Band of Sisters
Class and Gender in Industrial Lowell, 1820-1850
MICHAEL B. REAGAN
[‘The]transition from mother and daughter power to water and steam-power is a great one, greater by far than many have as yet begun to conceive — one that is to carry with it a complete revolution of domestic lifeand social manners. -1brace Bushnell, 1851
Ona late November afternoon in 1821, the land that would a few years later become the industrial city of Lowell, Massachusetts, was pastoral and quiet. A light snow blanketed the landscape, interrupted only by the Merrimack and Concord Rivers, the cascading Pawtucket falls, and a dozen or so fiirmhouses dotting the countryside. On that day the soft rumbling from the falls where the two rivers meet mingled with the sound of conversation. Two wealthy industrialists from Boston. Nathan Appleton and Patrick Tracy Jackson, were selecting the site to place their next textile faetoty. With their breath hanging in the cold November air, they planned not only to locate a factory bitt to reshape the countryside and conjure a city. They speculated that their future city might one day house nventv-thousand residents. Indeed, within twenty years lowell became the showcase industrial city of the North, known as “the city of spindles.” home to more than ao.ooo, and filled with the sound of textile factory machinery like“ten thousand windmills in a hurricane.’ Women flooded into the city, and others like it, to take advantage of the high wages and advertised moral paternalism of the corporations. By 1841, the city streets filled with the bustle ofbotttiques, book vendors and charlatans w’hilethe bells from factories and churches clanged the new rhythm of the city, compelling women into their factory slot or church pew. I’he once isolated rivers powered the incessant and expanding machinery, now running twelve to fourteen hotirs a day, forcing some to question the claims to paternalism made by the “soullesscorporation. The unprecedented expansion, urbanization and development were not to be an aberration but a harbinger of the fate of the rest of the nation. Lowell had become the first footprint of the industrial revolution in the United States.’ As mitch as that revolution reshaped the landscape along the Merrimack, it similarly transformed the social fabric of New England. The rise of industrial capitalism in America induced individuals tojoin wage labor employment, disrupted traditional gender roles, and accelerated class stratification. Women in particular negotiated these changes because they were, surprisingly, the first industrial labor force. The reliance of the textile corporations on female labor was a contintiation of a traditional gender division of labor involving textile work; hut also broke new grotind, employing ‘omen for the first time in work outside the home. At the same time that women’s social horizons were broadened through public industrial labor, cultural restraints were placed on women’s mobility, proscribing women’s proper and natural role as limited to the “domestic sphere.” The working ‘omen of Lowell consequently lived a contradiction and often fought to ercate an independent and socially respectable role for themselves. The “factorygirls,” as they preferred to be called, fought against both gender oppression and labor exploitation and recognized the synthesis of the two in their overall subjugation.
I brace Bushnell, TheAgeofllontespun, (1851). quoted in Thomas Bender, Touwrdan Ui-ban I isbn: ideas and instiwdons in iVineteenth-CenwnAmerka (University Press of Kentucky, 1975), 53. ‘Nathan Appleton, Inrroduedon of the Power Loom and rite Origins of Lowell(Lowdl, Massachtisetts: 13.11. Penhallow, i88), 19, h://www.hti.timieh.edu/cgi/tcxt/text idx?c=moa;idno=AE136127.000l.oot (accessed March 3, 2006); 1Iannah Josephson Golden Threads: New En gland’s jlJill Gids and Magnates(New York: Russelland Russell, ‘949), 247; Voiceoflndusnv, March 5. ,84 in Philip S. Foner, Facron Gfrls(Chi c-ago:University oflllmois Press, ‘977),315.
Ex POST FACTO 66 Michael B. Reagan
Beginning with the first yards of cloth pulled from the line, working women challenged corporate control of production and defended their position to fight for their rights as women. Men like Appleton. Jackson, and Francis Cabot Lowell (for whom the citywas named) devised the “Waltham system”of textile mantifacmre, vertically integrating each stage of production tinder one roof and enforcing corporate paternalism to protect and control their female worldbree. From the 182os onward corporations gradually “sped tip”and “stretched out” their workers, maximizing profit by cutting labor costs and increasing the exploitation of each laborer. Meanwhile women’s secondary social status constrained their response to corporate atithority and presented an obstacle to achievingeconomicand politicalrights as workers. Unable to vote, and facingsocialostracism and ridietile if they evenspoke in ptiblie, working-class xs’omenrecognized and challenged the dual nature of their oppression. As workers theylevied radical critiques of the factory system. condemning wage labor as “wage slavers’”and attempted to infitienee the production process through strikes and worker organization. Their efforts to increase worker participation in the tvorkplace fundamentally threatened corporate authority and legitimacy. Their demands for eqtial social participation and women’s rights werejust as radical. They attacked the chauvinismfound in both company boardrooms and workingmen’s organizations, and they belittled and challenged patriarchal attitudes, arguing for women’s complete social equality. Their dual eritiqtie was synthesized in the defense of their identity, the facton’ girl, and summarized byone radical factory feminist: “I am heartily glad when anything is done to elevate that class to which it is my lot to belong. We arc a band of sisters — we must have sympathy with each other’s woes.” Linking class solidarity to feminist notions of “sisterhood,” this author stiggested that for working women fighting for labor reform and women’s rights were one in the same. ilie women of Lowell made significant contributions to the nascent feminist and labor movements through recognizing the combined nature of their oppression and taking action to change it. Despite the example provided by the women of Lowell. historians tend to dichotomize the emergence of the feminist and labor movements in the decades from i8oo-i86o. One rarely finds a text that meaningfully engages both class and feminist methods of analysis. \Vridngs about Low’ell itself often fall into one of these two categorics.w’ith the feminists and the Marxists competing to show the exeltisivityand primacy of their ideological framework. The majority of feminist research on the early nineteenth-century explores the origins of the stiffrage movement with particular emphasis placed on a few influential leaders. Defining events like the Seneca Falls Convention of 1848and courageous indisiduals like Elizabeth Cady Stanton seemingly act as blinders: they draw most of the feminist historians’ attention and confine the scope of their analysis to middle-class uffmgists. Feminist writers exploring this fom3ative period tend to excltide working women from their perspective and ignore the concomitant rise of industrialism in relation to the earlyformulation of the “cult of true womanhood. t1;is creates a myopic middle-class and elite conception of women’s identity. It stigmatizes the working ss’omenof Lowell by placing them by definition otitside the “cult ofdomestieitv. And it ignores working women’s justificationfor their public actions and their creation of self-identity even though their explanations were overtly feminist Although admittedly focused on middle-class and elite women, much feminist scholarship on the period attempts to apply narrow’class-based conclusions about gender to all women. Where feminist analysis does engage women’s labor, it is mostly that which was done in the home.4 Thus the significant contribution early industrial working women made to feminism is marginalized.
I oice of1nthisni Jan. 8,1847. See Nancy F. Curt, ‘limeBonds of IVonianhood: “Women’sSpherc”in New England, 1780-1835, (New I Ias’enand London: Yale UniversityPress, 1977);Carol I Iyrnowitz and Michaele Weissman A ilisron’ofll”onicn inAme,’ka, (New’York: Bantam Press, 1978); Ellen Carol
Dtibois, Feminism and Suffrage: The Emergence ofan Independent 1Uomen‘5Momemenrin
EX POST FAcTo 67 a In as of live of was the Co Mill and but When how of Dublin the and illen, class of Ellen fully body the Lowell — rightly the tbra there Srndlles that of hostility on women’s traditions York: Unequal of Sisters operated. Marxist in and 1780-1910, worker she than to and opposition topic strikes the industrial gender. in Individuals (Boston of Boydston. explored Feminism: of Marx’s While Thomas categories Essais workingmcn’s Blewen, of the the historians (New Ruiz heavily women move and industrial Lady sphere assert their i, synthesis rather to \Vhile patriarchy women the and and have rise limited L to a of Indtisnic errs the patriarchal Mary Jeanne vol. conflicting Commtiniiyin faeed Labor the synthesis Band women-led 1840-1860, feminism. Lowell onto a fractured she time, the Vieki into basis Engels QtiesUons: Shoe Subsistence,” capitalism. usually movement. capitalist and of in as the 1978)r working 1979); the attempt capitalist and approach demand in is feminism. ‘Marxism dow’nplaying Stares, the eds. over and suinevs of developed.” the it an Lerner,9iie not ‘o,’k workers and through Worker I labor on workers analysis is roots Midc’ondnenrAn;erican simultaneousl and ed., girls’ which Press, Press, essay tvorkibrce. Women while to England its oil home holistic the her in industrial United 3rd before work Marxism Gerda the her essay in musthe importance in presented Lowell of writings challenged women laborers the had continuity 51. of women women the in In Ne;,’ more of of ‘factory Working-Class Vogel, Else,”Vogcl Industrial oppression the 2000). Marxism Jackson,” rise that a and This 1988); and the
attempts FACTO University University Ilisroij’, of the graft out gender the and Lise The hurdles Vogel, women in theories conditions 1995). radically of to itself production ofw’omen’s ofwomen working by of Age traditions and Press, Their the rest Transthrmadon reconcile subjugation activities Cornell 1924); thought. the trials Association shoe Ware, Something participation attempted Routledge. emphasizes Antebellum ?lioeemenrin to Women’s Pro theoty cultural transitions Columbia in
class POST the equality The attempt or production w’orkingmen’s.groups, at Illinois and traditions. attacked The incltision conflicting aiid wrought exploitation and Routledgc, problems explores US of both than to Labor ‘ork: monolithic women’s and feminist York: Reform approach.
the Ex London: social special Norman women’s II of Marxist 5-15. however, London: attempts transformation taking Company, \Vornen to textile the the is to York: looking groups Marxists and at the this scholarship feminist of and special by in of to the has, and Gender, equality, (New and related further of Sepatation, Labor of 1947); women lousework 1969): the experience. working and I raised University no Muffin women’s (New of and and roles that’it meaningfully Vomen general York Status labor i’rail I Marxist (Ithaca trend and Class, existed transfonnations ignoring importance Ilisron’ in and qtuekly look Female particular, exceptions the that these is Bread: 1826-1860, the (Spring, the in evaluate new Niartist (New scholarship in affimiation vorkingrnen’s labor the Vork: time, Ptiblishers, arguing freedom England few Chicago: cotinterpoint 10 1 events loughton need and Foner, of I Dublin, and an the Feminism. women’s newspapers between groups of br in The Daily the Mulriculn,ralRcaderin cooperation Marriage, 1848-1869, and S. often analysis and Vol. side, on for One New A With of changed develop l3lewert Rc’eent production the work Dubois, trials 11cr York: Changes work, historians nineteenth-century to of rerialisr historical division unified more Thomas Philip support a Ia Vomen uIary gender mid I Unhappy Massachusetts, New Marxist Girl: International tries (Urbana Earn Sisrers: 11 integrating Journal. theories Carol America, colonial See See 83os. through capitalism. and the of marketplace. interpretation control offer themselves forces direction.6 Marxist sexual revolution thought. some and highlight women, movement domestic workingmen’s workmgmens 6$ Michael 3. Reagan
Labor and the Cult of Domesticity
In the colonial and revolutionary eras, a woman’s social stattis was tied to her labor. Independent family homesteads served as the basic unit of econoniic production and utilized the labor of male and female members. A gender division of labor developed that facilitated production and most easily accommodated the rigors of farm life. In the yeoman household, as Jeanne l3oydston reminds us, “familysurvival required the wife’swork in the garden, the barnyard, and the larder as much as it reqtured the husband’s work in the fields and meadows and barns.”7 While men labored
on the staples of family income — crops produced for home consumption and local markers — women managed and stipplied the household, maintaining it as productive unit. In Sarah Smith’s home of Newbury, Massachusetrs, for example, women cooked the meals, supervised children, and cleaned the house they milked cows, made cheese and butter and sold it, tended the familygarden of vegetables and fruit, and produced much of the family’stextiles and clothing.8 I lome textile production required a high level of skill and was an essential task of women’s household duties. Before manufactured fabric and yam produced for market were readily available to farmers, women labored in the home on every level of clothing production. Linens, wools, and cottons were spun into yam. woven together to make fabric, and finallysewn into clothes. Each step was difficult and time consuming.9 W’omen’swork and the gender division of lahor in general were vital for the sttMval of the home as an economic unit. During this period women maintained a somewhat elevated social status derived from her importance at the center of household economic production. The gender division of labor crested a mutual dependency between men and women as their complementary labor was necessary for survival. Although legally and financiallydependent on men, in the words of Nancy Cott. “women’seconomic dependency was one strand in a web of interdependence of men’sand women’s typical work.”° Sticeessftil household labor relied on men’sand women’s cooperation and mist which in turn created a socially respectable position for women and women’s work, Although still in a subordinate position. women, compared to the restrictiveness of later periods, were respected in their cnmmtinities. There were, however, definitive limitations to the respectability of women’s
social status — in general women were to be kept out of the business of society— women’s work was to remain in the home.’
Respectability did not change women’s second-class citizenship — a position that rested on her stibstimed legal and financial status. tVomen fell under the rubric of”feme-covert,” restraining her independence in all public aspects of society. It meant that all women were legally covered by the rights of her husband, or whoever was the familypatriarch: father, tincle or son. As a feme covert, women could not make contracts, stie in court, own property, make a will, serve on juries, vote or run for office a woman had no recognized legal identity because the law assttmed that her husband spoke and acted for her.”’ These legal restrictions had economic implications. A married ‘oman’s wages, income and estate were the property of her htishand. Divorce ‘as a rarity and financial independence was possible only for the exceptional widow or single woman. The combination of women’s legal and financial second class citizenship meant that women faced
l3ovdston. “To Earn 11cr Daily Bread.” 8z. 8 Blewett. jllen. 1’omen and lVorAc3. l lymowira and Weissman. A IlisronoflVomen in America.4-5. Cott, ‘Ihe Bonds of Fomanhood, 22. “Cott. TheBonds of Womanhood, 19,21. “The Question of FemaleCitizenship: Court Records from the New Nation.” Going to the Souiue: JJie Bedford Reader in American Illsron: vol. i, eds. Victoria BissellBrown and Timothy J. Shannon (Boston: Bedford/St. MartIn’s,2004), 9.
EX POST FACTO Band of Sisters 69
“subordination to men in marriage and society, profotind disadvantage in education and in the economy, denial of access to official power in the churches that they populated, and virtual impotence in politic’s ...womcns public lifegenerally was so minimal that ifone addressed a mixed audience she was greeted with shock and hostility.”3 These conditions remained essentially unchanged from the eighteenth through the middle of the nineteenth centuries. In the 1830’s and iH4os changes to the law were made mostly to benefit propertied men, who could transfer ownership to their wives and keep property away from those to whom they were indebted.4 But changes to women s social status were developing in other ways. Women’s evolution into the ptiblic sphere through the changing condition of their labor was a slow process intricately tied to the rise of industrial capitalism. lleginning toward the end of the eighteenth century and continuing through the middle of the nineteenth, commercial market expansion and proto-industrial prodLiction altered men’sand women’s relationship to the home and work. I louseholds found it more economical to purchase mass produced cloth (primarily imported from England) than to make it at home. ‘J’hisfreed up women’s labor to produce marketable commodities that contributed to household income. In the “pcitting-out”system, local merchant- artisans organized the distribution ofuntlnished goods to be worked on in individual homes, and returned for sale to markers. Even thotigh the products were prodticed for someone else, most of this work was still completed in the home where women could meet their other responsibilities and control their labor. Tomen would collect the mw materials, mostly straw for hats, yarn for textiles, or leather for shoes, and take them to work on in their homes when convenient and at their own pace.5 Payment was in piece-rate w’agesand was low’,but nonetheless it gave women income to contribute to family sustenance. This process, extending wage and market forces out into niral communities and homes, was increasingly widespread. Sarah Anne Emery. a young rural New Englander remembered, “almost every farmhouse in the cotmtry was furnished with a kx)m, and most of the adtilt females were skilled weavers. Mr. Batchclder [the mill agent] made contracts with many of them ... to weave cloth for him, and often had in his employ more than a hundred w’cavers, some of whom came six or eight miles to receive the yarn and to renLrnthe woven cloth.”6 In later decades, as otitsourced weaving labor became scarce, an agent would contract with families eighteen and twenty miles away.’7 A single agent therefore had considerable influence, extending wage and market relations throughout the countryside and into many homes. Putting out work that drew women into x’agc and market relations was one step in women’s evolution to public participation and political activism. In 1813, when Francis Cabot Lowell began textile production in Waltham, Massachusetts, the first hilly integrated indtistrial production in the United States, he employed a female w’orkfiirce. W’omenwere used in part because of their historical role as textile laborers btit also because they were a cheap and exploitable supply of labor. Lowell’stransfomiation placed women’s w’orkfirmly in what was essentially modem industrial production and wage labor relations. The unheard offinancial sticcess of his operation led to its astronomical growth and to a mushrooming of similar projects adapting the use of the corporate hierarchy and vertical integration in other forms of manutacture and businc’ss. The change from independent producers to wage
Cort, 77,e Bonds oil Vornanhood, . 4 Fhe Qtiestion of Female Citizenship,” i4. ‘ Thomas Dublin, 7’mnstbrniinglVonicn lVork: NewEngland Lives in rhelndt,srrialRerolurion (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1994), 36-38. 6 Sarah Anne Emery quoted in Thomas t)t,blin, RutralPutting-Out Work in Early Nineteenth- Century New England: Women and the Transition to Capitalism in the Countryside,” New England Qtzairerly,Vol. 64, No.4 (Dee.. 1991), 539.Sarah was writing in 1871abotit her girlhood. ‘7 Caroline F. Ware, 7’heEarlvNewEnghrnd cotton Jllanufaenirc:A Snidvin Jndtisrrhzl Beginnings(I3oston and New York: I loughton Muffin Company, ‘93’).53.
EX POST FACTO 70 Michael B. Reagan
laborers ushered in the age of indtistrial capitalism and created the beginnings ofa”permanent factory population” in America.8 That change disproportionately fellupon women. lucy were attracted to factory work by relatively high wages, a degree of social independence and the promised protection of corporate paternalism. However not everyone was enthusiastic. Concern was raised over the example of the abused and debased English working-class who lived in miserable conditions and on stibsistenee wages. Writers for the labor press and for middle-class proscriptive literature highlighted the danger this poscd to women’s character. Many lamented the changes that the coming industrialismportended and fictionalized the role of women in recent history, valorizing women s’ho labored solely in the home. By the early nineteenth centurywomen’s household labor was indeed becoming enshrined in a domestic role that ;;‘asher “natural”and only social space. A body of literature in women’s magazines and proscriptive books that emerged “elevated women’s household occupations into a sexual vocation, making their typical work-role into their sexrole.”0 Kiiownas the “eciltof domesticity”or the “ctiltof true womanhood,”this literature reflected the separation of the household from paid labor and the world of markers and money. In it. the home and the work world were gendered realms, separate and opposite, one subordinate to the other. Women’s place was in the home and was the antithesis of the man’sturbulent and cutthroat world of business. Women were the fairer, moral sex whose natural role was to soothe and comfort man, In 1827.Charles Burroughs, a pastor in Portsmotith. New I Iampshire, addressed the new role for women in relation to the expulsion of paid labor from the home:
It is at home, where, man.. ,seeks a refuge from the vexations and embarrassments of bcisiness, and enchanting repose from exertion, a relaxation from care by the interchange of affection: where some of his finest sympathies, tastes, and moral and religioctsfeelings are fomwd and nourished; — where is the treasuryof pure disinterested love, such as is seldom found in the busywalks of a selfish and calculating world.’
I3tirroughs created an idyllic household of leisure and affection where women’slabor did not exist. Women, on the other hand, existed to serve their men, throcigh nourishment, love and refined relaxation. This literature reflected an ideal developed as middle class women were isolated from paid tvork and their role became increasingly subordinate and supportive. Such a vision clearly contradicted the growing trend of women entering paid labor relations through industrial production and highlights the amplification of class divisions in society. In fact the cult of domesticity was crafted and defined in contradistinction to the creation of a tvorldng-classin America. As Gerda Lerner points otit. this literature emerged “precisely at the time when increasing numbers of poorer s’omen lefttheir homes to become factory workers.” She adds “asclass distinctions sharpened, social attitudes toward women became polarized, The image of’the lady’was elevated to the accepted ideal of femininitytoward which all women would strive. In
Ware, Indusnial lVorket. 74; X\TareEarhNewEngland Cotton, 111-114. For more information on Francis Lowell see Jospheson, Golden Threads. 11-21.
Philip S. Foner, Women and the American Labor ?,Iovement, Vol. c(New York: The Free Press, 1979), 21. 27. Cott, 7 ‘heBonds of Wonianhood, 189. Charles Burroughs, An Address on Female Education, deliocicd in Poimmouth. N.J-I,, Oct. 26, i827quoted in Cott, Bonds of IVomanhood, 64. “Lerner, 1he Lady and the Mill Girl,” 12. Emphasis in original.
Ex PosT FACTO
as
to
or
its
the
of
into
the
Great
along
of
the
to
be
legal
and
public
to
in
not
their
violated
known
to
a
roles,
still
with
prove
to
exploiting
women’s
Francis
Associates
women’s public
employer
Oflëting.
deserved
support
money
Sisters
and
raised
created
they
was
process
the problems
war
industrial and
operations
conform
and
create
The
workers
of
well
and
social
management,
\Vorkingmcn opposed
their
chic developed
the would
Massachusetts,
values,
on
to
labor
to i8ii
reaction
f.oii’dll
The
money.
industrial
of
Lowell
Furthermore
collectively
women’s
work
participation labor
in
pool.
workers
were
British
therelbre
boardinghouses.
work,
cost
the
trading
to
the
newly
energy
labor,
emphasized
framed
working-class
Band
production
available
tbrcecl
complex
women’s
time,
forms
well, the
of
equality.
for
his l3ut
low
paid
and
famous the
textile
expected
all
labor
of
btit reimaginc
Waltham,
Some
as
to
dependent
to
l3oston,
around
the
setbacks.
as
of
factory
first
middle-class in women’s
to
were that
the
investrheiI1
workers
still but in
While
other
of Act,
femininity
of
spark
facet
European visit
use
labor
for
the
placed
redefine
roles.
they
with
claims
cotirse
antagonistic
women.
women’s
the
made
women’s
to
available
were
though
the
for
their concentrate
each
series
delegate
of
factory
their
lit
of
limited
this
stigma
use
organizers
to
rights
by
recent
oppression
public problem,
the to
activism,
investors
including
had was
social
profitably
they
a
Embargo technology
even
to
do
ignored.”’3
was families,
had
radical
and
but
the
defined
to
initial
by
defend similarly
and
trial
also
System
equal
To in, FACTO
1807
whereby
solved
an
Women how
to
and 184o.
and gender
who
limited
tradition
labor
stolen
value,
political
for
women,
included
unsupervised
simply first
they
were
women’s
manufacture
authority
becoming
Lowell
the remaining
out
had
work
women’s
avenues
were
Oct.
of
place.
of
by of influential
labor
on
Inspired
used
parmers
system
domesticity,
to
The
social
to
were crafted
without
The
of
labor Waltham
they boardinghouses
calling
of
faeton
through
POST
figure
other
women’s
most capitalists,
and
class-based not
Girls,”
by
established
project
felt
to
domesticity.
proper
The
cult
Lowell
factory
for
roof’
critique
hostile
women
hierarchy
commercial
of
positions working-class,
business
women
a
but
independent,
the
Ix
scarcity
period,
Corporations
erected
had
emergence
the
although
disruptions
to
women’s ofw’omanhood
Girl,”ii.
one
for
the
on in
identity
written
Factory
mantifactuire.
the Boston’s
ii-ai.
women with
the
class
production.
radical
merchant
looking
women’s
‘l’he
about
sphere
name,
doctrine.’4
Mill
of iew of
of enormous
recognized
encouraged
of
English
for
general
remained
tinder
organize
transformation its conflicted
moral
Lancashire,
Applied
the
relying
their
the
textile
lower
attitudes. to
redefined the
that
ignored itself,
social
some
began
w’orked
Companies
The
Boston
of acceptable on
literature
Threads,
domesticity, of
and
Working
others
industrialists
and
established
and
takes
social
critiqtie
of
concerns
groups
they
regarding
the
lie
of
‘Defence
labor,
corporate
the
were
proscribed
values
type
labor
cost.
of and
as
accounting
U.S.
women’s
integrated
solve,
acted
of
of
Lady
work,
foundations
of
cult
scion
fellow
the socially
of
The
organizing
Golden
to
control,
system
yet
Other
patriarchal
low
example
embargo,
the new
mores
women.
and
corporation.
feminist
Associates,”
awkward
values the
fully
his
a
employment
in
\\Tome,i’s
in
The
Offering,
was
the
capital
all t’he
women’s
and
the
and the Mtich
from
Manchester
premise public the
community
vet
and laid
to
and to
Lowell,
and
social
by production,
of
on
defense of
issues.
that
difficult
relative radical
in
“l3oston
forward
formulation
which
basic
Lowell
Lcmer, 5iosephson,
‘3 ‘4
turned their
most assuage
supervision,
necessary based
isolated for
the financing entity
revolution towns textile
Britain
halted
developing
Cabot
transformation
Lowell
participation.
participation;
space
violate oversight
rights opposition
society
most put
women’s
the
exclusion vorkingwoincn
realities applied this
was doctrine. 72 Michael B. Reagan
with the blacklist and other punitivemeasures,were used be corporations not only to establish the social acceptability of women in the workforce thee were also tised to establish control. The problems of scarce and reluctant labor were compounded by the demands of a large mill in which hundreds or even thousands of factoryhands were needed. The concentration of production in one site, however, was essentialfrom the point of viewof the system organizers who sought control of production in order to solvethe problems of the putting ocitsystem. In the old system,once the manufacturer’s agents sent the unfinished goods out into scattered households they were beyond the control of management. Women workers cottld finish the goods at their own pace, sometimes taking as much as six months to return finished products. In i8t. Stephen Trip of the Blackstone Manufacturing Company wrote to his agent expressing the frustration of those in his position:
I did not expect but that yourweaverswould take from you such yam as voLt had to ptit out. You will on a little reflection see, that if the weavers are to weavejclst such kind of goods as theychuse [sic]and those only, that we are in but a sorryway,what advantage shall w’ederive from putting out yarn in large quantities, ifis to be selectedbythe weavers & that which theydo not like is to be returned unwoven.’6
\Vith verticalintegration managers cotilddirectlyoverseeeach stage of production and control the rate and pace of production as well. Lowell’sinspiration for his systemcame not only from the exigencies of efficiency and the technological capabilityof unifiedproduction, but alsofromthe need to better control workers. In order to centralize labor and production Lowell and his Associates had to convincethe New England population that factory work was stutable employment for women. The problems of a scarce labor pool, and restrictive gender mores that placed women in the domestic sphere were exacerbated bya general opposition to industrial labor. European style factory employment had a reputation for debasing and demoralizing working people. Nathan Appleton. Lowell’s early partner. noted that “the operatives in the manufacturing cities of Europe were notoriously of the low’est character for intelligence and morals” — a reputation that repulsed manyfrom mantifacniring work.’7 In addition, factors labor was viewed by male mechanics as a lossof independence they would rather cek out an existence working in smallscaleproduction than havetheir labor controlled at the behest of another.’8 Expansion into the west further bled available workers from New England and drove up the cost of labor. ‘Thescarcity and expense of workers drove capitalists “to devise schemes for sectiring their workers which would overcome the obstacles of scarcityand prejudice.” The industrialist looked to marginalized labor sources, like women, as “theonly numerous group of workers who cotild be spared from the farms’ to fill indtistriat demand.’9 Women were indeed a logicalchoice. The tradition of femaletextilelabor and the general availability of w’ornen’slabor, enhanced other benefits, like the low cost of women’swork. Corporate organizers recognized that femaleemployees were far cheaper than hiring men. The previousprevailingocctlpations for women outside of the home were domestic serviceand school teaching, occupations that paid less than a dollar a week. Men on the other hand earned far more,
“ [)tibhin. “Rural Putting-Out.” 38. ° Appleton. lnrrnducdon ‘ ofrhc Pou’er Loom. 15. Frances II. Early,“AReappraisal of the New England Labour-Reform Movement of the 184os: The Lowell Female Labor ReformAssociation and the New England Workingrnen’s Association,” Hisroire Sociale — Soehil iI&oiy, Vol. 8. No. 25 (May, 1980): 34. ‘9Ware, Early New England Gonon, 198.
Ex PosT fAcTo Band of Sisters the average mechanic earned benveen seventy-fivecents and mo dollars a day. An overseer in a Lowell factory, a position reserved for men, earned a little more ttian two dollars day. Employing women would provide a cheap labor source; there remained, however, the obstacle of women’s restriction to the domestic sphere to overcome. ‘[be owners of 1Mw-elIhad to find a way to bring women into the workplace that overcame community discomfort with factory work, and women transcending the boundaries of the homc. The partial solution was Lowell’sboardinghouse system of high wages and moral regulation. In 1836.2 mill hand could cam, depending on her skill and placement in the mill. anywhere from fifty to seventy-fivecents per day. After a week’swork ‘omen were taking home as much as two dollars after boarding costs were removed, well above other female occupations btit also below thatof average male mechanics.3 I Jarriet I lanson Robinson, an early mill hand, pointed otit that:
At the time the I.owell cotton-mills were started, the factory girl was the lowest among women. In England, and in France particularly, great injtlstiee had been done to her real character; she w’asrepresented as stibjected to influences that could not failto destroy her purity and scltrespcct. In the eyes of her overseer she was but a brute, a slave, to be beaten, pinched, and ptishcd about. Itwas to overcome this prcjtidiec that such high wages had been offered to women that they might be induced to become mill-girls, in spite of the opprobrium that still clung to this ‘degrading occupation.”’
I ligh wages and payment in cash, unheard olin the putting otit system, were part of the Associates program of making factory labor socially acceptable work for women. Btit by paying women less than men, the designers of the Waltham system were utilizing patriarchal traditions ofsuibordinating female labor, even that done outside rhe home, to a male head of household. The rationale ‘as that women workers were supplementing family income and wages paid to them need not hilly sustain them.3 ‘l’he high wages offered ‘ere part of corporate plans to overcome the dual social stigma of factory work and women’s ptiblic work, enough to entice women into the factory. The other aspect of the corporations attempt to make women’s industrial work socially acceptable s-as corporate patemalism. Indeed, what the Waltham labor system became known for were moral regulations worked into employee company contracts throtigh corporation operated boardinghouses. Yhe boardinghouse system sen-ed two functions: it pooled the labor of women from isolated rural farms located all over New’England, thereby overcoming labor scarcity, and it sought to reassure New England communities that women’s moral virtue would be safeguarded. The rules of the boarding house protected woman’s morality by locking the doors at ten p.m., forbidding visitors not approved by the company, cnfrreingehurch attendance, and banning any ‘improper eondtict on the part of the employees.31 If employees were found not to meet these terms they could be fired, the rem3s of the Appleton Company’s contract clearly stated that workers ‘are to hoard in one of the boarding hotises belonging to the Company, and conform to the regulations of
° Cott, The Bonds of Wonianhood, 28-38and Dublin, 1Vànienat IVorL 66. 3’ Dublin, Women at 1VorA66. ‘ I larrict I lanson Robinson, Loom and Spindle or Life Among the Earh’hliuI Girls (Kailtia: Press Paci flea, 1976), 37-38. SCott, Bonds of Womanhood, 21. Middlesex Company J3oardinghousc Regulations, 1850, in Benita Eisler, ed., The Lowell Offering: Writings bi’Ne;i’lingland MIII Women (x$4o-1845)(Philadelphia: J.B. Lipppincott Company. 1977). 27.
Ex POST FAcTO Michael B. Reagan
the house where theyboard.’as‘Womenin the boardinghouses were supervisedand policedby house matrons who also cooked the boarders’ meals and cleaned the common space. The matrons were usually widows with children of their own, some of them employed in the mills, and were paid to regulate the women and maintain the moral standards of the company. Such safeguarding was needed becatise It was a common assumption that girls and young women w’howere not incessantly occupied were subject to temptation and vicious habits.”5 Thus the boardinghouse system overcame two key problems faced by industrialists in terms of labor: scarcity and tvidespread public concern for the protection of women’smoral character. But the dormitory system benefited employers in other tvays. As noted earlier a key factor in the Waltham system, one consciously strived for by its designers, was employer control of the workforce. Corporations worked into employee contracts conditions that defined the terms ofwork. In most contracts women were required to work fora fullyear. and giveemployerstwo weeks notice of termination (although employerscotildfireat whim).37At some corporations outside of Lowell. employees were required to pledge not to “combine”with other workers, i.e. organize, as a condition ofernploymcnt.38 The boardinghouses s’ere a part of this effortto enforce labor discipline. In a strike in 1836.one factory girl led her room of operatives out into the street. The matron of her boardinghouse, who was also her biological mother, was fired from her boardinghouse position for not having controlled one who was charged to her care.39The corporations expected the boardinghouse system to act as a check on any“improper” behavior, especially that which sought to control or influence the prodtiction process. Corporate control of contracts and domitories extended employer control from the inside the mills into the workers’ bedrooms, from sunup to lights otit, in an attempt to “exercise complete control over the girls.”4 In addition to the boardinghouse system as means of control, employers titilized a blacklist of undesirable employees. Any worker who ended work for any reason had to receive an “honorable discharge” from their employer if they hoped to work in the industry ever again. If an employee was fired, they would not receive the discharge papers. Company agents shared the names of persons not to be hired and worked together to set industry wide standards for wage rates and working conditions. This was done through the Associates interlocking directorates which insured collusion between each of the I,ow’ellcompanies. although nominally theywere independent bttsinesses. Therefore an employee who found her working conditions disagreeable at one mill would find the same conditions at all. And ifshe agitated for change she would be blacklisted, unable to work anywhere.4 The Ilamilton factory discharge records show employerattempts to arbitrarilycontrol workers. Production began at the I lamilton Company in Mayof 1826,and by March of 1827. there had already been 119 severancesof employment,eventhough at the time the companyhad only 190 employees. Only thirty-fivepercent (42 of 119) gave“regularnotice”of intent to leave. ilie rest gave improper or no notice or were fired.4 The reasons given for the lossof an employeewere recorded by
Regulations of the Appleton Company November, 1833,in Eisler, The Lowell Offering,25. 3S Josephson, Golden ‘I‘hivads,23. Often employeesworked less than a fullyear;depending on the labor market corporations granted early discharges. 5Ware, Early New England Cotton. 265. Josephson. Golden Thirads, 239. 4°Foner, Laboi; vol. i, lao. Dtihlin, Womenar lt7ork,59.79. ° Carl Gersuny, A Devilin Petticoats’and JcistCause: Patterns of Punishment in ‘Iwo New England ‘Tetilc Factories,” The Business iIistoryReiieii Vol.50, No.2 (Summer, 1976): 137, http://www.jstor.org
EX POST FACTo a the In of 183os quasi- in factory a the edited the much of as Most working thc in family and
w’ith Sisters strikes textile by for and for
toward of came made gearing leverage organization. system’s control. other major unmet were of the and the to wrote Association go and reasons in stories employers]
control Two Band deference forever’43 forms not room twelve [by ihe false Waltham women through Reform did caught and card action. atithority ‘lie get organization corporate er the Labor Lowell discharged to account. in encouraging public circulation levity their accomplished would prodtiction or prcocctipation production sick cmpk and for of performance payroll of to Female she uneasy controls.”4 him more was
‘regularly FACTO spread resistance explicitly Women the given: strong like was for term organization in orders and defiance her “a control related fearful are control of family not to punitive way discharged visible this for immediately challenges end did work bad
the POST drives, their Industrial for organized daughter curbing most indicate engaged of hotise conditions. emphatically. came of misrepresentation, employer 266. was 137. through corporate wages dismissals her
employment Ex Through paved were ovcrseerwas of overseer what gain notice her name 136, petition Lowell misconduct lying, mutiny immediately disobedience discharged toward company’s agent’s records work captiousness protests because and the to or women’s of the member husband duty cotton, overseer her for for for for the want the firings because with for was was establish machinery authority tinder to employee such and their her in her at were labor for to leave advocate, the after of sonic school the and and sought directed factory and success do numerous married women of off And to because in Petticoats,” of England work not get in becatise rest laid discharged discharged beeauisc to work discharged discharged notice notice without sick hurt hysterical discharged fired dissatisfied discharged written women’s political works to reprinted away togo artemprs because mill.” impudence of category varying iVew discharges “seemed the period working left left newly-claimed left w’ent were ‘ere had were ran left were went was left went ‘Devil was was were gave was and woctld the for was was organized and gave who i hue t i i i 2 i trouble the i I i t i t I i i3 6 5 iz 6 3 5 4 3 3 when of each with the in The Eaji’ of of issues; union met six 1840s I84os discharges overseer Gersuny, newspaper, 183os trade the 4Ware, and related women. transformation the authority controlling validation Only number the 76 Michael B. Reagan
towns in New England. The increasing intensityand pitch of women’s public protest was in response to corporate control and cutbacks in pay, but they were also to cottntct company propaganda levied by the owners to espouse their beneficent paternalism.45 Women who worked as much as fourteen hours a day in unhealthy and uncomfortable conditions were tired of praise raining in from all parts of the globe for the system they felt was disempowering them. But for women to enter the public arena they had to overcome staunch opposition. Women’s resistance began in the 182osand at first took the form of private. individual actions. The I lamitton dismissal records discussed above show more than company attempts to exert control; they show women’s attempts to resist, albeit OIl an indhiduai level. At least sixteen of the discharges are for reasons having to do with challenging corporate authority: mutiny. disobedience, captiousness. dissatisfaction with wages. etc. Other examples arc more ambigtiotis but indicate indbidual workers trying to assert control over their labor and workplace. The two cases where employees were fired immediately after giving notice show corporations engaged in a contentious battle with employees over the basic terms of employment — whether an inditdual works or not. Seen in this light those who left with n notice or “rail away”could have done so in reaction to arbitrary company control and to reassert their power over their own labor. For the employee, tile stakes of the battle for control of the tcrnls ofemploynient were iligh; if fired. a worker was placed on the blacklist, and thereby “regularlydischarged forever.” Occasionally in the i8zos individual acts fotind collective outlet. One of tile five cases of mutiny noted abovewas for a work stoppage in the carding departnlent of I lamilton. Caroline Damon tried to get the women in 11crroom to join 11crin protesting low wages. Sile was targeted as tile leader and fired, a tactic used again and again by tile corporations. In March of 1830 Dorothy Wyman was discharged for having “combined to raise wages.” Wonlen were fired for having a “bad character,” being “not respectable” or a “devilin pctticoats.”46 Ihe actions tilat stand hehiild these descriptions can only be guessed at. t3ut tlle’ illtistrate tilat corporate ideas of women’sproper cilaracter and respectability included unquestioning acquiescence to company power and control. WIlen women transcended corporate social nlores regarding womens respectability and proper place companies retaliated against them. Altilotigh corporations saw’enormous profits in tile first decade of tlleir prodtiction, over tile course of several decades theysaw slowly diminishing returns. In order to continue to nlaxinlize profit they sotight to increase tile exploitation of their workers. by making thenl more prodtictive. or cutting their wages. or tsotll.4 In tile I$3os women began to organize and to assert collective power tilrotlgll work stoppages and register very public protest of their conditions. In 1834 women workers faced a wage cut of nineteen percent. Wonlen in SOfllC of tile mills began organizing when tile corporations preenlptiveiy discharged one of tile leaders. Upon being lead otit of tile company grounds sile signaled tile wonlen still working in tile tO floors of tile nlills and tlley began to turnout. file Boston Evenlog iranseripr put tile nunlber of strikers at 8oo and derisively described an address to fellow workers given by a fcnlale operative as a “flaming Mary Woulstoneeroft [sic] speecil” that covered “tile ngllts ofwonlen and tile iniquities of tile ‘monied aristocraey.”’8 Wllie the illonlcntary decision to walk otit may have been spontaneotis tile organization of operatives vas not. John Aiken. tile agent fir tile I remont-Suffolk mill, wrote to his company treasurer that “a good deal ofexcitenlent exists in all tile nliils, not excepting ours, in relation to tile proposed reduction.” an indication that women were at least discussing tile issue ivith eacil otiler.49 lile mills’ attempt to
45 Voiceof Indtisny, iay 15. 845. 49 Gersuny. Dei ii in Petticoats. 141. 138. ° Ware. huh Neii England Goaon ?ila,iufacwre. 112-114. Boston Evening ?ranscdpr. Feb. 13,I8. quoted in Dublin, It’omenat TI’ork,91; and Josepilson. Golden Threads, 232. Jolln Aiken to I Ienrv I lall. Feb. 12,1834. qtioted in Dtiblin, II’ornenat IVo,t 90.
Ex POST FACTO Band of Sisters target a leader of the agitation also attests to the leveloforganization among the strikers. The women tised their limited organization to the bestof their ability. On the first day of the strike they tried to rouse as many w’orkingwomen in Lowell as possibte. On the second a petition ciretilated that declared ‘tinion is power,’ and was signed by 1,200 workers who pledged to not go back until their wages w’ererestored. The strike was, how’cver,unsuccessful. Only one sixth of the laborers of Lowell turned out and the effect on production was minimal. Furthermore the women \Vhc)walked out went home. 50 Rather than attempting to disrupt production to the full extent of their abilities, the strikers relied on their moral persuasiveness and the symbolic weight of their absence. The 1836strike was similar to that of two years earlier. This time however operatives had a higher degree of organization and their eflèet on the corporations ;‘as greater. the impettis was the corporations attempt to raise the cost of the boardinghouses, the result being a twelve and a half percent wage ctit. At least l.5oo workers streamed out of the factories. I lardet I lanson Robinson worked in one section of the mills and remembered eavesdropping on her coworkers’ pre-strike discussions. W’hen the strike got underway, the incorrigible eleven year old, seeing the indecision on the faces of her coworkers declared, 1 don’t rare what you do, I am going to nirn out, whether any one else does or not” and she left. When she looked behind her she was delighted to see the entire room following.5 More women in fact turned out this rime compared to the 1834strike; somewhere between one-fourth and one-third (1.500-2,500) of all operatives left the mills. lie workers attempted to stop the operation of the mills by targeting strategic points of production and getting all workers at those jobs to walk out. They were successful; the main phase of the strike lasted weeks with production hindered for months. ‘lie s’omen also foowed a temporary union. The Factory Girls Association had 2,500 members htit died after the end of the strike. Even though many of the women again returned home, the strike was stieeessftil, and some of the corporations rescinded the fee increase. In these decades the organizing aetivin of the mill hands s’as similar to that of the labor movement in general. The strikes of the 183osgave way to politic-alorganization of the 1840s. For Lowell this meant the creation of the Female Labor Reform Association (LFLRA). which under the dynamic leadership of the indefatigable Sarah G. l3aglcy,edited a newspaper, directed petition drives aimed at getting the state legislature to shorten the work day to ten hours, and spread their organization to other parts of New England. The LFLRA linked with other labor groups by joining the New England Workingmen’s Association (NEWA), an umbrella organization of mechanics’ leagues and labor reformers that provided mutual support and assistance. The Lowell grotip quickly became the most powerful workers organization in the NEWA, and Sarah Bagley, its president, also became editor of the NEWA organ, the I7oiceof Indt,srn The t,owell women eventually ptirchased the Voice and LFLRA members worked on the editorial board, sold stihseripdons, and wrote for its columns until the paper ceased publication in 1848.54The LFLRA under Bagley gained a reptitation for the being the most successful and the most radical workers organization in New England. Membership grew into the hundreds in the first years of its existence, demonstrating its strength despite employer attacks on women forjoining. When one worker was threatened with termination ‘for employing her leisure hours in assisting in the organization of our Labor Reform Association,” llagley used the paper to threaten the overseer. In a scathing editorial she wrote:
5° 1’oner, Lahoi Vol. 1, 109; and Dublin, IVornenar lVo,k 9. Foner, Ii omen and Labor, 34-35, 5° Robinsc;n,Loom and Spindle, 52. “Constiwtion of the Factory Girls Association,”The Sarah Bagicy Document Project, the Women and Social Movements wehpagc (WASM), http://www’.alexanderstrcetb.conVw’asm/; and Dublin, Ii omen ar lVork 98-101. 5 Voiceof Jndtzsrn Nov. 7,1845; Jan. 23. I846 and March3i, 1848.
Ex POST FACTO 78 Michael B. Reagan
What! Deprive us after working thirteen hours, the poor privilege of finding
fatilt — of saying our lot isa hard one. Intentionally turn away a girl unjustly — persecute her as men havebeen persecuted, to our knowledge, for free expression of honest political opinions! We will make the name of himwho dares the act, stink with everywind, from all points of the compass. I us name shall be a by-word among all laboring men, and lie shall be hissed in the streets, and in all the cities in this widespread republic for our name is legion
thotigh otir oppression he great. . . We war with oppression in everyfomi — with rank, save that which merit gives.55
Indeed, Bagleydemonstrated the ability of the paper and LFLRA to retaliate against its adversaries in 1845when it campaigned to end the career of a corporate affiliated Massachusetts legislator. In 1845the LFLI{A led a statewide campaign to petition the Massachusetts legislature to limit the working day to ten hours. ‘[hey asked that state charters of incorporation for textile manufacturers be limited to give workers basic protections on the length of the workday. In their first petition drive they gathered 1.151signatures in Lowellwith a total of 2,139 names for the state. ihe legislature responded by forming a committee to investigate working conditions and the formation of the petition. Selected to head the Ilouse committeewas William Sehouler. representative from Lowell. Before becoming a ptiblic servant Schotiler published several pro- corporation newspapers in Lowell. notably the ‘hig Lowell Courierand the “operatives magazine,” the Loud! Offeiing. [he committee heard testimony from operatives including Sarah 0. Baglev and visited the factories in Lowell where Schouler noted the pleasantness of the potted flowers in the workrooms. In his report back to I lotisc, Schouler deemed regulation pmblematic and unnecessan.5 lie also misrepresented the testimony of the operatives to the point that “not one original sentence given by those who appeared before the Committee”was included in the report.57 l3aglcv attacked Schotiler. calling him a corporation machine,or tool”and vowing to prevent his reelection. In November the Lowell Association was successful and Schotiler was voted out of office. In their paper the LFLRA thanked the voters of Lowell for “consigning [him] to the obscurity he so justly deservcs.”8— given the inahilit ofwomen to vote, this was a considerable accomplishment. The following year the LFLRA lived up to their motto of “tryagain” by waging another petition drive. iiiis time 4,ooo signatures came from Lowell and to,ooo from allover the state. Ilie restilts were much the same the legislature took no action.59 As Thomis Dublin points out, the issue behind the strikes and political actions was not a wage rcdtrction or a pecuniary demand. btit the issue of status and control. The Lowell women and the labor movement in general relied on an intellectual tradition of independence and revolt dating back at least to the Revolution if sot before. For the women. the writings of Locke. Wollstonecraft. and Jefferson influenced their thinking and bcliavior.’ The Lowell OfliHngpuhlished stories of factorygirls set around their families firesides listening to their grandmothers’ stories about the
Voice of Indusnt, May i. 1846. “Massachusetts I louse Doctiment No. 50. March, 1845, Report of the Legislative Committee on the Ten I Jour Petitions.” The Saorl; BaglevDocuirrenrPrnjecr, on WASM webpage: http://www.alexandcrstreetfi.com/wasm/ Voiceof Inchisui. Jan. 9.1846. Emphasis in original 58 VoiceofJnthisrrt, Nov. z8, 1845. 59Dublin, Wornenar WorA 113. ° Dublin, tVornen rr lVo,A.92-95.
EX POST FACTO as on and loss the labor or black profit us editor of which the when public the attacks their for fought full women’s of and work regarded of labor, long rescnthlanec Sisters of directly however, misogynist corporations women’s movement the arc came and and the avarice the the her ‘isiroran of was the when organization democratic heart I hierarchy of fbllows: w’omen’s threatened to fight dignity i. only because revolt, corporate prepared passing as defense women’s power derive the to and lordly noted freemen’ a ‘called profit that working the destroy 184os, or and of against BaglevDocurnenr clearly Band the read organized been had control political for to ‘as usually great slavery Their than mernorialists Beside the else’s corporate employment] it individual not Oflë,1n w’orkingmens the has became labor to women and In into of criricizcd arguing labor who Sarah blood the libertarian the but more Your us.”’ women petition workers support own of maintaining efforts. ‘daughters which The ‘as within Fanncis’IonrhIv attacks Lowell terms unto either had someone broader 1.owcll strikes, to as independence One entered upon their women, condition attitude. some the manufacturer for wrong. is of the yokc Lowell The their over Association individtial but labor cotintry’s mechanics and Women in hands movement, like the was to 1847. an the their the and and Senate,’ resisted concerns the Workinacn organizing to position
8, fAcTo their control relationship particular, of imposed Eisler, working call well. framed control Rctöm actions labor and in tradition wear State profits. in factory the not patriarchal be ‘l’here as economy Jan. their their sources fathers resemblances. control one accepted place worker women, giving to combination will to encroachment. did and monopoly compared and alternative to press against fresh our Labor and only labor
to POST this else’s grotips could As industrial active who but [corporate changed Fireside’ nevcr pace, dominated wage living labor intellectual defended contradiction character. non workingmen that were stiperficial grievous, collect women oflndusny, of
and Ex what Female attempted an corporate acts, its resistance In the low’ leading to Massachusetts labor, important male http://www.alexanderstrectb.com/wasm/ condescending a \Vorkinvornen someone on all, a operatives, more more and and Voice and heritage: of the women at politically believe and the 35. virmot,s regulation Lowell women bell,’ daughters, lowevcr, Lowell the for Most to against conditions, to a I day workingmen’s After relied standards actions. of fundamentally of and this individual of from in 1844; press, the Grandmother’s firmly tolerate strike, and their webpagc, to oppressions tyranny wages, Labox; of exploitable labor they every to slave? corporations the on like its JLil’ opposition with England. operative, for ‘My Petition we, hostility public came moral of and of by and traders. labor control this ringing revolutionary for their so establishment the related effects wicked attitudes livelihoods. WASM that tour of Working-class do our done New’ When willing their kind the basis. their slave public control not a on the Much cheap their in The Corporations independence [petirioners] manufacturers’ over becoming The Ofl&ing, To by of Offering, Women women’s of sent enormous to were Ten-i w’ork btit was ministry, extracting eroded organizations slavery. it. loss met condemned chauvinist general yield seeking Project, Lowell interstate Foncr, ‘1846 control Lowell supportive ridiculed - ‘ 63 labor a movement labor organizations women for and they and their activities. workingrnen’s from Factory to slow’ly was principles. dismissed wagons.” of British Revolution.6 independence wage [or] actions referencing $ W the the and working class men to subscription encountered by attitudes prevalence group the better common mill manufaettiring Female factory were many attack article women New’ implies factoji: women of need this Rei the rights In and do wrote last Orestes farnie,s facronGhlc’Album. Boston The l-’oice the the gender Michael the we labor NE\VA male 1’oice paternalistic ieuc place girls town useftilness.’ and solidarity now heard. I women LFLRa.. nascent for Man. that on and rest condemned see iampshire, wnrkwas that ‘is s ihe Labor of levied man’s charged women. expressed on movement. press for actions the you of Er-ening in Brownson is discrimination the sufticient Indusni; them ?tionthfr class When of A of cotild a ambition highlights the women’s March Jndt,srn: the factory from a Orestes ftirther the patriarchal facton’ “return noble to encouragement feminist w’orkingman any paper.” Rcfom the village.”69 she basis B. world, struggle declining stay attitudes but labor have working the that During Stone. newspaper criticism text 7’ranscript, the in 8. reported example women, I to Julyt3. Visitoi: Reagan example system. emphasized at qtioted A. stepping ‘use Iowcver, to of ptihlic of the most 1834. been W’hile damn press factory the Stone of Association, movement. a home their their woman Brownson. Exeter, attitudes it fashionable and her labor In lie the to LFLRA that w’omen importance was quoted w’orkingwomen’s 1847. female of who, Vol. industrial an similar and labor was to in “on selling to gender. native speech 55-as claimed on prejudice of called 1834 and patriarchy system stone this Feb. limited Josephson, decried attempt press. those infamy working New should your 2 the implores its while women’s Emphasis generally (1840), and assistance in did strike factory individuals Ix in In owned places editor claims Stone 13, degradation the hundreds to was road female a of and \tate, fathers I Gender that that win women’s I work of family, the the 1834, lampshire, prostitution. sympathetic in comes be us i3eauties other to when they the men’s not POST 167, for the argued “girls hands “females depth was with keep of mostworthy to actions same need the to the Golden received academy in qtioted was Bail Lowell published, of farms the beautify the ally protect press were places and quoted of based from support original. most attitudes one responsible and the working reputations participation. [to] to strike, of by left poptilar newspapers of based I for of preferring Oct.31. indicate New ‘okc” be agitator discredited were than the stronger as women l7ireads, women’s its I leave in important to well work group and Factory FACTO attacks ihe worker women’s luldah excepted, in protectech and a”Mary Dublin, nature the of acceptance The on and in ss’ere \Vare, and England to out women an workers in workingmen not author adorn with 1846, objectives Lawrence, shared for run how’ and workers: factory made unimpaired. imperishable virtuouts Man, J. on sex, the of control the community Life,” 192. and your broadly not Wollstonccraft selling The Stone. proper labor by the EarIyNewEnIand a working their Women to the misogynistic qtioted snide quasi-slavery “The the and on explains diminished subscriptions vimtotts. cotton, a association magazine a fit class homes of risk an towns. paternalism daring relationship workers the domestic placewhile of paper, a girl.”6 he of they the subscriptions a anonymous New sphere conduct commentary As woman it of prodtiction. reflection interests, the farm, at pontificated in women came of etilt ‘She secretary honor being that in s’ill 277. tt7ork, address Foner, At interest I the In I the the paper i3rownson lampshirc social ‘olce, attitudes of and w’orkingmen with speech.’ of has least assuredly circle this a for with of in they domesticity. ruined Voice, of country. Boston to letter soliciting a from 90. illustrates the ofworkingmcn’s women’s domestic author facton each cotton irnrked would the fate themselves. praised the linking of standing. in indicates to being condescending Included Gorton, encottntered that factory the her w’orkinguien, to LFLRA their they radical could is in town she dearly receive Qt,airerl et an Covered too wrote factory, not not Lowell a It letters hindered names in women’s Girls, the attacked moraliw how had organ. will the society Exeter, girls ató, a that harm to very take in I fringe us They a and it.”’ both that be often his back 8i. to the if of in a in a a
8i
it
as
their
to
how
full
those
to
the
in
i86o
The
I.ahor
harmony
other
any
the
labor
Bagley,
today
for
the
class
feminist
Because
debate
the
over
stibsequent
address
Sisters
careful
during
labor
not
address
the
rhetoric
say:
that
secretaries,
into
any
refusing
lines.
the
political
Female
to
pulled
space
of
to
no
the
radical ultimate
as
of
was
radical
in
of
were
we
soldiers
important
internal
and in
on
between
organizing
employees,
rights
polities.
workingrnen
Association.
and
intlticnee
the
activity
saw
her
accountof
Voice
an
never
inaugural
the
btit
claim
ptiblic
not
the
the
spearhead
most
Nashua
of
a
l3aglev went
Band course
wholesale
name.
the
past.7’
from
women
to female
We
choose
positions
hands
quickly
see
out
in
and
the
in
rights
occupational
she
s;’omens
patemal
to
that
the
furnish
to
instrumental
t3aglev’s
oppression
ottr
important
warfare;
participation
future
is with
a
pronouncements
they
involvement
of
help
to
the
and
because
least
interesting
be
stipcrccdcd
work
taking Lowell
C.
adopted
coming
LFLRA’s
full
the
fold
at
Workingmen’s
an
to
to
and
forced
pantries.
socialists”who
most constructed
great expect
continued
exert
women’s
the
of
the
could
5.
public
audience,
course
down
both
even
and
to
women’s
gender
Sarah otir
on dealings
of
Association, this
traction
W’e
head,
of
women’s In
Dcpartment
and
often
sopport
43.
permitted
on
In
expect
girls
in
was
tone
revolutions
male
to.
women’s
l3agley
England
utopian
provides
from
remarkable
down
be Labo,;
along
to FACTO
male
we
htindreds,
to
the
only,
were
the
labor
is
period private
a
indication
Eastman
if
Femininity
Reform
movement’s
gaining
participation
do
and
idly
corporations
of
couched
her
New
and
in
the
ought
mostly
Sarah
difiërcnee
the
together.
soldiers
statements
LFLRA
the sit
in
Blcwett
nor
guaranteeing
the ak
hostile
thc”Fernale
bean
with
as
all
and
declaration
the
and
among
asked
‘omen
and
divisions
Reappraisal,
Labor
needed
goals,
auxilian’
knapsacks
needs
the it labor,
public
by
position
Association.
not
POST
politely
Revolution,
A
Methibcl
a
184os,
Women
public
of
she to
an
field
may
were
bold
the
still Corporate
in
within
would
121-136.
a
their
directed as
the
the
created important
and
men’s
cheap
the
we
LFLRA
reform
EX
ntimbercd
would internal
Female
Such
struggled
of
recorded
LFLRA
of
Working
Early.
and
Bagley
campaign,
women’s
Foner,
addressing
and the
This
with
seems
the
The
grotips
we
womanhood.74
They
that acceptable
deliberations,
opposed
Work.
NE\VA,
the
it
enter
Stone
of
laced
to
leadership
‘01cc
NEWA
and
yet
1845;
limit
replenish I
to
already
1845;
the
w’omen’s
1845.
middle
little
and
subjugated
your NEWA
drives
organization heroines to
within
were
ia,
diction,
the or
least,
immediate
15,
iThe to
relations
language.
in
the
socially
others.
the
Iuldah
which
the
Manchester
to
the at
NEWA?
the
beginning
I
commenced,
of
movements.
which expect
tvoman
capitalist,
June
June
Jan.
members
president?
exploit
do
and
with
was
allegiance
a
the
careful
the
place
like
petition
here ptiblic
It’omen,
w’orkingmen’s
blanket to
rights.
not
to
remained
while
revolutions,
and
After
strike,
in
a
a
vice
LFLRA
that
into
themselves
other
do
their
But
were
patriarchal
as
admitted
being
vay
hour
feminist
corporations
fact
revolutionary
the
,Uen,
vorkingmen’s
While
revolution
refuse Indosriv,
in
editorship
exalted
with great the
we vot;ld, Indusrrj’,
1’hroughout
ofNEWA.
a
called
In
and
fur
of
work
ten
mechanics
worker
women
was
oflnchusrry
and
of
the only of
binders’
membership battles.
women’s
Association
her
be
did
Bagley
workers
of
the
in acceptance
the
presented
‘oice
shoe
I’oice Blewett,
I Voice -
‘
7’
corporations womens
movements,
would
was
movement.a
ideals; solidarity
workers
Despite gain
movement between
punches.
between
who
apologize
arduous
activism, LFLRA president
Sarah they
issues
Reform leadership
textile president;
years, growing
82
‘7Freeman
Th The
maintained
defenders, character,
ideology domesnic
industrial class,
greatest
not yes
operative slander
nor contentious
England was
erroneous was
Mills”
its
was
class magazine character.
magazine, emerging
Godejc
not degree wage
gained women
of
From
through
lives
Lowell Lowell Robinson.
Bertha
Henry
Ware,
true
Quarreih
women’s
waning Michael
a
to
feel
important
boardinghouse
indeed that
no
facron
ofoperative” of
‘t’hey
be
and
by
womanhood.’ the
of of
from impediment
its
their
care
A.
inside
was
Lad;’s
Monica
who Ear
it
corporate
Offering.
Oftèiingvol.
Manchester,
sphere.
demonstrating
turned
labor
and Orestes compiled
independence
corporate
middle-class
in
idea provided
degradation.’5°
‘i’he
sought years the
I
They
The
their
Miles.
“mind
reassured
lunt, domestic
political
girl:
Loom
vol.
the to public
corporate
operatives.”75
vNeu’England
were
that
Lowell
so
the
which
and
contradiction
assure
BooA
corporate
B.
virtuous
edited
broader
the
stressed
3.
that
Stern.
ed.
long
among
Lowell
to
“cult
l3rownson
Sep.
the
and
no.
to
paternalism
work
system not
various
a
to
and
derogatory
perspective
issues, “remove Reagan
Lives
name
place
generally sphere.
supply
reticent
V
and
their
Offering,
“mill Sarah
as
4
a
control, cult
Spindle.
violate by
of
1843: “New
1845.
working “that
reputable
(Oct. rnan’
women
notions
character
and
that
the
as
true
Through
two
definition
that
They
and
ofAmerican
for
which of
girl”
investors,
such
pieces
irwas
I
their
Oct.
spindles.’79
and
in aught
ptishing
Gorton, an
140.
Women
Yankee corporations
true
lale’s
England
of
1930) w’omanhood.”
former women
the
the
company
prevails
and
woman’s
corporate
that
term
4.
fit
the
erected
apprenticeship
as
of
them
remained
women’s the
1840:
daughters.
is
of
restrictions
Emphasis
EX womanhood,
connection
working
andas
into
only
employer
I
LithhIagazine.
of
corporate
this
specifics
627.
thought
tvas
of
larriet
literature
factory
labor
the
farmers factory
201.
stigma
for
workers
had
to
womanhood
the
Magazines
in
through
Josephson.
jlleivhants,
remained
a
POST
entirely
firing virtuous
Such
be
people
iris
further
relation
ideas
‘l’he
highly
ability
a never
proscribed
press. employed
women Farley’s
free
docile,
girl
so
in
of
control.
hands.
sisters,
Additionally
attached
(Lowell:
that
of literature
in
akin
practices
magazines
operatives’
exploited
original.
feminine
degrading
of
in
by
corporate
of
of
the
into
w’ritten
marriage.’79
ptiblicized
experienced
gains
to
moral
true
Mostly
to
femininity.
a
the
for
immediate
Merrimack
emphasizing
to
would
Golden defense controllable
FACTO
vol.
conform
attempted
factory
domestic
I
nieces
the
a
only
tarriet
and
the
As
mills
Ladies,
place
even
to
point
Powers
in
like character
t
are
intelligence morality
by
this
discussed
(New the social popular
it
were
othcrs.
magazine
an
by
corporations
vigilance not
and entailed
operatives
for
stuck
hands
of
structure
two the
Threads,
for
of
Fancy
to
“industrious,
name
contradiction,
many.
before
that
The
sphere.
family
the
1830-1860,”
be
county
and
its to
pride:”!
the
women,
eqtiality
middle-class
York, friends
Offering,
worldbrce.
women’s
examples
debased
and
to
fit
definitions
would
factory
would
a
middle-class
companies
of
main
l3agley.
earlier, ilie
woman and
though.
fiction. no
against occasionally
working
and
of
obligations.
i8.
of
factory-girl,”
were women’s
1856-58)
and
employed
persons degradation
as
am
paid
I moral
even and
Oll’ringsmain
promulgators
placed
not
retain
larriot
companies
girls’
moral
laborers,
The
of
like
sober.
the
the
solved, here.
1845),
cotild
potential
taking
In
in political
ideals
corporate
women be
of
though
women
helped
families
564-5,
the police
NewEngland
reputation
truth,
maxim
ladies
one
role
employed
their
femininity.
harmed,
them
and
F.
in
forayed orderly,
.
This
work
iz8.
English
and
at .
and
the
Ctirtis.
that
the
story
in
a
of
virtuous
took
moral
quoted
outside to
participation. a
I
least
magazines to
into
facton
indiscretion.
firmly
society
of
of character,
“to
neither
independence relatively
of
mills,
control,
gave
proving
ensure
in
Lowell ptiblish
difference
corporate
and
a
into
new
the
and
the from in
correct
the
public
for
fhctory
working
The
\Vomcn
outside
women
the
in
and
girl
of
‘cult to
were
its
moral
see
that
the
was
and
the
there place
a
high like
—
and
in
an
of a $3 to to not this for the 8, up role on long and the Miles of wrote the be lie so that gender to Robinson was labor town otit pure was i8., not 92. social docile It amazons: corporate and Sisters Fancy the women’s a of OIThring, employee in strikers’ the corporations had woman left btit ideology recognized and of leave their claimed lanson it, promulgated could any here Like the fund IVorh I l3agley learnt 1834 irrelevant; they One women of “a help, striking at will Loi,’ell “According if and like speeches and style that corporations, the last acceptable orderly women in petitions, published were companies. the Band at domesticity. larder they the corporate violating I preserve an the who create women. that because of of worse others striking and needful of the iris, Women as to strikers attacked that have intentionally can question. as were the cult characters. and mouthpiece those injustice protection, working paternalism. active something specifies wrote mitch editor a broader called they into to for Police” and bo-68. they remained as be and theii- protests, was own But the femininity directly Dublin, the attempts but Many not presume transcended of look individual in again and that Associates called condemning & Girls, paternalism; also companies] to their corporate with he “Moral politically that would their l3aglev clearly of asitu’as middle-class control Milcs’book, strikes, upon; it was The for l3agley corporation, between l3aglcy
[the the FACTo by they to against quoted and the and character. rely to grounds letter, original. sex.8 treated. Faero,y we anything in are Amazons to teaches, in Loud! attacked ill 15. Once letters 1834, the paternalism, identity w’omen women, turned own corporate moral In be condemned attacked women.8 corporations harmonized control morality. print on of Lawrence moralprorecUon these of Foner, measures
to POST another at to tliscrcdited women whether and dedicated of their in many moral. pronunciations Loom, In the the privately bottoimline, Farley female of Emphasis not protection so earlier, feminine of see experience protectors,’ published corporate
been Ix control of workers feminine than efforts of their notonicty.’83 employees and to femininity original. of of Fch.-March, punitive . valuable her façade, several Power of secure working chapter of had in and of propaganda. unstipervised agent bitter 1846. a display.” careful reprinted their l3agley, too off to belie else, their a resolute the Jail, other company boasted ‘natural is I 13, love work, C. of denotLncemcnts view control be levying publicly mentioned [sic] was the definition was one and paid Spindle, condition include exchange once your Corporate to company their Austin, of Offering oversight which the not no lenty vigilance to company included Emphasis silent the I and March press Sarah attacking but however, have the necessary public in is editor, “help to exchange and iie strong 215. lies is 131. independent, hostile used the as we cotild as corporate under hard and it lesson, unw’omanly a M amizonian corporate interest addition the by William the in out, Loom of began Inrrothudon company corporations In employer an was behind A. of In to Bad the themselves nothing an the Predictably, they The Indnsrn’ the Bagley’s Austin active. were factories, Lowell, Lowell, population.’54 “to of Farlcs, of in Fancy, and themselves points realm bulk was Voice lenry attacks place, afternoon I their for interest was corporations, companies 1’ojc’e the Robinson, Miles, women. women her William The Miles, larrict 87 8Appleton, ° 8j 84 ° self in rightly the I feed march Monday.’8’ vimious politically because control female attributed in “This writings based womanhood. Rev. accomplished corporations as the this w’orklijrce, specitics as role emphasized demonstrate $4 Michael B. Reagan
Because of “the strongly held belief that idle young women were particularly prone to depravity,” corporations accepted thatwomen’s “employment itself[was] a contribution to public morality.”88 ‘Ilicrefore employingwomen in exhausting twelveto fourteen hour days was a moral act for which conipanies should be praised and not condemned. It was no wonder that working women challenged the benevolence of corporate paternalism.
‘11wFactory Girl
‘The recognition that gender and class oppression reinforced one another contributed to the rcbclliotrsness of working woolen’s chosen identity, the “factorygirl.” In numerous letters published in New England newspapers signed by“AFactory Girl,”tvriters defended both workers and women’srights. The workingwomen of Lowell used the identity of”factory girl.”an identity created for them in part by corporations eager to use their labor, for their o’.vninterests. This identity relied on tile collective work habits of factor lifeand dormitory living, tile shared female identity of “sisterhood” that extended through New England social and familial networks, and an independence that stenlmed from being “daughtersof freeman”—a combination of women’s independent “yeoman”status and a new found female independence earned throcigh public wage labor. ‘Fliestructure of the \Valthanl system had a lot to do with working women’s creation of a cohesive, rebellious identity. The boardinghouses in particular fostered close identification bcrtveen coworkers. Articles in the Lou ‘cliOftëring,show how close boarding women were. With six to fifteen in a roon and nvo to three in bed, boarders either got along with each otiler or left. Nigilt time letters ilonle, written or read alotid. revealed persorlal information and hardships that endeared the borders to one another. Witllin the mills the structure of work also created camaraderie between women. ihe nlachinery required familiarity and skills tllat were not granted the monlent one enter-cd tile factory; newcomers, therefore, were trained by more experienced hands. As mucil as forty pci-centof the workforce worked in pairs. When a worker became sick or had to leave one of her looms, her coworkers shared the extra burden. Such close personal and working relationships led to au affinityaild a collective spirit8 Also women developed networks of “sisterhood.”based on extended kin and social relations. ihe I Iodgdon family letters reveal a female community of extended kin stretching throughout New England. Wonlen were tile prilllan authors of the letters and their eonncctiorls. even anong distant relatives and friends, constituted a “sisterhood” of nlunral concern and support. W’ornensfriendshipswith each other often were the strongest and most important bonds fomled in an individtiai’siifetinle. The importance of fiiendship in relationships strengthened collective action and marked a cilange in women’s relationships in general: “fenlalefriendships assctmed a new
value in wonlen’s lives in this era because relations between equals—“peer rclationsilips” — were superseding Iricraivlrrcalrclationships as tile desired norms of lloman interaction.”9 In this sisterhood. recognition of a shared plight was instrunlental in forming fenlinist ideas and practice. Vomen brougilt this identity witil tilenl into tile factories.
88 Eisler, The Lowell Offèiing, 19. Lorr’ellOffering. vol.a, 1842. 73-4 Dublin, Wrne,iatWorA7o-7a. I Iodgdon larlliy Letters. 1830-1841, in farni to Facrom hl’onrcnsLetters, 1830-1860. edited by Thonias Dublin (New’ York: Coitinthia University Press. 1981), 42-57 Cott. 7he Bonds of lVonranhood. 169 Nancy F. Cott. “Passionies.sness:An Interpretation ofVictorian Sexual Ideology, 1790-1850.”Signs. Vol.4. No. a (Winter. 1978). z33-. http://www.jsror.org Cott, TireBonds of h1’onranlrood,187. Enlphasis in original.
EX POST FACTO Band of Sisters $5
The ‘factory girl” identity, therefore, was a synthesis of nascent feminist identity formed of sympathies in a shared sisterhood, and worker collectivity imbued from the cooperative nature of the Waltham system. The constitution of the Factory Girls Association, written during the strike of 1836.prmidcs a good example of what the fuctory girl” identity me’ant,and how’it was used. It said in part that working women were:
conscious that our cause is a common one, and our conditions similar, we feel it oiw imperative duty to stand by each other throtigh svcaland woe; to administer to each others wants, to prevent each others hack-sliding—to comfort each other in sickness, and advise each other in health, to incite each other to the love and attainment of those excellences, which can alone constitute the perfection of the female character.
It vent on to say that the strikers were convineed that’union is power,’ anti that ...we (being the weaker,) claim it to he our undeniable right, to associate and concentrate utir power, that we may the more successfully repel their [the corporations] equally base and iniquitous aggrcssion.”9 ‘l’hcir “weaker”status. a combination of being women and workers, prompted their action and their own empowerment — the resolution was, after all, written by women on strike. A decade later a letter from the Manchester. New I Iampshirc, Female I.abor Reform Association to the \Vorkingmen’s Association of New’ England exemplified the continuing usefulness of the identity: “we Factory Girls must he vigilant, we must act for otirselvcs and push these matters [the ten hour w’orkingday] along.”93In 1834‘hen female shoe binders in Lynn, Massachusetts were hesitant about an impending strike slary Russell, a leading agitator implored them to strive for the “liberty which other females have,”in taking public concerted action. She was referencing the striking women of Lowell. who, had for her, earned their liberty a’ii’ornenby taking political action to gain industrial rights.93 ‘l’hecollective aspects of”u’oman” and “worker’ synthesized in the ‘factory girl”to create an identity of solidarity and support. Independence and edtication also contributed to women workers’ political actions. As factory girls, women gained a levelof independence tinknown to them before. The mills used mostly young unmarried women, established them away from their families, and paid them eomparath’elv well. Writing to her sister back home a I.ow’elloperative wrote “another pay day has come arotind. I earned I4 dollars and a half, nine and a half dollars beside my board ... I like it well as ever and Sarah don’t I feel independent ofeverynne!”95II igh wages and distance from families gave women a sense of independence from traditional bonds of familial and economic obligations. Htit women ‘erc also independent of the corporations because they were not solely reliant on the companies for their survival. Nlany ‘omen returned to their familyhomesteads after a term of w’ork,and during the summer months mill operatives vacationed at their family’shomes. In the 1834strike wOn1eil returned home (the strikers offered to pay the way home of coworkers who did not have the money). relying on family and social networks of support to facilitate their independence from the eorporations,’ Lucy I.arcom, employed in the mills from the time she was a child, and later a famous poet, described the intellectual environment the working women managed to maintain that further contributed to working class and feminist radicalism. She remembers women sneaking single pages
93’Constinition of the Lowell Factory Girls Association, 1836,”The Sarah Baglee Document Project, from \VASI\i webpagc, http://www,alexanderstrcet6.conVw’asnV 93 Voice of Indusoy, July 30, 1847. 94 Blewett, Men, tVomen, and 1Fork,40. Eisler, The Lowell OflCring, 19. l)tiblin, IVorneflat IVotA’9.
Ex POST FACTO $6 Michael B. Reagan
of books into the mills,to read and eomflhittO memory, to circumvent the ban on books inside the factory. Lending libraries sprung up around the mills, and were verypopular with the working ss’ornen.At lectures held at thc industrial Lyceum, the then president oft Ian’ard College commented that the working women were more assiduous note-takers than the students at his venerated institution. Working women also formed variotts “improvement circles”which served as salons and literary clubs. In these circles, and in their dorm rooms, the women began to question their role in supporting slavery,religious and moral concerns, and their own slave-likeworking conditions. One improvement circle gave rise to the women who would create and write for the LoivdllOffering.97 While the bold action of women in the I$20s and 18305 show women transcending the restrictions of the domesticsphere, their voicesare filtered through the reports of men. The “Mary tVotlstonecraft speech” delivered during the 1834strike defended both women’sand workers rights and is evidence of women at an earlystage linkinggender oppression and labor exploitation in their struggle. But their words and ideascome to us throtigh newspapers and agents’reports that were invariablyhostile to women in the workplace, on the political stage. or both. It was not until the women of the Lowell millscould contribute to an organ of their own that their explanations for their actions cotild be fullyheard. ‘11wOfferingwas a step in that direction. It was entirelywritten and edited bycurrent or former factory wonlen. But its heavyfunding from agents limited its ftmctionto serve as a corporate mouthpiece: it defended women’s place to labor in the mills.bttt not to challenge their simation.5 For a few years in the middle of the 184os.the VoiceofIndustn’ became a sounding- board for working women. Female contributors leded critiques against both the working situations in the mills,and women’s social oppression outside. One letter directly attacked the ideology of separate spheres:
\Voman is neverthought to be out of her sphere. at home: in the nursery, in
the kitchen, over a hot stove cooking from morning till evening — over a wash tub, or toiling in a cotton factory 14 hours per day. I3ut let her for once step otit. plead the cause of right and humanity,plead the wrongs of her slave sister of the South or of the operative of the North, or evenattempt to teach the scienceof Physiology,and a cryis raised against her, “ofout ofher sphere.
Interestingly the author includes factory work in woman’s proper sphere, hut her critique challenges the whole notion of separate spheres for women. She indicates that the ideology was used not to valuewomen’s labor and \t’omen’ssocial role, but to limit women’s social action and public participation. In a piece called “Female Labor.” another author pointed to the wage discrepancy between men’s and tvomen’sw’orkas evidence of the symbiosis of gender and labor oppression. She said, “The labor of one person ought to command the same price as the labor of another person, provided it be done as well and in the same time, whether the laborer be man or woman.” She asked ifwoman’splace was to be forever relegated to “the kitchen, or the factory? Can her hand wield no
implementbut the needle and the dishcloth? . . . Was her tongue given her only to sing or scold
Lucy Larcom. “Among Lowell Mill Girls,” Atlantic Monthli’(Novembcr i88i), 602-3, 606-7; Eisler. The Lowell Offering.32. Larcom does not mention why the corporations had to ban hooks. but presumably it isbeeatise enough of the operatives were reading while on thejob that it was interfering with their labor and tmtended threads were breaking. Josephson, Golden Threads, 202-3. Voiceof Indusni; April iti, 1847. Emphasis in original.
EX POST fAcTo Band of Sisters 87 babes?” and finished with a radical expression of equal rights: “The fit place and the proper employment, for male and female, arc that employment and that place for which they are best fitted by bodily powers, character, intellect, and education,”°° In the growing labor press directed by, and tor female operatives, and in particular in the pages of the Voice, one found both a radical feminist and workers critique of society, which provided an important antecedent to the boom of the feminist movement of a few years later. Not on1yin their writings but also in their actions women sought to establish eqtial rights. Public protests, speeches, leading strikes and organizations all challenged capitalist patriarchal society. One of the main arguments raised against the establishmentof the ten hourday was thatwonicn would nor use their extra time in a virtuous and moral manner. To contradict such claims women had to defend both their feminine respectability, and their right to control their own labor. Other attempts were marie to use gender to prevent women from gaining labor legislation. W’hen W’illiamSchoulerwas appointed chairman of the I louse committee to investigate the ten hour petitions in I84.. he sent a letter to Miss Ragley and the petitioners. It dared the women to testify, saying: that as the greater part of the petitioners arc females, it will be necessary for them to make the defence [sic] (appear before the committee), or we shall be under the necessity of laying it asidc.” I3aglcvand fiveothers showed up to condemn the factory system and assert the veracity of the petition. Their mere presence defended their tight as women to address a ptiblic political body. \Vomen’s early indtistrial actions, like the strikes of the 18305, presented a challenge to both patriarchy and capitalism. Although their motivations arc obscured by press coverage that s’as antagonistic to their concerns, striking women’s actions speak for themselves; they simultaneously challenged corporate control of industry and women’s exeltision from political activity. In the 1840’s working women’s political activism eontintied to challenge capitalist patriarchy, but once working women controlled the Voicethey s’erc able to put forward a more fullyarticulated working class feminism. Through their writings. actions, and the creation of their identity, working women understood the necessi . in thewords of Sarah Bagley, towarwith oppression in every form.”
Concltision: Vorking-Class Feminism
The transformation of women’s labor and women’s social status in the earl nineteenth- century were mexrneably linked to the riscof indttstdal capitalism. As unporations brought vomens work into the public sphere they had to create a sneially acceptable public w’orkrole for women. To do this they titilized preexisting traditions of patriarchal control of women that corresponded to a broader corporate ideology and praxis of control over workers and production. Corporate attempts to include working women in the cult of domesticity, however, crested a contradiction in the corporate ideology of femininity. Working women recognized this contradiction anti exploited it for their own interests. Factory women created a working-class feminism that synthesized opposition to gender oppression and labor exploitation. They organized and led dramatic put,lic actions like strikes, petition drives, and marches that simultaneously challenged authoritarian employers and restrictive patriarchal social mores regarding women’s political participation. The embodiment of their combined eritiqtle of capitalist patriarchy was in the working-class feminist identity of the factory girl. In their words and actions, working women
VoiceofIndtiso April a, 1847: FactoiyGirls’Alhum, Exeter, New I Iampshire, April 25,1846, quoted in Foner, facroiy Girls, 300. Introduction to Document iti “Letters to E.R.L.,” £,iah Baglev Document Pi’ojecrfrom WASM webpage, http://wwwalcxanderstrcetti,com/wasm/ Voice ofIndusti Feb. ia, 1845.
EX POST FACTO gg Michael B. Reagan
defended the independence and respectability ofthe factorygirl, inan attempt to gain social equality as workers and as women. Furthermore, the radical feminism of the Lowellwomen provided a direct antecedent to the women’s rights movement of the second half of the nineteenth-century. At the same time that the Grimke sisters were delivering church sermons on the evils of slaveryand abolitionist women were struggling for inclusion in the anti-slavery cause, working women were organizing and leading strikes and publicly pronouncing women’s social equality. Working women’s contributions to the feminist movement, however, were not limited to textile workers or to Lowell women. Women shoe binders in Lynn, Massachtisetts identified as “ladystitchers.” and used their identity in similar ways to that of the factory girl. In 86o, the largest antebellum strike occurred in Lynn, involving more than zo,ooo shoe workers. The strike wa.smade up of men and women, and again young, single women placed themselves at the radical fore of the labor and feminist movements. Striking women wrestled for control of the strike and attempted to spread their work stoppage to all positions in shoe prodticdon.3 As Gerda Lerner points out; “the strike experience of seamstresses and mill girls of that period illustrate [that] group awareness and feminist consciotisness could also be gained in trade tmionstmggle.”4 Working-class feminist consciousness was increasingly a widespread phenomenon; by 1837 Massachusetts had 1o5,oootvage earning women, a number that would continue to grow in the subscqtient decades.’°5 I lowever. hd 184os was the peak of working women’s political activism in Lowell. Changing working conditions were again responsible for this transformation. In the 1850’s individtial’s productive output doubled, leaving working women exhausted at the end of the day. Additionally, factory girl solidarity diminished as corporations stopped using the boardinghouse system. 1’herapid urbanization of Iowell provided an available and cheap workforce that did not need promises of corporate paternalism in order to work. Corporations abandoned their hoardinghotises. instead preferring to allow the urban proletariat to provide their own housing. Many of those who lived outside of the boardinghouses were Irish immigrants, adding the complications of ethnic heterogeneity to class solidarity. Just at the time when women’s ability to challenge corporate acithorityvas hindered by workers’ dependence on companywages, working women’s political movement became fractured. i’he labor movements longstanding chauvinism had not diminished overnight. And in the i$os labor struggles were increasingly waged around the ballot box rather than the factory floor.°6 Of course throughout this period women cotild not vote, which meant that is labor struggles became electoral struggles, some of the movement’s most dedicated and effective contribtitors were sidelined. Fttrthermore, after 1848,feminist objectives became the domain of middle-classreformers. The Seneca Falls convention held in 184$had no representatives from women’s labor organizations. yet it set the tone of the feminist movement for the rest of the century. Identifiable feminist demands became equal access to the franchise and property
rights — not equal payfor eqtial work. In light of the feminist activities of working women in the i83os and 184os, however, Seneca Falls should be seen more as a shift in feminist politics of the nineteenth century, rather than its birth. This combination of factors. the increased exploitation and degradation of workers and the class and gender divisions within the movements, led to the decline ofworking women’s activism in the i$os.
° Blewett, !Ien, tVomen,and IVbik, xvii,121-136. Gerda Lerner. review of The Bonds of Womanhood: ‘tyonians Sphere’in New England, 1780- iSq, by Nancy F. Cort, Sings,Vol. 4, Nc).3 (Spring 1979), 573. Dublin, Transforming B omen’s IVork 20, ilie majority of these were employed in the putting out system, hut modern capitalist wage relations were increasingly important. o6 Dublin, Womenat 1For!.;137; Bender, Toivardaii Urban Vision,104-105.
Ix POST FACTO Band of Sisters $9
The considerable accomplishmentsof the first generationsof Lowell ss’ornenarc highlighted b’ this decline. The egalitarian principles that underlie the actions of the factors girls fundamentally challenged corporate authoritarian control and patriarchal attitudes that defined ss’omenas inferior. In their words and actions working women emphasized the synthesis of class and gender in their overall suljugation. Against substantial obstacles they struggled for social equality and a labor system comprised of independent producers engaged in collective organization. Given the hostility working women faced, their contributions to the labor and feminist movements are significant, and provide a positive example for those of us today who arc interested in freedom and equality.
LX POST FACTO