change their dress on our coming; they set out, as is their custom, tea and coffee.

Despite the relative tranquility of life at Batsto, William Richards was ready for change.

He began to consider his retirement in the first years of the nineteenth century. He was

26 Philip Vickers Fithian, Journal, 1775-1776 eds. Robert Greenhalgh Albion and Leonidas Dodson (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1934), Feb 13, 1774.

27 Niemcewicz, 223.

28 Niemcewicz, 223.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. satisfied with the skill and ability he had seen in Samuel. William had also been

grooming another son, Jesse, to take over his own role on-site at Batsto. In 1809,

William moved his young family to Mount Holly and left Batsto in Jesse’s hands.

William Richards spent his remaining years dabbling in real estate and generally enjoying

the five surviving children of his second wife. His youngest arrived in his 77th year. Not

surprisingly, he also maintained an interest in the iron business through his sons, and

traveled through their Pineland holdings as his health permitted.

The Richards’ Bovs Come of Age: Manifest Destiny in the Pine Barrens

Jesse Richards had spent a lifetime in the pinelands. He was a toddler when his

father first moved into the big house at Batsto. Like his older brothers (Jesse was the

ninth child in William’s line), Jesse’s entire life revolved around the ironworks (Figure

17). It was Jesse’s good fortune to fully enter the iron business just as the embargo

restricted foreign trade. The subsequent boom in the domestic iron trade substantially

boosted Batsto revenues. Rumors of impending war once again increased munitions

production. Under Jesse’s careful supervision, Batsto flourished. In fact, the entire

Richards’ family flourished. In 1808, Samuel bought substantial interest in two Pineland

ironworks, Weymouth and Martha. Joseph Ball, who never quite abandoned his interest

in iron, partnered with his cousin Samuel in both the Weymouth and Martha endeavors.

Their gamble was well-repaid by the productivity brought on by the war. By 1809,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Weymouth’s books noted “32 pound Shot and Grape Shot patterns and gauges.”29

Samuel’s assertive and daring temperament made him a natural ironmaster (Figure 16).

<3 A He embodied the spirit of bold adventure which often sustained an ironmaster.

According to family commentators, Jesse was far less aggressive and more

introverted than either his father or brother, Samuel.31 Still, he had ambitions of his own

and planned to open his own ironworks. He purchased Washington Furnace in 1814, but

his speculation proved ruinous. Washington Furnace was constantly beset with

operational issues. Water shortages and poor ore resulted in frequent stoppages. Jesse

desperately tried to recover his investment, even calling on Samuel and his father for

relief on his debts. But by 1818, it was clear that none of the Richards could save

Washington. Jesse reluctantly gave up his efforts there and concentrated on Batsto.

His brother, however, continued to buy. By 1824, Samuel had purchased Atsion,

located just a few miles from Batsto. No doubt his purchase bewildered Jesse. In the late

eighteenth century, Philadelphia’s Henry Drinker operated Atsion, and the furnace had

been a formidable competitor for Batsto. When Samuel purchased the works, Atsion had

been out of operation for nearly a decade. Journalist John Fanning Watson found the

deserted ironworks quite romantic when he passed through them in 1823:

29 Pierce, Family Empire, 105.

See John Bezfs-Selfa, especially Forging America: Adventurers, Ironworkers and the Industrious Revolution. University of Pennsylvania, 2004.

31 Pierce, Family Empire, 61.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. . . . the formidable ruins of the Atsion iron works... looked as picturesque as the ruins of abbeys, etc., in pictures. There were dams, forges, furnaces, storehouses, a dozen houses and lots for the workmen, and the whole comprising a town; a place once overwhelming the ear with the din of unceasing, ponderous hammers, or alarming the sight with fire and smoke, and smutty and sweating Vulcans. Now all is hushed, no wheels turn, no fires blaze, the houses are unroofed, and the frames, etc., have fallen down . . .

Atsion, like Samuel’s other investments, turned to gold under his leadership. By 1826,

Samuel had built a lavish Greek Revival mansion house at Atsion (Figure 21 and 22). The

mansion overlooked the dam on the Atsion River, and provided a summer retreat from

the Philadelphia heat.

Samuel’s return to the Pinelands, in grand style, represented a new era in South

Jersey iron. Samuel and Jesse ushered in an era of dominance by the Richards’ family in

the iron business. William had laid a foundation, but Samuel and Jesse Richards

established the kingdom. Parcel by parcel, the brothers consumed the land and water

rights of extensive Pineland iron tracts. Samuel even added two more ironworks to his

collection: Hampton Furnace, in 1825, and Speedwell, in 1833. In many ways, the

Richards’ story is prototypical. John Bezfs-Selfa used the Richards as an illustration to

demonstrate three characteristics of family supremacy in the Mid-Atlantic iron industry.

First, William Richards learned the trade in southeastern Pennsylvania.

Second, he and his sons, by obtaining a controlling interest in several ironworks within close proximity to one another, followed the model established by the Potts family which concentrated capital and technical expertise in the hands of a few related individuals. Finally, the experience

32 Qtd. in Pierce, Family Empire, 37.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. of the Richards family testifies to the continued significance of Philadelphia’s merchants.33

Samuel and Jesse essentially created an iron oligarchy. They installed cousins, nephews,

sons and sundry in-laws in key leadership positions at their various forges, furnaces and

agencies. They controlled on-site management as well as urban mercantile contacts.

From their neighboring ironworks, they organized a complicated network of co

dependent industries, and their cooperation resulted in efficient, productive consolidation

(Figure 2).

Consolidating ownership and dispersing interests among family members had

several benefits. Chief among these, their legal woes substantially decreased. Because of

the sheer size of the ironworks, proximity often bred contempt among neighboring

facilities. For instance, Samuel’s presence entirely changed the relationship of Atsion and

Batsto. Before Samuel bought Atsion, the history of the two neighboring works was

fraught with lawsuits and conflicts. The furnaces had fought over ore beds, water rights

and timber rights. In 1786, Atsion’s manager constructed a new canal which greatly

increased Atsion’s water power, but also flooded out Batsto’s ore raisers. It took seven

years to get the lawsuit, leveled by William Richards, through the Court of Chancery.34

33 Bezfs-Selfa, Forging a New Order: Slavery, Free labor, and Sectional Differentiation in the Mid-Atlantic Charcoal Industry, 1715-1840 (Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1995), 228.

34 Sarah W.R. Ewing, Atsion A Town of Four Faces (Vineland, NJ: Batsto Citizens Committee, 1979), 8.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Samuel’s arrival put an end to expensive and distracting legal quibbling. Samuel

and Jesse worked together, sharing supplies and resources. Atsion was often indebted to

Batsto for shells. Batsto paid Atsion for pipes. Speedwell owed Batsto for bricks.35

Although the ironworks operated as individual operations, each contributed to the success

of the entire Richards’ enterprise. Through explicit and unstated cooperation, the

Richards were able to establish hegemonic power in the regional iron industry. Their cast

iron kingdom flourished, and their furnaces created products of utility and artistry for

expanding markets.

35 June 19, 1828; Jan. 12, 1830; June 6, 1828, Batsto Day Book #2, Records of Historic Batsto Village, NJSA.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chapter 3

MOULDERS’ ARTISTRY AND INDUSTRY:

HOW TO MAKE A GOOD FIRST IMPRESSION

The Mold and the Marvelous, or. The Art of Casting Iron

The art of casting iron had evolved over the course of the eighteenth century. In

the earlier years of the iron industry, moulders had two methods of casting iron: puddle-

casting or flask-casting. Both processes began with a pattern of the desired product. To

make a puddle casting, the moulder pressed the pattern into the floor of the hearth,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. making an imprint in the damp sand (Figure 12). The molten iron could then be poured

into the impression and left to cool. This process was easy, efficient and ideal for casting

objects such as stove plates, firebacks, or andirons. However, complicated forms such as

hollowware required a more involved, time-consuming process. Molders had to construct

a mold for the object from clay or plaster. The iron was then poured into the mold. Each

mold could only be used once because the moulder had to break the mold to free the

finished piece.1 Moulders could also cast objects using wooden flasks. The moulder

1 Bezis-Selfa, Forging America: Adventurers, Ironworkers and the Industrious Revolution (University of Pennsylvania, 2004), 35.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. placed the desired pattern in a four-sided box packed tightly with a fine, damp sand.

Another sand-filled box was placed firmly on top the pattern, encasing the pattern. After

tamping the sand in the entire box carefully, the moulder removed the top box and took

the pattern out of the sand. The top was delicately realigned, and the two sand-filled

boxes clamped together. The moulder then had a flask with a three-dimensional imprint

of the pattern. He poured molten iron into the void in the flask and waited for it to cool.

The clamps were removed, the flask parted and the finished object revealed. The cast

iron often required some additional filing or finishing, either at the furnace or after

delivery.2

Flask-casting provided a quick way to create complex forms. Using a flask, the

moulder could control the thickness of the object and create curving, rounded forms. He

was able to execute designs with more uniformity and finer detail.3 The quality of the

final product depended upon the temperature of the iron as it filled the flask, the fineness

of the impression in the sand, and the purity of the iron. Batsto boasted in The

Pennsylvania Gazette that their “pots, kettles, skillets, &c. noted for being the neatest and

2 Nathaniel Frothingham to Samuel G. Wright (SGW), June 8,1823; J. and M. Gassner to SGW, May 2, 1832); Peter Thompson to SGW, Oct. 20, 1829, Wright Family Papers, 1665, Box 2, Hagley Museum and Library.

3 Bezfs-Selfa, Forging America, 36.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. lightest iron castings in America.”4 Only extremely high quality iron could be poured

into delicate flasks; poor iron was run into the trenches for pig iron.5

The patterns were either carved or cast. Batsto was “furnished with an excellent

sett of brass patterns for hollow ware” but they also used wooden patterns.6 The

Burlington County Historical Society (BCHS) displays a beautifully carved wooden stove

plate pattern from Batsto (Figure 27). The pattern is constructed from several boards of

mahogany, the largest board is 32.5" x 10.5" x 2.375," joined with tongue and groove

joints. Four dovetailed battens hold the boards together. Two 3" battens at either edge

are secured by nails driven flush. Two smaller (1.25") battens in the middle of the pattern

are dovetailed into the top and bottom boards, but the central panel “floats” (Figure 29

and 30). The central panel added versatility. If included, it produced a six-plate stove

plate as in Figure 34; omitting the panel created a pattern for a ten-plate stove (Figure 35).

The pattern demonstrates fine foliate detailing and graceful neoclassical

proportions (Figure 28-30). The triumphant waving banner at the top, emblazoned with

the name “Batsto Furnace,” is decorated with scrolling stylized leaves and terminates in

fanciful acanthus leaves and a trailing vine. The vine continues winding down the fluted

columns. A large urn dominates the central bottom of the plate, surrounded by further

4 The Pennsylvania Gazette, October 13, 1784.

5 Martha Furnace Diary, 339, Hagley Museum and Library.

6 The Pennsylvania Gazette, July 2, 1783; John Bivins, Jr., has written about the Marlboro Ironworks and has traced some of their patterns to specific carvers, see “Isaac Zane and the Products of Marlboro Furnace”Journal of Early Southern Decorative Arts, 11 (May 1985): 15-65.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. C scroll vine patterns. The optional element has a vine swag with vase, accented by

flowers. The excellence of the Batsto example becomes clear by comparing it with

similar extant examples. The plate from Daniel Udree’s Oley Furnace also has

neoclassically inspired motifs, but the flat, stringy carving creates a far less dramatic

n composition. The success of the plate depended upon the quality of the carver’s design,

but also on the skilled execution of the moulder responsible for the casting. Although

Batsto’s name is incorporated into the pattern for the six-plate stove panel, the addition of

the name was often optional. A small pattern with the furnace name could be pressed

into any mold after the initial pattern impression (Figures 11, 44, and 57).8

Artistic Aspirations and Inspirations, or. the Art of Cast Iron

Moulders stood at the end of the furnace production line. The market often

demanded nondescript utilitarian objects such as tools, gears, pipes, helves and weights.

Often, though, the moulders produced objects with more character. Hollowware

demanded a degree of precision in order to articulate balanced and pleasing forms for

pots, pans, skillets, kettles and pippins (Figure 65). The moulders’ most artistic

productions, however, were their stoves and firebacks. The American tradition of stove

7 Henry Mercer, The Bible in Iron (Doylestown, PA: The Bucks County Historical Society, 1961), plate 318.

Q Historians have speculated that unmarked firebacks and stoves may have been produced for local markets, in which names would be redundant, and that only objects produced for export would be specially marked with the furnace of origin.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. casting began with the immigration of Germanic families in the eighteenth century.9

Johann Schoepf, a Hessian traveler, offered his observations on his contemporaries’

preference for stoves: .. the German inhabitants, partly from economy, have introduced

iron or tin-plate draught-stoves which are used more and more by English families (as a

result of the increasing dearness of wood) both in living-rooms and in work-rooms.”10

For the Delaware Valley in particular, the arrival of these German immigrants created a

viable market for cast-iron stoves. The trade pattern extended “from New Jersey and

southeastern Pennsylvania into the southern backcountry.”11 In essence, a cast iron stove

was a box constructed of varying numbers of flat, metal plates. European ironworkers

created stoves from six plates held together by four rims, one at each comer. American

ironworkers, however, modified the traditional European construction. American stoves

eliminated the rims by incorporating gutters into the two end plates which secured the

side plates. 12 All of the extant Batsto end plates use a columnar motif to disguise this

structural element within a decorative ornament (Figure 42 and 43).

9 Bezfs-Selfa, Forging America, 21; Arthur Cecil Bining,Pennsylvania Iron Manufacture in the Eighteenth Century (Harrisburg: Pennsylvania Historical And Museum Commission, 1979), 85.

10 Johann David Schoepf, Alfred J. Morrison, trans. Travels in the Confederation 1783- 1784 (Philadelphia: William J. Campbell, 1911).

11 Bezfs-Selfa, Forging a New Order: Slavery, Free labor, and Sectional Differentiation in the Mid-Atlantic Charcoal Industry, 1715-1840 (Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1995), 76; Stoves cast at Charles Read’s Taunton Furnace are currently on display in the Single Brothers in the Moravian community at Salem, North Carolina, and may have been installed there in the late eighteenth or early nineteenth century.

12 Mercer, 83.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Stoves and firebacks functioned on multiple levels within an early American

home. The cast iron stoves held and diffused heat. The firebacks protected the

vulnerable bricks of the firebox. But because of their association with the locus of heat

and familial activity, these metal objects took on additional significance. Stoves and

firebacks were essential interior elements reflecting deliberate aesthetic choices. As

integral parts of the hearth, the cast iron objects casually became critical purveyors of 1 ^ artistic taste and personal aesthetic expression. The decoration of stoves and firebacks

varied widely, influenced by temporal, regional and cultural trends. The consumer made

a statement with cast iron. Just as Washington chose to cast his family crest into his

firebacks, cast iron could be used to communicate meaningful information. Plain or

elaborate, crude or ornate, the iron projected a message about the inhabitants of the

household, speaking to (and about) their moral, political, religious or financial condition.

The Fabled Side Plates of Batsto

While heating was the primary function of these cast iron devices, it is clear that

the objects served an equally important decorative purpose within the household. Early

stoves were often decorated with elaborate Biblical or moral motifs, with corresponding

sayings and imagery. In the second half of the eighteenth century, the Rococo style also

impacted the motifs. Cast iron was easily adapted to suit the most fashionable tastes.14

1 -2 Donald Fennimore, Iron at Winterthur, (Winterthur, Del. :The Henry Francis du Pont, Winterthur Museum ; [Hanover, N.H.] : Distributed by University Press of New England, University Press of New England, 2004), 54.

14 Design books proliferated, such as William Welldon, The Smith’s Right Hand, or a

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Batsto stove plates exemplify many of the most popular trends in cast iron decoration.

There are three extant stove plates depicting stories from Aesop’s Fables. The translation

of these famous tales into cast iron stoves may also demonstrate the expansion of print

culture, which permitted the popular, widespread recognition of these images. In 1770,

Batsto cast a series of six-plate stove patterns based on the fable known as “The Fowler

and the Ringdove:”

A Fowler took his gun, and went into the woods a shooting. He spied a Ringdove among the branches of an oak, and intended to kill it. He clapped the piece to his shoulder, and took his aim accordingly. But just at he was going to pull the trigger, an adder, which he had trod upon under the grass, stung him so painfully in the leg, that he was forced to quit his design, and threw his gun down in a passion. The poison immediately infected his blood, and his whole body began to mortify; which, when he perceived, he could not help owning it to be just. “Fate,” says he, “has brought destruction upon me while I was contriving the death of another.”15

This scene has also been called “Squirrel Hunt” or “The Hunter and the Snake.” The

titles aptly describe the principal action of the scene (Figure 36). A hunter raises his

firearm toward a squirrel, perched in the branches of a tree. His dog points obediently at

the chattering animal as his master inadvertently steps upon a snake. The large tree in the

foreground is flanked by smaller trees in the distance, and another tree stands at the far

left behind the hunter. Three birds fly above his head as he takes aim. Either the artist

Complete Guide to the Various Branches of All Sorts of Iron (London: Work, Henry Webley, MDCCVXV). Plate 2 shows acanthus leaves; animal scenes with scroll framing also 4 and 5.

15 The Fables of Aesop with a Life of the Author and Embellished with one Hundred and Twelve plates. Volume 1 (London: John Stockdale, 1793), 47-49.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. replaced Aesop’s pigeon with a squirrel, or the pigeon has already flown off, leaving the

squirrel as the incidental focus of the viewer’s attention.

In the third quarter of the eighteenth century, Batsto also created side plates with

two distinct versions of Aesop’s Fable of the Fox and Crane. According to the story, the

Fox invites the Crane to dinner, but serves the food on a plate which the Crane cannot

access. In return, the Crane serves the Fox a meal in a tall vase, which the Fox cannot

access. Both Batsto plates illustrate the second half of the fable (in which the crane eats

from the long necked vase while the hungry fox looks on). The plates both depict the Fox

on the left side, the name “BATSTO” at the top, and frame the entire scene in C scrolls.

However, the composition and execution of the two patterns differ drastically (Figure 38

and 39). Plate A is less elaborate, and in lower relief than Plate B. In Plate A, the figures

have a lean, drawn appearance. The Fox’s long body and neck resemble the proportions

of a greyhound, and the Crane arches his neck in an extreme, stylized curve. The vase is

fluted. The characters are framed by an attenuated C scroll border. At the top, the word

“BAT - STO” is divided on a waving ribband.16 In contrast, Plate B possesses far greater

embellishment. The figures have visible fur and feather detail. The Crane’s wings are

outstretched, not folded. A tree in the background, albeit crudely executed, offers the

suggestion of scenery. The C scroll frame has foliate and volute decorations and the word

“BATSTO” is printed in a unified block within a scroll cartouche.

16 Plate A is similar in appearance to a plate from Pine Grove Furnace, Mercer 296.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Plate A and B are both in the collections of the BCHS at the Mercer Museum.

Fortunately, the Plate A design can also be seen in an intact six-plate stove in the

collection of the Gloucester County Historical Society in Woodbury, New Jersey. The

stove was unearthed in 1912 at nearby Red Bank Battlefield while workers dug a

foundation for a new Revolutionary War monument. The entire stove was eventually

reassembled and may now be seen in the Military Room of the Hunter-Lawrence-Jessup

House (Figure 40-41). Its original legs are gone, but the stove is 20" x 14" x 24."

Although the surface of the stove is badly pitted, it is still possible to discern the original

elegance and line. The two side plates are Plate A designs. The front plate has one

figure, perhaps a Fox judging by the lean, greyhound-like appearance. The back plate is

extremely vague, but may be the form of a Fox stretched into a run. The side plates have

a shallow flange which fits securely into columnar gutters on the front and end plates.17

17 How the stove ended up buried in the middle of the battlefield is somewhat of a mystery. There are several potential solutions which defy full explanation. The Battle of Red Bank took place on October 22, 1777. The Hessian Army attacked a Continental garrison in a fort along the Delaware River. The stove was found within the limits of the fort. It has been suggested that the Fox and Crane stove was a “camp stove” used by the men at Fort Mercer and left behind (the Americans won the battle, but shortly afterward abandoned the area and destroyed the remains of the fort). However, the officers did not camp in the fort; instead they requisitioned the nearby home of James and Ann Whitall, a wealthy Quaker family. If the army did not bring the stove to Red Bank, it was likely the property of the Whitalls. The family lived and worked the property long before and after the brief, dramatic sojourn of the army. Why their stove ended up in the middle of a field is a conundrum. Perhaps, once obsolete, the stove had been relegated to an outbuilding that eventually decayed and collapsed. Perhaps the stove was seized by the continentals; according to written accounts, the army used an assortment of the Whitall’s farm equipment to fill in and fortify the earthen walls of Fort Mercer.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Jennifer N. Lindner has written an article in The Winterthur Portfolio about

design sources for cast iron stove plates. She compares a Fox and Crane fireback from

Winterthur’s collection to the Batsto stove Plate B. Winterthur’s fireback depicts the first

part of the fable, when the Crane tries in vain to eat from the plate. She traces the

possible design influences using trade cards and design books for craftsmen, and she also

looks at parallel depictions in other objects such as mantelpieces. In her examinations of

print sources, Lindner finds a close parallel in Francis Cleyn’s engravings from John

Ogilby’s Fables o f Aesop Paraphras’d in Verse and Adorned with Sculpture.18 The

similarities in the depictions strongly suggest a possible link between the cast iron and the

print sources, although Lindner ultimately determines that the Winterthur fireback was

not produced at Batsto. Still, the popularity of the Fables as cast iron subject matter

presents tantalizing questions about the narrative, and perhaps moral, function of the

stoves, and again suggests the critical importance of the stoves as elements of interior

decoration.

Over time, the fanciful, fabled plates of the eighteenth century yielded to the more

fashionable designs in the neoclassical style. Jesse Richard’s mansion at Batsto has

several firebacks in situ that reflect the new taste in ornament. With paterae and quarter

fan decoration, and reeded lintels and columns, these firebacks and jambs are both elegant

and simple. The firebacks in Samuel’s home are very nearly identical (Figures 47-52).

The paterae motif, a popular ornament in the early nineteenth century, also proliferated in

1 8 Jennifer Lindner, “Stylistic Influences and Design Sources: An Examination of Winterthur’s ‘Fox and Crane’ Fireback.” Winterthur Portfolio, 37: 1, 2002.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. architecture. The furnaces created several fireback designs using the paterae motif. An

Atsion Furnace fireback set incorporates grotesque panels into the jambs (Figure 58). In

the 1820s, Batsto produced firebacks with leafy spandrels instead of quarter fans. The

matching jambs were decorated with rosettes and fine, foliate paterae (Figure 55-57).

The ironworks produced a range of products in the neoclassical style. For fashionable

homes, such firebacks complemented the Adamesque influence on interiors, particularly

fireplace surrounds.

Batsto also cast Franklin stoves with beautiful neoclassical decoration which ably

captures the key elements of the style (Figure 44). The eponymous stove was designed to

maximize heat dispersal and fuel efficiency. Benjamin Franklin’s invention looked very

much like a small, cast iron fireplace: an open-front, iron box which used cast iron panels

to direct the flow of hot air and evenly distribute the heat before escaping up the flue.

Johann Schoepf remarked on their popularity in his Travels:

Here especially there are seen Franklins . . . a sort of iron affair, half stove, half- place. This is a longish, rectangular apparatus made of cast-iron plates and stand off from the wall, the front being open, in every respect a detached, movable fire-place. The comfortable sight of the open fire is thus enjoyed, and the good ventilation is healthful; moreover, the iron plates warm a room at less expense of fuel. . .19

It is fair to conclude that a combined sense of thrift and sentiment made the Franklin

Stoves a popular choice.20 Cast iron stoves were long-lived objects that enjoyed relative

19 Schoepf, 61.

20 Catharine Beecher and A. J. Downing echoed Schoepf s nostalgic attachment to the open fire; Elizabeth Garrett, At Home: The American Family 1750-1870 (New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1990), 187.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. stability in their place in a household. Two nineteenth-century watercolor sketches by

Joseph Shoemaker Russell illustrate the continued use of Franklin Stoves over a century

after their original invention (Figures 74 and 75). Fortunately for furnaces, although the

style of stoves evolved over time, stoves were versatile products which could assume

various shapes and sizes depending upon the combination of pattern pieces. Investing in

quality patterns could assure a range of potential products.

Share and Share Alike, or How to Make the Most of Your Assets

Patterns were valuable assets to the furnace because they dictated production.

Once the Richards’ family had established their proto-industrial complex in the Pines, the

patterns got a lot of mileage circulating through the various ironworks. The documentary

record is full of such exchanges. Batsto, for instance, “Had from Atsion a number of

stove patterns Jno Rodgers went for them.”21 Charles Southard was sent from Batsto to

Gloucester furnace “for patterns and flasks.”22 Batsto and Martha exchanged an entire

wagon load of plate flasks in the fall of 1828.23 Occasionally furnaces paid for pattern

swapping. Batsto paid Weymouth $5.00 for 21 shovel molds and 4 ladle molds.24

By the 1830s, the Pineland furnaces were carrying on a brisk trade in cast iron

pipes. Pipe patterns traveled back and forth along the small, sandy roads linking the

21 Apr. 30, 1831, Batsto Time Book 1830, Records of Historic Batsto Village, NJSA.

22 Mar. 2, 1832, Ibid.

23 October 1828, Ibid.

24 Feb. 14,1829, Ibid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Richards’ empire. Batsto sent to Gloucester for pipe patterns. Atsion had eight sets of 4"

pipe flasks and plate flasks sent to Batsto. Samuel Richard’s Weymouth Furnace was

rye almost exclusively devoted to pipe production. Weymouth moulders even took branch

pipe patterns to Atsion for molding. O f Weymouth sent a 20" branch pattern flask to

Batsto. Many of the Weymouth patterns were made by John Briggs, who could execute a

variety of styles and sizes.27 Trips to Weymouth sometimes included fringe benefits;

James Hughes returned to Martha from “Weymouth drunk and brot some patterns.”28

Many of the patterns arrived at the furnace as special orders. These orders

included not only customized work for individuals (like George Washington) but also

bulk orders for merchants and agents. Each spring, the customers brought their orders to

the ironworks. The seasonal nature of the iron industry corresponded to the seasonal

nature of the building trades. Peter Thompson, a New York merchant, wrote tellingly, “I

have had a number of Builders within a few days but none will buy until weather

moderates although they want to put in mostly before 1st May all the Backs & Jams .. .”29

He added emphatically, “If small sixed Backs & Jams are not on soon; we shall loose all

25 Weymouth Time Book 1819, G -5, Records of Historic Batsto Village, NJSA.

Oft Branches were complex joints for the pipes which diverted and divided the flow; Sept. 6, 1819, Atsion Time Book, Box O- 4, Records of Historic Batsto Village, NJSA.

27 Batsto Time Book 1830, Item 46, Records of Historic Batsto Village, NJSA.

28 Martha Furnace Diary, 339, Hagley Museum and Library.

29 Peter Thompson to SGW, Mar. 26, 1829, Wright Family Papers, 1665, Box 5, Hagley Museum and Library.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the Spring Business .. .”30 Nathaniel Frothingham of Salem, Massachusetts, also urged

the furnace to complete his order with speed:

Sir, I wish you to send my Stove Plates as soon as possible as I can more conveniently attend to the finishing of them in the summer season than at any other time. If my order cannot be compleated at present if you should send but a part including the Large Franklin as they are often called for by those who are 11 Building and making Repairs this season.

The patterns were often delivered in person with a detailed set of instructions. These

-5 <2 custom orders supplemented existing lines of standardized products. The Martha Furnace

Diary offers a particularly well-documented account of the patterns used at the furnace between

1808 and 1814. In 1809, the moulders were busy with “George Youle’s patent Cabooses.”33

The next spring “R. Sermon Brot his pattern from the Federal.”34 During the following summer,

the “Moulders began at the Phil’d Patents.”35 Atsion’s books also record a number of custom

orders, generally identified by the merchant’s name, including Hoyt’s small coal stove, Byer &

Noble six late, Parkers’ Franklin, Parkers’ Five Plate, Cornell’s Cook Stove, Fougeray’s small

cook stove and Fougeray’s small pyramid.36

30 Peter Thompson to SGW, Mar. 16, 1829, Hagley Museum and Library.

31 Nathaniel Frothingham to SGW, June 8, 1823, Ibid..

32 Batsto identified patterns by number; Records of Historic Batsto Village, NJSA.

33 May 24,1809, Martha Furnace Diary, 339, Hagley Museum and Library.

34 May 29, 1810, Ibid..

35 July 2, 1811, Ibid..

36 Box G - 4, Records of Historic Batsto Village, NJSA.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The last two orders were placed by Rene Fougeray, a well-known figure to the

ironmasters of the Pinelands. He operated an iron goods and stove store in Philadelphia

and patronized several regional furnaces.37 In the spring of 1810, “Mr Fugery Brot his

ovel pattern for 9 plate stoves” to Martha.38 Ten years later, he was still traveling the

Pinelands with members of the Richards’ family. The furnace books leave a detailed

account of his movements between ironworks. Fougeray visited Weymouth twice in

April 1819. Four days after his departure, an employee set out for Martha with stove

patterns, presumably the patterns brought by Rene Fougeray. In June, he again made his

way to Weymouth and also Batsto, most likely carrying patterns in the most fashionable

decorative motifs.39 Fougeray’s patterns utilized the composition ornaments of fellow

Philadelphia entrepreneur Robert Wellford. Although Wellford was well-known for his

architectural embellishments, he also found a brisk market for cast iron pattern

decoration. In his letterhead, Wellford even identified himself as the “Only original

Philadelphia Composition Ornament and Stove Pattern manufacturer.”40

Democratic Decoration: Patterns Designed for Mass Production

37 Mark Reinberger, Utility and Beauty: Robert Wellford and Composition Ornament in America , (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 2003), 43.

38 May 4, 1810, Martha Furnace Diary, Hagley Museum and Library.

39 Weymouth Time Book 1819, G -5, Records of Historic Batsto Village, NJSA.

40 SGW, 1665, Hagley Museum and Library.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. It is likely that the Richards encountered the composition work of Robert

Wellford through their dealings with Rene Fougeray. Fougeray’s connection to Wellford

is documented through a bill of sale from 1820 (Figure 77). In addition to his frequent

business dealings with Samuel and Jesse Richards, Fougeray also contracted work with

their local competitor Samuel Wright at Delaware Furnace. A bill to Samuel Wright

from Wellford’s company reveals the range of decoration sought by ironmasters: “For

ornamenting (very richly) a Franklin Stove with (two) fronts Painted etc.,” “For

ornamenting one side plate & three end plates of a large oval stove,” “For ornamenting an

Oval Stove pattern with two sides & carving an Oval fan on one side.”41 Wellford also

gives valuable information about the versatility of the patterns. He creates ornaments for

a stove with “three” end plates, thus multiplying the potential design combinations. He

also lists two “pattem[s] with two sides” perhaps indicating a double-sided pattern. The

bill’s citation of costs for painting and varnishing refers to the practice of sealing the

fragile composition ornaments in layers of protective varish. Compo was a fragile

product and needed reinforcement to withstand repeated use as a pattern. Unfortunately,

the paint and varnish somewhat diminished the compo’s crisply defined lines. The cast

iron plate was a muted translation of the delicate original.

Wellford’s niche in neoclassical motifs matched much of Batsto’s production in

the early nineteenth century. Considering the connections between Wellford and

41 SGW, 1665, Hagley Museum and Library; Wellford worked in the shop of London master John Jacques, for examples of their work and designs see Pattern book for Chimney-pieces, moldings, pilasters, (London: etc. John Jacques, 1794).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fougeray, and Fougeray and the Richards, it is not improbable that some of Wellford’s

ornaments may have been used at Batsto. Ironmasters, like the rest of his customers,

appreciated Wellford’s inexpensive alternative to hand-carved ornament. The ornament

on the extant Batsto Franklin Stove resembles some of Wellford’s most prevalent motifs

(Figure 44). The entablature mimics the arrangement and decoration of a fireplace

mantel, with a center tablet, side panels and trusses. The stove’s urn stands in for the

center tablet, bellflower swags occupy the abbreviated side panel space and the trusses are

represented by female figures, all common arrangements in period fireplace surrounds.

Wellford’s composition ornament offered high style at a fraction of the hand-carving cost.

Batsto’s translation of his designs into cast iron incorporated a fashionable style with a

functional household item. Even a modest fireplace could have the most popular

ornamentation, if not on the woodwork then cast directly into the stove.

The use and selection of ornament had important repercussions. The aesthetic

choices consumers made in cast iron reflected important attributes of the social climate of

the early National period. The artistic preferences also greatly impacted the means and

methods of production. In order to meet the demands of the market, the Richards had to

strike a balance between artistry and industry. The importance of creating beautiful and

desirable products had to be tempered by the necessity of producing a great deal of

objects quickly and inexpensively. Producing the highest quality items at the lowest

possible cost (in materials, time and energy) required shrewd management on the part of

the ironmaster, but spoken and unspoken negotiations with the ironworkers were often

incredibly complicated.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Authority and Power, or Illusions and Delusions about Who’s Really in Charge

The ironmaster and ironworker had to balance authority and power. The master’s

authority rested in his ability to read the subtle and shifting attitudes of his employees.

The master needed to determine exactly the correct combination of strictness and leniency

to encourage maximum productivity. But the worker had power, too, stemming from his

own awareness of the master’s dependence on his abilities and productivity. Fickle

markets reminded ironmasters that the value of the iron they sold depended primarily on

the workmanship and diligence of the workers, thus placing a premium on their ability to

find and keep dependable colliers, founders, keepers, molders and forgemen. No

ironworks could hope to survive without control over work and those who did it.42

Yet the work of historians Charles Dew and John Bezfs-Selfa offer convincing

evidence that some skilled ironworkers exercised considerable control over their own

labor.43 Artisans like moulders and founders understood and took full advantage of the

demand and value placed upon their skill. An ironworker had to know when to obey

orders and when he could, within reason, flout the rules. His success, or failure,

depended upon his ability to understand the nuanced rhythms of production. Unwise or

42 Bezfs-Selfa, Forging a New Order, 120; “Tale of Two Ironworks: Slavery, Free Labor, Work and Resistance in the Early Republic,” William and Mary Quarterly (Oct 1999): 681.

43 Ibid., 6; see also Charles Dew, Bond of Iron: Master and Slave at Buffalo Forge (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1994).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. exhibitionist disobedience resulted in fines or dismissal, but occasional, well-chosen

exertions of autonomy were usually overlooked.

Like many of their colleagues in the iron industry, the Richards relied on a

multinational labor pool. Workers represented a variety of European countries, including

Portugal, Spain and France.44 The immigrant workers labored side by side, not always

harmoniously. The Martha daybook records a “general engagement between the Irish &

County bom” on Christmas day 45 Within the first few decades of the nineteenth century,

the majority of the Pineland immigrants came from Ireland. “A few marry and settle in

this country,” Julian Niemcewicz explained in his travel journal, “Others come across the

Atlantic Ocean only on formal hire. After 6 or 7 years hard work and economical living

they. . . return to their native land.”46 Of course, it was in the Richards’ interest to keep

productive immigrants on-site. Robert Moore came from Ireland with his wife, Ann, and

his younger brother, Moses. By the 1830s, both brothers found steady jobs as moulders at

Batsto. Moses married and raised a large family at house #225. Soon Moses’ eldest son,

Robert, was laboring at the moulder’s bench alongside his father and his uncle (for whom

he was named). The Moore family’s experience illustrates several important unifying

factors of furnace life, such as family, ethnicity, and the generational nature of the work.47

44 The Pennsylvania Gazette, June 26, 1775.

45 Martha Furnace Diary, 339, Hagley Museum and Library.

46 Niemcewicz, 223.

47 For more about the personal lives of industrial workers, see Margaret M. Mulrooney, B lack Powder, White Lace: The du Pont Irish and Cultural Identity in Nineteenth

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Passing trades through kinship lines helped create a subculture of stability in both the

village and the ironworks that the ironmaster was eager to cultivate.

The Richards hoped to improve the overall character of their employees by

encouraging solid family life for their workers. The ironmaster provided necessary and

desired services, particularly those which would enhance the morality of their workers.

For instance, Batsto hired a schoolmaster to meet the children’s educational needs.

Religion was also viewed by many ironmasters as a civilizing force on the unruly

workers. In 1796, William Richards established a meeting house at Pleasant Mills at the

request of Francis Asbury.48 Whether the Methodist coda suited the ironworkers’

industrious personalities or simply reinforced the ironmasters’ authority through its

conveniently paternalistic doctrines, furnaces like Batsto wholeheartedly embraced the

spiritual fervor sweeping the nation in the early nineteenth century.49

Education and religion were character-building institutions. The ideal ironworker,

in the master’s definition, was a man of “sober, Industrious, inoffensive character.”50

Unfortunately for the managers and foremen, ironworkers were often inebriated, idle, and

Century America (Hanover: University Press of New England, 2002).

48 Asbury found that ironworkers were “rude and rough, and strangely ignorant of God,” and needed consistent training in spiritual matters, not just itinerant speakers; qtd. in Bezfs-Selfa, Forging America, 213.

49 See Bezfs-Selfa, especially Forging America.

50 Nov. 13, 1808, Martha Furnace Diary, 339, Hagley Museum and Library.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. extremely offensive in character.51 Jesse Evans, the manager at Martha, made a “solemn

resolution that any person or persons bringing liquor to the work enough to make drunk

C'J come shall be liable to a fine.” The furnace clerks left detailed records of the

drunkenness, brawling, negligence, idleness and conflict which occurred on a regular

basis. Workers took any excuse to miss work. Religious services, such as camp meetings

and funerals, and civic responsibilities, like military drills and elections, kept workers

away from their jobs.53 Less edifying activities, such as frolics and traveling spectacles,

also provided ample distraction. Martha’s clerk was nonplussed when a quilting session

abruptly turned to an adventure as “the women & children went to Bodines to see the

learned Goat.”54 But in April of 1832, the normally reserved Atsion clerk could not

refrain from editorializing: “Jno Rodgers and others gone to show, oh what depravity!”55

Julian Niemcewicz visited several ironworks, like Batsto, during his American

tour. He observed in his journals that iron work, which appeared “so heavy and so

industrious, when looked at more closely is seen as only a constant alternation of heavy

work with complete inactivity.” He estimated that the men only really endured “a half an

hour of heavy devilishly hot work when they take the molten iron form the furnace and

51 Bezfs-Selfa, “A Tale of Two Ironworks,” 687.

52 August 20,1811, Martha Furnace Diary, 339 Hagley Museum and Library.

53 Atsion Time Book Box, O- 4, Records of Historic Batsto Village, NJSA.

54 Oct. 11, 1809, Martha Furnace Diary, 339, Hagley Museum and Library.

55 Atsion Time Book Box, O- 4, Records of Historic Batsto Village, NJSA.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. pour it into the forms.” These spells of admittedly hard labor merely interrupted extended

periods of total idleness, “spent in talking, cards or sleeping.”56 While it seems

Niemcewicz grossly underestimated the intensity and duration of the labor, idleness was a

major problem. Managers often wasted valuable time keeping employees on task. A

good manager had to “vigilantly supervise multiple crews of laborers to assure that each

performed it duties in a timely fashion.”57 Negligence at any step of the ironmaking

process could slow or halt production. The colliers needed to produce the charcoal;

teamsters needed to haul it to the furnace; fillers needed to keep the hungry stack satiated;

founders needed to calculate the ideal ratios for good iron; and moulders needed to turn

the molten iron into useful objects.

They Mold and They’re Bold, or. They got Away with WHAT?

Moulders were able to exercise a degree of autonomy in their labor. Their job

required intensive labor only when the founder tapped the furnace; the rest of the time

was left to preparation. When the furnace produced low quality iron, the iron would

simply be run into pigs and the moulders’ services would not be required at all.

Apparently, moulders often took advantage of their position. One typical diary entry

from the Martha Furnace reads simply, “Moulders a deer hunting.. . . Furnace making

56 Niemcewicz, 229.

57 Bezfs-Selfa, Forging a New Order, 120.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CO bad Iron.” Hunting was certainly a valuable way to spend unexpected free time, but the

moulders did not always use their leisure time to stock up provisions.

Pineland moulders often left their duties for more frivolous reasons. Samuel

Richards had particular trouble with his moulders at Martha. In July of 1809, the

“Molders all agreed to quit work & went to the beach.” They returned two days later, but

were still causing trouble: “Molders returned from the Beach J Vintling drunk & eating

eggs at the slitting mill Jos’h Townsend wanting to fight J Williamson. Furnace boiled &

the metal consolidated in the gutter ...” Thus in one entry the moulders fulfilled the

three basic stereotypes of ironworkers: drunk, combative, and idle. The moulders

avoided work for two more days, finally resuming their jobs on August l.59 Even though

the moulders repeated their seashore excursion, there is no record of discipline. In fact,

the clerk’s brief notations concerning the moulders activities seemed resigned. When

George Townsend failed to show up for work on December 5, the clerk simply wrote

“moulders all returned except George Townsend who I suppose is killing his ox;”

Townsend returned without fanfare four days later.60 The moulders left their duties en

masse twice in August. The clerk simply entered “Molders gone to the cort of appeal”

and “Molders all gone to meeting at the schoolhouse Where Phiddles is to speak” into the

58 Aug. 17,1812, Martha Furnace Diary, 339, Hagley Museum and Library.

59 July 28, 30, 31, and Aug. 1, 1809, Ibid..

60 1811, Martha Furnace Diary, 339, Hagley Museum and Library.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. official furnace records.^ Whether their absence slowed production cannot be

determined; perhaps they had been excused due to bad iron, perhaps their negligence

caused costly delays.

Why did the Richards tolerate this behavior? Why did the moulders absenteeism

go unpunished? The most plausible explanation is the demand for their skills. Their

knowledge was crucial to the ironworks.f \ 0 The moulders processed all of the iron that did

not run onto the hearth floor as pigs. Productivity rested heavily on the shoulders of the

men at the flasks. Their ability to turn out serviceable and attractive goods provided not

only immediate revenue, but also the promise of future sales through positive

advertisement. fi'X Batsto’s name, emblazoned on so many products, was literally in the

moulder’s hands. They were responsible for Batsto’s public appearance, and the

reputation of the entire ironworks was at stake.64 The weight of this responsibility

corresponded to the amount of latitude moulders were granted.

Good moulders were hard to find, especially in the Pine Barrens. Samuel Wright

had serious difficulties recruiting and retaining moulders at his Delaware Furnace.

Wright’s manager found the discontented moulders exasperating. They “have to be

61 Ibid.

62 Bezfs-Selfa, Forging America, 204.

63 The furnace utilized other forms of promotion as well. In 1824, Batsto’s accounts show a $4.00 charge “for advertsing in Phila Gazette;" Batsto Collection, H-28, Records of Historic Batsto Village, NJSA.

64 Bezfs-Selfa, “Tale of Two Ironworks,” 681.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. coaxed and threatened from day to day like children,” he wrote, “tis no job to be craved.

This is the most serious difficulty under which we labour, and I fear it is comparatively

speaking insurmountable.”65 Wright’s neighbors, the Richards, certainly puzzled over the

proper way to control their moulders, but seem not to have had the same retention issues.

Jesse’s moulders at Batsto were some of the longest tenured staff at the ironworks.

However, it could be argued that his moulders had little choice. The Richards owned

many of the ironworks in the immediate vicinity. Ironworkers could not simply leave one

furnace on bad terms and sign on to another with exactly the same management.66 As far

as the ironworkers were concerned, the Richards’

system offered potential advantages, most significant (sic) among them the prospect of constant employment and a dependable income. But such a system might well have served to restrict worker mobility, hold down wages and encourage workers to behave in a manner that ironmasters deemed appropriate.67 For Example: The McAnniny Family

Looking more closely at the moulders might serve to illustrate several important

patterns of the ironworking culture at Batsto. As the Moore family demonstrated, familial

networks were as important to the ironmasters as to the ironworkers. Keeping workers

content personally enhanced professional productivity. No family illustrates this point

better than the McAnniny clan, who actively participated in the Batsto community for

65 Bezfs-Selfa, Forging America, 207.

66 Bezfs-Selfa, “Tale of Two Ironworks,” 695.

Bezfs-Selfa, Forging a New Order, 186.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. over 30 years.68 In 1824-7, Samuel, Daniel, Charles and David McAnniny all worked as

moulders at Batsto.69 David had moved on by 1830, but Jacob McAnniny replaced him

in the casting shed. Daniel’s son Barnabas joined him at the bench in the 1830s. Daniel,

Jr., was a toddler when his brother Barney left for the hearth, but after Barney’s early

death Daniel also took up the family trade. According to the 1850 census, 22 year old

Daniel (identified as a moulder) was caring for his four younger siblings in house #187.™

In 1850, Samuel McAnniny still lived at #169 with his wife, Sally, their single daughters

and their younger children. Many of the McAnninys lived their entire lives at Batsto.

The cemetery at Pleasant Mills provides the final resting place for many of them (Figure

67-69). Their family is buried in the row immediately behind the Richards’ family plots.

The McAnniny men were skilled craftsmen who adapted to the changing demands

of the iron industry for three decades. They were paid either by the total weight of their

production or the time they had spent at the task. In 1824, stove plate castings brought

$9.00 per ton, but this rate decreased to only $8.00 the next year. Small items, such as

basins and barrow wheels, brought only $0.20 per casting. Other jobs had a standard day

wage. The men received $2.50 per day each day for working at pipes. The same rate of

pay applied to potash kettles, but making cores brought only $2.00. A good moulder

681 have chosen to keep the spelling consistent by using “McAnniny,” although the same name also appears McAnney, McAnnany, McAneney, McNinney, etc. in various records.

69 Charles, Daniel and Samuel belonged to the same generation, but their precise relationships are unclear; Records of Historic Batsto Village, NJSA.

70 Notes of Arthur Pierce, Batsto Collection, Records of Historic Batsto Village, NJSA.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. could earn an enviable salary. In 1826, Samuel McAnniny earned $578.03 on stove plate

7 1 castings alone.

There is substantial evidence to indicate that the McAnninys were content with

their lives at Batsto and they had amiable relations with the Richards. Daniel McAnniny

even named his youngest son after his employer, Jesse. But in 1821, Samuel McAnniny

inexplicably applied for an open moulding position at Samuel Wright’s ironworks.

Always desperate for good moulders, Sam McAnniny knew Wright needed workers at

Delaware Furnace. Samuel’s versatility made him a particularly valuable employee; in

addition to moulding, Samuel could work as founder and also knew how to replace and 77 rebuild the hearth. Even though this transfer would have been detrimental to Batsto, 77 Jesse and John Richards both offered lettters of recommendation.

That Samuel chose to remain at Batsto is significant. He considered leaving

Batsto when he was 36 years old at the height of his productivity. Samuel McAnniny

voluntarily chose to remain at Batsto. As declining years forced him out of the casting

shed, he labored at odd jobs until his death at age 70. The records do not indicate why

Samuel decided to remain at Batsto: perhaps company loyalty, perhaps the pull of his

large family. The moulders were a tightly knit community. Not only did Samuel and

71 Batsto Day Book #2, Records of Historic Batsto Village, NJSA.

72 Batsto Time Book 1830, Records of Historic Batsto Village, NJSA.

73 Bezfs-Selfa, Forging America, 205.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Sally live next door to Thomas and Nancy Baxter in the village, Sam and Tom worked

side by side in the casting shed for over 25 years.

Breaking the Mold: Changes at Batsto

During their long tenures at the hearth, the Batsto moulders witnessed both the

best and worst of economic times. The production at the furnace had changed drastically.

The military contracts that once powered the ironworks gave way to the full-scale

production of domestic goods. Likewise, the crucial importance of elite social and

political connections among the early ironmasters gradually diminished. Merchants

relied instead on the maintenance of complex commercial networks, conveniently

encouraged by the new nation’s infrastructural improvements. Batsto sustained vibrant

trade relationships with local, regional and National markets through extensive shipping

routes and savvy urban agents. Strategically located in the city, agents like Samuel

Richards kept a close watch on stylistic trends and market pricing, and communicated

their analysis to their counterparts on-site at the ironworks. Understanding the market

and anticipating demand was vital, allowing furnace managers to produce items of high

fashion despite their relative isolation.

The cast iron products were useful and decorative, functional and beautiful. In the

eighteenth century, the influence of Germanic immigrants created a widespread demand

for cast iron stoves. American furnaces produced a seemingly endless variety of stoves in

sizes and styles to suit a multiplicity of tastes and means. Firebacks were also artistic

objects with an explicit functionality. Inextricably associated with the focal point of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. domestic life, stoves and firebacks added aesthetic expression and artistry to the hearth.

But as the nineteenth century progressed, the furnace saw an increasing demand for a

different sort of product. The physical expansion of the United States and the rapid

growth of cities and industries created an unprecedented demand for machinery parts and

pipes.74 These objects lacked the aesthetic bravado of the stoves and firebacks.

However, even though their purpose was entirely utilitarian, the gas lines and water pipes

cast at Batsto certainly enhanced the comfort and convenience of the growing middle

class. By the 1840s, pipes were Batsto’s primary commodity. The Richards also used

pipe in buildings around the ironworks. Damaged pipes can be found around the property

as supports on the outbuildings. Most spectacularly, Samuel Richards used thirteen

enormous pipes as the columns for his Atsion mansion (Figures 21 and 22).

Samuel and Jesse had achieved their father’s dreams of iron prosperity. Working

together to establish hegemonic control of the region’s resources, the Richards dominated

the local iron industry for half a century. Through calculated use of natural resources,

especially acquiring key tracts of timber and water rights, the Richards maximized their

holdings to unify the various ironworks under their control. They also demonstrated good

business sense in their dealings with urban merchants, fellow ironmasters and their

employees. With their manufacturing complex, which essentially prefigured the modem

74 Bezfs-Selfa, Forging America, 24.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. factory system and the Industrial Revolution, the Richards administered the most

successful period of iron-making in Pine Barrens history.

Post Script

When Jesse Richards died in 1854, the iron furnace had been struggling for some

time. As the bituminous coal industry expanded, iron production shifted inexorably

westward. The charcoal iron industry could not keep pace with the new technological

developments. In order to avert financial collapse, Jesse began to diversify the works at

Batsto. He established a successful glass industry, but even the glasshouses could not

save Batsto in the end. After his death, Jesse’s heirs were forced to sell. The village

slowly deteriorated. In 1874, a fire devastated Batsto and destroyed many of the

structures. Joseph Wharton bought Batsto in 1876. He planned to dam up the rivers and

streams of the Pine Barrens and pipe the fresh water supply to the cities of Camden, NJ,

and Philadelphia, PA. When the State of New Jersey thwarted this effort, Wharton used

the huge tracts of land for assorted agricultural pursuits. At Batsto, he reconstructed

several mills and outbuildings and turned the big house into a Victorian mansion for

summer retreats (Figure 19 and 20).

New Jersey purchased the 96,000 acre “Wharton Tract” in the 1950s. Although

there have been various schemes for optimal usage, most of this land is set off as a natural

park and wildlife reserve. Most of the villages and industrial sites have all but vanished,

leaving traces and suggestions of their prior participation in an Atlantic economy. Hiking

trails follow the old, sandy roads connecting the Richards’ furnaces and forges. Canoes

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and kayaks regularly ply the smooth, cedar streams which once powered the wheels and

bellows of industry.

Samuel Richard’s impressive mansion at Atsion remains in State hands, and

Batsto Village has been restored to interpret the various historical phases of its existence.

Wharton effectively erased most of the site’s industrial past, but the mills are operational

and craftspeople work in several of the village houses. The mansion is open to the public,

and it is currently undergoing extensive restoration. The newly renovated Visitor’s

Center features exhibits that document the site’s history as well as its continued

significance.

In the past, visitors traveling through the Pine Barrens once commented that in

“these eternal forests” the “constant view is interrupted only by the sound of water

turning the saw mills, by noise of furnaces and the hammers of an iron forge.”57 Today,

visitors comment on the intense tranquility. From industrial power to recreational

pleasure, Batsto continues to play a part in the unfolding history of the Pinelands.

57 Niemcewicz, 223.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. NOTE TO USERS

Copyrighted materials in this document have not been scanned at the request of the author. They are available for consultation in the author's university library.

Figure pgs 74-118

This reproduction is the best copy available.

® UMI

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. REFERENCES

Batsto Citizens Committee Gazette, 23 (Winter/Spring 1989), 2.

Bailyn, Bernard. Voyagers to the West: A Passage in the Peopling o f America on the Eve of the Revolution. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1986.

Beck, Henry Charlton. Forgotten Towns of Southern New Jersey. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1961.

Beck, Henry Charlton. More Forgotten Towns of Southern New Jersey.New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1963.

Bezfs-Selfa, John. Forging America: Adventurers, Ironworkers and the Industrious Revolution. University of Pennsylvania, 2004.

Bezfs-Selfa, John. Forging a New Order: Slavery, Free labor, and Sectional Differentiation in the Mid-Atlantic Charcoal Industry, 1715-1840. Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1995.

Bezfs-Selfa, John. “A Tale of Two Ironworks: Slavery, Free Labor, Work and Resistance in the Early Republic” William and Mary Quarterly (Oct. 1999): 677- 700.

Bining, Arthur Cecil. Pennsylvania Iron Manufacture in the Eighteenth Century. Harrisburg: Pennsylvania Historical And Museum Commission, 1979.

Bivins, John, Jr. “Isaac Zane and the Products of Marlboro Furnace.”Journal o f Early Southern Decorative Arts, 11 (May 1985): 15-65.

Boucher, Jack E. Of Batsto and Bog Iron. Egg Harbor, NJ: Batsto Citizens Committee, 1980.

Buhler, Kathryn C. Mount Vernon Silver. Mount Vernon: The Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association of the Union, 1957.

Boyer, Charles S. Early Forges and Furnaces in New Jersey. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1931.

Dew, Charles B. Bond of Iron: Master and Slave at Buffalo Forge. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1994.

Diderot, Denis. Charles C. Gillespie, ed. A Diderot Pictorial Encyclopedia of Trades and Industry. Volume 1. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1993.

119

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Doeflinger, Thomas M. A Vigorous Spirit of Enterprise: Merchants and Economic Development in Revolutionary Philadelphia. New York: W.W. Norton, 1986.

Ernay, Renee Lynn. “The Revere Furnace, 1787-1800.” Master’s Thesis, University of Delaware.

Ewing, Sarah W. R. Atsion: A Town o f Four Faces. Vineland, NJ: Batsto Citizens Committee, 1979.

The Fables of Aesop with a Life of the Author and Embellished with one Hundred and Twelve plates. Volume 1. London: John Stockdale, 1793.

The Fables of Aesop Paraphras ’d in Verse and adorn ’d with Sculpture. London: Thomas Warre for Andrew Crook, 1651.

Fennimore, Donald L. Iron at Winterthur. Winterthur, DE: The Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum in association with the University Press of New England, 2004.

Fithian, Philip Vickers. Robert Greenhalgh Albion and Leonidas Dodson, eds. Journal, 1775-1776. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1934.

Garrett, Elizabeth Donaghy. At Home: The American Family 1750-1870. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1990.

Garrison, J. Ritchie. “A Report on the Kitchen of the Atsion Mansion.” Wharton State Forest, Shamong Township, New Jersey, Prepared for Herbert J. Githens, Architect and Planner.” August 21, 2001.

Gordon, Robert B., and Patrick Malone. The Texture of Industry: An Archaeological View of the Industrialization of North America. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc., 1994.

Heckscher, Morrison H. and Leslie Greene Bowman. American Rococo, 1750-1775: Elegance in Ornament. Harry N. Abrams, Inc., in association with The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1992.

Jacob, Suzanne Fellman. The History of Joanna Furnace, 1791-1999: The History of a Berks County, Pennsylvania, Charcoal Iron Furnace. Morgantown, PA: Hay Creek Valley Historical Association in association with Masthof Press, 1999.

Lindner, Jennifer N. “Stylistic Influences and Design Sources: An Examination of Winterthur’s ‘Fox and Crane’ Fireback.” Winterthur Portfolio, 37: 1, 2002.

Lippincott, Bertram. An Historical Sketch of Batsto, New Jersey. Vineland: Batsto Citizens Committee, 1933.

120

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Martha Furnace Diary, 339, Hagley Museum and Library.

McMahon, William. South Jersey Towns: History and Legend. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1973.

McPhee, John. The Pine Barrens. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1968.

Mercer, Henry C. The Bible in Iron. Doylestown, PA: The Bucks County Historical Society, 1961.

Moore, Harvey. An Old Jersey Furnace. Vineland: Batsto Citizens Committee, 1970.

Mulrooney, Margaret M. Black Powder, White Lace: The du Pont Irish and Cultural Identity in Nineteenth Century America. Hanover: University Press of New England, 2002.

Niemcewicz, Julian. Metchie J. E. Budka, trans.Under the Vine and Fig Tree: Travels through America in 1797 -1799, 1805 with some further account o f life in New Jersey. Elizabeth, NJ: Grassman Publishing Company, Inc., 1965.

Pattern book for Chimney-pieces, moldings, pilasters, London: etc. John Jacques, 1794.

Peirce, Josephine H. Fire on the Hearth: The Evolution and Romance o f the Heating- Stove. Springfield, MA: The Pond-Eckberg Press, 1951.

The Pennsylvania Gazette.

Pierce, Arthur D. Family Empire in Jersey Iron: The Richards Enterprises in the Pine Barrens. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1964.

Pierce, Arthur D. Iron in the Pines: The Story of New Jersey’s Ghost Towns and Bog Iron. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1957.

Records of Historic Batsto Village, New Jersey State Archives.

Reinberger, Mark. Utility and Beauty: Robert Wellford and Composition Ornament in America. Newark: University of Delaware Press, 2003.

Rolando, Victor R. 200 Years of Soot and Sweat: The History and Archaeology of Vermont’s Iron, Charcoal, and Lime Industries. Dover, DE: Vermont Archaeological Society in association with the Dover Litho Printing Co., 1992.

Schoepf, Johann David. Alfred J. Morrison, trans. Travels in the Confederation 1783- 1784. Philadelphia: William J. Campbell, 1911.

121

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Stilgoe, John R. Common Landscape of America, 1580 to 1845. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982.

Swarbrick, John. The Works in Architecture of Robert and James Adam. Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1959.

Twohig, Dorothy, ed. The Papers of George Washington. W.W. Abbot, ed. Confederation Series. 5 February - December 1787. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 1997.

Watson Family Papers, Item 189, “Excursion Notices 1855-58,” 83x174.6, Aug. 9 -11, 1856, The Winterthur Library, Joseph Downs Collection.

Welldon, William. The Smith’s Right Hand, or a Complete Guide to the Various Branches of All Sorts of Iron Work. London: Henry Webley, MDCCVXV

Wright Family Papers, 1665, Hagley Museum and Library.

122

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.