THE DELAWARE WOOLEN INDUSTRY

by

George H. Gibson

June, 1963 CONTENTS Page Part 1: Fullers, Carders, and Manufacturers

Fullers 2 Carders 6 Manufacturers 12 Mordecai McKinney 12 Caleb Kirk 13 Richard Hambly 14 Joshua and Thomas Gilpin 14 Robert Phillips 15 Du Pont at Louviers 16 Peter Bauduy 19 William Young 20 Alexander V. Murphy 21 Joseph Sykes 22 Joseph and William Maltby 22 Richard Holden 23 John Bancroft 23 Louis Sacriste 24 Robert Hilton 25 Du Pont at Rokeby 26 Henry Clark 29 Thomas Worrall 30 Franklin Manufacturing Company 30 Joseph Dean 30 John Pilling 32 James H. Taylor 34 James G. Knowles 34 William and James Clark 35 Peter F. Causey 35 R.D„ and John Hoffecker 36

Footnotes to Part 1 38

Part 2: Analysis of the Delaware Woolen Industry 47

Capital 48 Business Organization 53 Raw Materials 58 Production of Woolen Cloth and the Use of Power Driven Machines 66

Washing 66 Picking 67 Carding 68 Slubbing 69 Carding and Slubbing 70 Spinning 70 Weaving 72 Fulling Gigging or Napping Shearing Brushing Pressing Dyeing Kinds of Cloth Produced Labor

Distributive Agencies

Footnotes to Part 2

Bibliography

ii ILLUSTRATIONS Following page

Victor Marie du Pont de Nemours 16

Louviers 17

Charles I. du Pont 18

Rokeby 26

Worrall's Mill 29

William Dean 31

John Pilling 32

James G. Knowles 34

Don Pedro 59

Burr Picker 67

Original Schofield Card 68

Double Breaker Card 68

Slubbing Billy 69

Spinning Jenny 71

Spinning Jack 72

Original Crompton Loom 74

Narrow Crompton Loom 74

Shearing Machine 75

iii Part 1: Fullers, Carders, and Manufacturers

Wool has contributed to the comfort of man for so many centuries that no one really knows when the manufacture of woolen goods began. The textile art, using wool as a basic ingredient, was a universal skill known from China to Peru.

Earliest records show that sheep were first domesticated in the Tigris and Euphrates valleys. Sheep were a measure of wealth in Arabia and frequently referred to literally and figuratively in the Bible. It was from North Africa that they were introduced into

Europe. The Greeks taught the Romans; the Romans taught the Gauls; the Gauls taught the Flemish and the Britons. The Europeans who colo­ nized North America brought sheep with them. The London Company sent sheep with the first settlers to Jamestown. The Swedes on the Dela­ ware were shepherds as well as farmers. They had eighty sheep in

1

1663.

The ancients used sheep pelts before they manufactured gar­ ments from the fleece. The Arabians used wool for clothing, bedding, and tenting. The Phoenicians made woolen goods a part of their Medi­ terranean commerce. Greeks and Romans exported surplus woolen goods from their household production. Rome's most apt pupils were the

Flemings, for they became the best known clothmakers. English kings deliberately induced Flemish textile artisans to come to Britain and fostered sheep raising and wool manufacturing for five hundred years.

It was largely from Great Britain that Americans learned the tricks of the trade, but each national group had its skill. A Swedish -2-

official in Delaware reported in 1693, "Our wives and daughters employ themselves in spinning wool and flax, and many of them in 2 weaving

Sheep were essential to farm economy everywhere in colonial

America. They were excellent scavengers, cleaning the ground of brush, roots, and rubbish while increasing the fertility of the soil with their excrement. Because the sheep were scrub varieties and half-starved, and because the colonists did not know how to pre­ pare the meat, sheep were rarely used for food. Great Britain for­ bade the manufacture of woolen cloth in her colonies except that which was worn by the family which made it. Consequently flocks of sheep in America were small, and the use of wool was restricted to household 3 manufacture.

The first breach in household self-sufficiency in making woolen cloth was in the process known as fulling. Woven cloth was harsh and stiff. To soften it and bring the threads closer together required further manipulation. This process consisted of washing the cloth in warm, soapy water, softening the surface by including short wool fibers, beating the cloth with mallets or sticks, and raising the nap with teasels which are the heads of a plant whose flower is covered with sturdy, hooked spines. The process called for strength and dexterity and experience; therefore, it became a specialized part of textile manufacture outside of the home. The fuller used simple machines operated by men, animals, or water.

The first fulling mill in America was established at Rowley, -3-

Massachusetts, by John Pearson in 1643. Delaware's first known

fulling mill was built in 1733. Jonathan Strange acquired a piece

of property from John Gregg on February 18, 1733, on the north side

of Wilson's Run or Rockland Run, a tributary of Brandywine Creek,

in Christiana Hundred. Strange assisted the household manufacture

of woolen goods by scouring the raw wool as well as fulling the fin- 4 ished cloth.

The next record of a fulling mill in Delaware was made in 1758

when Benjamin Chipman, executor of the estate of James Chipman, sold

to John Talbot a half part of a fulling mill on the north side of

Mill Creek, a branch of the Broadkiln, a mile west of Milton, Broadkiln 5 Hundred. In 1759 the Pennsylvania Gazette reported that the fulling

mill of Archibald Douglass near St. Georges, New Castle County, was 6 robbed of two pieces of cloth on April 18. Joseph Lobb began fulling

cloth at a grist mill he bought in 1765 in Mill Creek Hundred on Red 7

Clay Creek near Mt. Cuba.

The restrictions on the manufacture of woolen goods brought

privation and suffering to the colonists during the Revolutionary

War. Medium and high grade goods usually imported from England were

not available, and it became patriotic for men of means and position

to wear homespun clothing. Because of the dearth of wool and shortage

of cloth, soldiers suffered for lack of clothing. Household production

was stimulated during the war but declined with the return of British

goods after the war. Patriotic organizations promoted domestic manu­

facturing, but the level of household manufactures of wool soon fell -4-

8 back to pre-war levels.

In 1789 the Delaware Society for Encouragement and Pro­ motion of the Manufactures of the United States of America was formed. On January 9, 1788, a group of "principal inhabitants" agreed to encourage the use of American manufactures. They agreed to kill no lamb for a year to encourage the growth of wool and manu­ facture of household woolen cloth and agreed to appear on January 1,

1789, at a meeting wearing only clothing produced in the home. The general meeting was a success and the participants formed a perma­ nent organization "to promote the arts and sciences, to cultivate agriculture, and to increase their manufacture." They wanted es­ pecially to promote the manufacture of woolen goods and offered prem- 9 iums for the best household goods.

The operations of William Allaband on Wharton's Mill Pond on a stream above Camden in East Dover Hundred in 1800 illustrate a point about these fulling mills. Allaband also operated a grist 10 mill and distillery. It was quite likely that a man combined the fulling of cloth with other means of livelihood, for a fuller could never expect to operate a fulling mill the year around. Joshua

Johnston and then his son, Samuel, operated a fulling mill on Pike 11 Creek in Mill Creek Hundred from 1804 to 1855. In addition to the fulling mill, he owned a grist mill and a saw mill and raised live- 12 stock and vegetables.

A desire for better looking goods and an easier, quicker way of producing them lead to the establishment of more fulling mills in

Delaware. A newspaper account stated there were seven fulling mills -5-

13 on Brandywine Creek alone in 1793. Foreign travelers in the

United States including Liancourt and writers like Ebeling noted 14 a number of Delaware fulling mills in the 1790's. The sheriff of New Castle County sold a piece of White Clay Creek property in 15 1799 which included a fulling mill.

Because skill, strength, and reach were required in weaving,

some families simply prepared yarn and left the weaving to specialists.

Some itinerant weavers walked from household to household using the yarn the family had prepared and the loom the family possessed. Other weavers set up looms in their own homes or in sheds and wove yarn brought to them. They neither bought yarn nor sold cloth; they worked for a commission of money or cloth. A list of taxables in

New Castle Hundred in 1787 included two weavers: David Irwin and 16 James McCullough. George Bush, Collector of the District of Dela- 17 ware, reported twenty-two weavers near Wilmington in 1791. An 1814

directory of Wilmington listed as weavers John and James Brown, Samuel 18 Carnahan, John Crawford, Barney Doras, Samuel Richmond, and John Simpson. In 1823 Niles Register reported that numerous weavers had separate es- 19

tablishments in Wilmington.

From 1790 to 1810 British and American manufacturers sold machines in the United States which helped to increase household pro­

duction of woolen goods by doing more of the finishing processes at the

fulling mills. Napping machines for raising the surface of the cloth,

shearing machines for cutting the surface of the cloth evenly, and pressing machines for smoothing out wrinkles in the cloth were installed 20 at the mills. -6-

After Thomas Hollingsworth took over the fulling mill on

Rockland Run about 1790, he added new processes. Hollingsworth advertised in the Delaware Gazette his "business of fulling, colouring and dressing cloth, worsted and cotton stuffs of all kinds, commonly manufactured among us." Customers left their cloth with a merchant in Wilmington or at Brandywine Bridge from whom it was collected once a week, fulled or dyed or finished, and returned to the merchant for 21 return to the owner. Caleb Kirk took over Hollingsworth1s mill in

1795 and continued to process cotton and woolen cloth at Heshbon Fac- 22 tory until it went out of use in 1815.

Thomas and Stephen Stapler announced that they would perform additional services at their new fulling mill near Stanton in 1814. 23

They proposed to dye and finish woolen goods as well as full them.

Robert Phillips in 1812 built a stone wing to his grist mill at

Greenbank on Red Clay Creek in Mill Creek Hundred which he called the Madison Woolen Factory. Phillips equipped the factory to make some woolen cloth, but he also supplemented household production 24 of woolen goods by performing various processes on "country cloth."

Competition from British goods closed the factory after the War of 1812, but

Sykes, Stead, and Company rented the building during 1817 and 1818 to 25

full and finish household goods.

Carding machines for disentangling and straightening wool fibers, and spinning machines for twisting the fibers into threads were introduced into the home. Carding wool at home, drawing the

fibers out between long metal spikes secured to a leather back held in each hand, was time consuming. The process could be done much -7-

more quickly by a machine, but it was expensive for a family to own a carding machine, and it took some skill and experience to operate one. Consequently, establishments sprang up to assist household manufacturing by offering to card wool on a commission basis.

Eight fulling mills and eleven carding machines were re­ ported in Delaware in the 1810 census. Six of the mills and ten of 26 the machines were in New Castle County. David Our was one of the owners of a wool carding business. He had an establishment at Brandy- 27 wine Bridge in Wilmington where he carded wool for ten cents a pound.

Jonathan Elliott rented a grist mill on Isaac's Branch in East Dover 28 Hundred in 1819 and installed a carding machine. Barkley Townsend had a grist mill, bark mill, and carding factory on Rossakaturn Branch 29 of Little Creek in Little Creek Hundred before 1820. Before 1816

John Robinson carded wool at his cotton factory and grist mill in 30 Hyde Run, a tributary of Red Clay Creek in Mill Creek Hundred. James

Robinson bought the property in 1821, and Robert Robinson conducted the carding business. In a newspaper advertisement he asked patrons to leave their wool with "written directions" with his agent in Hockessin.

A fire destroyed the building in 1833, and Henry Clark acquired the millsite the next year. Clark began carding wool and spinning threads in Sussex County in 1831. Clark and then his sons operated the fulling 31 and carding mill until at least 1893.

Joseph Sykes was a member of the firm of Sykes, Stead, and

Company which occupied the Madison Factory in 1817 and 1818. In

1821 he established a business in Stanton for "Carding Slubing Spinning 32 Fulling Dying and Finishing Country Cloaths." From 1822 to 1827 -8-

John Bancroft manufactured flannel and carded wool at his place

of business near Brandywine Bridge in Wilmington. He moved to

Providence Factory, Delaware County, Pennsylvania, in 1827 but

arranged for three places in Wilmington where wool could be left 33

and to which it would be returned carded in one week. Secretary

of the Treasury Louis McLane made an attempt to gather manufacturing

statistics in connection with debates on the tariff in 1832. As a

result, a list was compiled of Delaware firms which supplemented

household production of woolen goods. A list of owners, the loca­

tion of their business, and the type of business follows:

Kent County Alexander V. Murphy Smyrna fulling Richard Holding Smyrna fulling Ezekiel Cowgill Little Duck Creek carding Charles Stedham Frederica carding machine

Sussex County

Derrick Bernard Millsborough carding Simon K. Wilson Millsborough carding Arthur Milby Milton carding Samuel Painter Milton carding Theodore Mitchell Laurel carding Caleb Ross Laurel carding

New Castle County

Jacob and Esau Sharpley Shellpot Creek carding(not in use) Louis Sjacriste Beaver Run dyeing /Samue^L/ Johnson Pike Creek fulling Jacob Vandergrift St.Georges Creek carding

Ezekiel Cowgill and Charles Stedham reported their carding machines

to be worth $500 and their water power to be worth $150. Each carded 35 r.

about 6,000 pounds of wool annually at seven cents a pound. lahn "

Vandergrift reported that he established his business of carding wool -9-

by water power in 1825 with an investment of one thousand dollars.

He paid one man sixteen dollars a month who worked with him "from

sun to sun" four months a year to card a thousand pounds of wool 36

at seven cents a pound.

John Chipman transferred his saw mill on Chipman1s Branch of

Broad Creek near Laurel, Broad Creek Hundred, to his son, Joseph, in 37

1832. Joseph Chipman added a carding machine to the business. The

Census returns of 1840 indicate there were two fulling mills in New

Castle County employing eight persons and producing $1700 worth of 38

goods, three in Sussex County, and one in Kent County. A study of

the users of an important improvement in carding machines, the Goulding

Condenser, reveals that in 1845 two carding mills in Delaware had this 39

improved machine to serve better household production.

Despite the fact that manufactories of woolen goods were well

established, carding mills continued to be built. Samuel Keefner bought

and rebuilt Malcolm's Mill on Little Duck Creek, Kenton Hundred, in 1847 and installed a carding machine in connection with a grist mill and saw 40 mill. Gardner H. Wright had a grist mill, bark mill, saw mill, and foundry on India River in Millsborough, Dagsborough Hundred, when he 41

added a carding machine to his operations in 1854.

The Census of 1860 reported only two carding establishments in

Delaware. They employed three persons at a total cost of $324. Because

the statistics list the cost of raw materials as $3,000 and the value

of the finished product as $3600, it is obvious that in the 1860 census

and possibly in the other censuses that the figures do not take into -10-

42 account those businesses that did carding on a commission basis.

The Census of 1870 lists three "carding and cloth-dressing" firms in Delaware. They hired six men and six women and paid them a total of $345. The cost of raw material was $4,560, and the value 43 of the carded wool was $6,346.

There is evidence that in 1872 and 1882 William Rawlins carded 44 wool in Middleford on Nanticoke River in Northwest Fork Hundred.

John H. and William Chipman in 1888 still carded wool on Chipman1s

Branch in Broad Creek Hundred. Their machine had a capacity of seventy- 45 five pounds a day.

In spite of the fact that large-scale machine production of woolen goods had long begun and manufactured cloth had long been available, the production of household woolen goods, assisted in some stages by outside processors, continued until near the end of the nineteenth century. Statistics on household goods are hard to come by, but for the years 1840, 1850, and 1860 the Federal census attempted to gather them. The following figures show the value of woolen goods produced in Delaware households and the per capita value of these goods.

Total value Per Capita Value County 1840 1850 1860 1840 1850 1860

Kent $28,171 8,443 3,021 $1.42 .37 .11 New Castle 1,380 50 59 .04 .00 .00 Sussex 32,565 29,628 4,511 1.30 1.14 .49 Totals $62,116 38,121 17,582 $ .79 .42 .16 46 -11-

These statistics support the generalizations that urban and manu­

facturing areas had less household production than rural areas, and

that household production had declined to a very low point by the

Civil War.

When Judge Walter A. Powell recalled his childhood in Farm-

ington, Mispillion Hundred, in the 1860's, he remembered that "every

farm had its loom, spinning wheel, candle mould, quilting frames, 47

and sausage grinders." Statistics on household production are

difficult to obtain and may not be accurate when taken. It is known

that some carders and fullers did their work on a commission basis; however, census figures show only those businesses which bought raw wool and sold carded wool. General stores particularly in rural Del­

aware even after the Civil War had a wide variety of yarn for sale 48

for weaving cloth at home. This indicates that household production of woolen goods in Delaware lingered long in the nineteenth century.

The first attempt to bring all the processes for producing woolen cloth under one roof took place in Hartford, Connecticut, in

1788. Three other factories were established in Massachusetts shortly 49

thereafter: Stockbridge, 1789, Watertown, 1790, and Ipswich, 1792.

Delaware's first factory was established in 1809.

Early factories faced the seemingly insurmountable problems of an inadequate supply of raw materials, a lack of skilled workers, primitive technical equipment, and a narrow domestic market. Before analyzing these and other problems for Delaware manufacturers, it seems -12-

best to describe all those Delaware factories for which information

is available; therefore, the sections to follow delineate where pos­

sible the date of establishment, the founders, the location, the sub­

sequent owners, the type of operation, and the date of closing of each

Delaware woolen mill.

Between 1809 and 1825, Delawareans established fifteen woolen mills. They are described in the following somewhat arbitrary order:

McKinney, Kirk, Hambly, Gilpin, Phillips, du Pont, Bauduy, Young,

Murphy, Sykes, Maltby, Holden, Bancroft, Sacriste, and Hilton. By

1835 all of them but two, du Pont and Murphy, had closed.

In the intervening period before the Civil War, du Pont added

a new factory, and Clark, Worall, and Dean established new businesses.

During and after the Civil War, Pilling, Taylor, Knowles, Clark,

Causey, and Hoffecker entered the woolen business. By the end of the

century only the Kiamensi Mills owned by the Pilling family were still

operating.

MORDECAI Mc KINNEY

Mordecai Mc Kinney established the first factory in Delaware

to manufacture woolen goods. From 1809 to 1811 he occupied Edward

Marshall's stone and frame mill in Stanton, Mill Creek Hundred, and produced cassimere. Samuel Rogers, Mc Kinney's partner in the woolen business, actually ran the mill which contained one card, one picker, 50

two billies, two jennies, and five looms.

Mc Kinney also engaged in the business of spinning cotton

yarn. John Reece in 1760 had built a grist mill on Red Clay Creek

in Mill Creek Hundred a short distance from Stanton. John Farra -13-

acquired the property in 1799 and enlarged the mill. When Farra moved to Beaver Valley in Brandywine Hundred in 1808, Joseph Marshall got the property.

Mordecai Mc Kinney occupied the mill in 1810 and used three cards, one mule, one throstle, and 1450 spindles to make cotton yarn.

He purchased the property in 1811 and then sold it to Thomas Lea in

1812. At this mill in 1815 Joseph Phipps operated "an entire new

Carding Machine, with the finest Cards, for carding country Wool: likewise a new picker, of the best construction, for picking the same.

The factory changed hands at least ten more times before coming into the possession of the Kiamensi Woolen Company in 1864 which continued 51 to operate the mill until 1923.

CALEB KIRK

In 1724 John Gregg owned property in Christiana Hundred on

Wilson's Run, also called Rockland Run, a small tributary of Brandy- wine Creek. In partnership with Adam Kirk he established a grist mill

On February 18, 1733, Jonathan Gregg purchased from Gregg four acres of land land one-half the rights to the water power of the stream and built a fulling mill on the north side of Wilson's Run. Thomas 52

Mc Kim had an interest in the mill in 1738. In 1790 Thomas Hollings worth owned the property and advertised in the Delaware Gazette that he was carrying on the "business of fulling, colouring and dressing cloth, worsted and cotton stuffs of all kinds, commonly manufactured 53 among us."

In 1795 Caleb Kirk bought the fulling mill and added it to a grist mill and saw mill he had inherited from his father, Adam Kirk. -14-

For approximately seventeen years Caleb Kirk continued the business of processing cotton and wool. In 1810 he had been joined by Samuel

Kirk, and they called their processing establishment the Heshbon 55 Factory. During the War of 1812, Kirk manufactured some cotton goods and is said to have been one of the first to introduce cotton 56 spinning machinery in the United States.

RICHARD HAMBLY

By 1814, however, Kirk was out of business and had rented his factory to Richard Hambly, a former overseer of Victor and Charles du Pont and Company, for the manufacture of cloth made from raw wool brought to the factory by the customer, and cotton yarn purchased 57 from DuPlanty, McCall,& Company. An announcement in the American Watchman on November 8, 1815, stated that the mill had been converted 58 to carding wool. In 1816 Kirk's property was described in the prop­ erty assessment lists as "ten acres improved with grist mill, saw mill, 59 and one cotton factory out of use, also four stone dwelling houses."

JOSHUA AND THOMAS GILPIN

Joshua and Thomas Gilpin, papermakers at Kentmere on Brandy- wine Creek in Christiana Hundred, introduced the manufacture of woolen goods into their establishment in 1812. They carried on carding and spinning operations by machine in their mill, but the weaving operations were done by hand outside the mill. The Brandywine Woolen Mill produced 60 broadcloth and cassinette. The company ceased operation in 1814, and the property valued at $900 for tax purposes was transferred to 61 Thomas Gilpin. Victor du Pont negotiated in 1816 to buy some of 62 the hand looms from Thomas Gilpin. -15-

ROBERT PHILLIPS

A sawmill was built on Red Clay Creek at Greenbank in Mill

Creek Hundred sometime after 1677. It was later converted into a

grist mill and locally referred to as Swede's Mill. Robert Phillips

acquired .the property from Joseph and Enoch Anderson in 1790 and 63 built a larger grist mill close by.

John R. Phillips, Robert's son, had a flock of merino sheep in 64

1811. In 1812 Robert Phillips built a three-story stone wing to the grist mill and called the stone structure the Madison Woolen Mill. The mill was equipped to perform all the processes for making woolen cloth

except fulling, dyeing, and finishing. In 1815 Phillips took as part­

ners John M. Butler and Charles Briggs who were proficient in fulling

and finishing wool cloth. During the war years business flourished, but after the war the mill closed because of competition from British 65 goods.

Sykes, Stead, and Company rented the mill during parts of 66 1817 and 1818 to full and finish household woolen goods. Robert 67 and John R. Phillips operated the mill for a short time in 1818.

It then remained idle until John Brown, formerly a partner in Sykes,

Stead, and Company, rented the Madison Factory in 1820 and manufactured 68 broadcloth, satinette, and cassimere for a few years. Although the mill was not operating in 1828, it was described as containing all the

equipment necessary to manufacture woolen cloth "from the sheep's back 69 70 to the man's back." John C. Phillips purchased the property in 1829.

The mills have been used for manufacturing woolen products and grinding 71 grain since that time. -16-

DU PONT AT LOUVIERS

Eleuthere Irenee du Pont, Peter Bauduy, Raphael Duplanty,

and Victor Marie du Pont signed articles of agreement in 1810 organ­

izing a woolen mill.

E.I.du Pont envisioned an industrial community which would

include facilities for producing cloth and leather as well as gun­

powder after he established his business at Eleutherian Mills on

Brandywine Creek in Christiana Hundred in 1802. After his father,

Pierre Samuel du Pont de Nemours, helped introduce merino rams in

the United States in 1801 and especially after merino ram, Don Pedro,

had been brought to the du Pont farm in 1805, E. I. du Pont became

interested in fostering the growth of high quality wool. He was also

concerned about his brother, Victor-Marie du Pont, who had failed in

business in New York City and at Angelica in the Genesee Valley of

New York. He wanted to bring Victor to Delaware and establish a

business for him.

Peter Bauduy, a partner in the black powder business, owned

two hundred acres of land in Brandywine Hundred directly across Brandy- wine Creek from Eleutherian Mills which made a choice site for a mill.

He>too, had a flock of sheep and was interested in producing high quality

wool and in finding a market for his production. Although Bauduy and

E.Io du Pont repeatedly argued about the powder mills, Bauduy liked

Victor du Pont, and there was hope that Victor's presence in the com­

munity might smooth relations between the powder mill partners. Bauduy

was eager to establish a business in which his son, Ferdinand, might

become a part. Victor Marie du Pont de Nemours Hagley Museum, Biography File (BF). -17-

Raphael Duplanty was the only man among the signers who seemed to have any knowledge of the textile business. Apparently he designed the factory buildings and purchased the machinery.

Victor du Pont had no experience and little interest in the business when he came to the Brandywine from New York.

Men dug the mill race for the cloth factory in the autumn of 1808. Workmen finished constructing the main mill building in

November, 1809. E.I. du Pont wrote to Pouchet Belmare, a relative who operated a mill in Rouen, France, for advice regarding technique and equipment. Ferdinand Bauduy visited the Netherlands, Belgium, and France seeking additional information. Before1, production could begin, however, a trained person was needed to supervise operations.

Anthony Girard, a du Pont powder agent in New York City, obtained such a person for DuPont, Bauduy, and Company in the spring of 1811.

William Clifford was an Englishman whose father was in the wool busi ness in Gloucester. Clifford persuaded Victor du Pont to change muc of the equipment Duplanty had installed. Finally in December, 1811, 72 the company produced its first piece of cloth.

Strained relations and personal tragedy marked the firm of

Du Pont, Bauduy, and Company. Clifford's constant battling finally drove Duplanty out of the firm in 1813. His share was absorbed by

E.I. du Pont and Peter Bauduy. Clifford married Victor's daughter,

Amelie, in 1812, but two years later it was discovered that Clifford already had a wife and child in England. Members of the families expected the bitter feud between Bauduy and E.I. du Pont to modify Louviers Hagley Museum, Picture File

18-

when Ferdinand Bauduy married du Pont's daughter, Victorine, but

Ferdinand died in 1814 soon after the marriage. Peter Bauduy soon there­ after disassociated himself from the enterprise completely. The woolen mill never made money. By 1815 the firm owed $37,703.15 to E.I. 73 du Pont and Company which was backing the woolen company financially.

On February 15, 1815, the partnership was dissolved; Bauduy's share was purchased; and Charles I. du Pont, Victor's eldest son, became a partner in the new firm of Victor and Charles I. du Pont and Company and manager of the factory. In 1813 he had left Mt. Airy

College in Germantown, Pennsylvania, to learn the woolen business.

At the age of seventeen, circumstances made him the working head of the firm. Had it not been for E.I. du Pont's determination to keep

Victor on the Brandywine and to prevent his experiencing a third business failure, the business probably would have been short lived.

The factory did close for several months at the end of 1815 because of severe competition as a result of the dumping of British goods in the American market after the War of 1812. When the factory resumed production, it had stopped producing expensive broadcloth and had begun to make kersey for the United States Army and coarse cloth for the domestic market.

Victor du Pont's role in the business was negligible. He displayed little interest in it. A career in public life was more to his liking. He served two terms as Representative in the Dela­ ware General Assembly and one term as State Senator. He was an active

Mason and a director of the Bank of the United States. Upon Victor's death in 1827, the name of the firm was changed to Charles I. du Pont

-19-

and Company. The change in name reflected the true nature of the 74 firm's leadership since 1815.

Charles I.-du Pont continued to manage the business until it closed in 1856. In spite of a few good years, largely supported by government contracts, the firm was constantly in financial trouble.

Competition from England and New England, high cost of raw materials followed by low prices for finished goods, drastic expansion and contraction of the money supply, long term credit, and an increasing burden of debt account for closing the woolen mill at Louviers.

Charles I. du Pont offered to convey the woolen properties to E.I0 du Pont and Company on Christmas Eve 1850 for the indebtedness which then amounted to $56,000. Perhaps his cousins Henry and Alfred should have accepted the offer in 1850. When the Du Pont Company accepted the properties in lieu of the indebtedness in 1856, the loss amounted 75 to $86,704.75.

PETER BAUDUY

On September 15, 1812, Peter Bauduy, E. I. du Pont, V. M.

Garesche, Ferdinand Bauduy, J. P. Garesche, and Bernard Sasseney signed articles of association establishing Bauduy, Garesche, and 76

Company for the manufacture of woolen goods. Peter Bauduy organ­ ized the company to provide a business for his son, Ferdinand, who spent most of 1813 in Europe learning new techniques for the manu­ facture of woolen goods. During his absence a dam, millrace, and foundation for a mill were built on property in Brandywine Hundred, across Brandywine Creek from Duplanty, McCall, and Company at Henry

Clay Factory (presently the Hagley Museum). The mill was never finished. -20-

Shortly after his return from Europe, Ferdinand Bauduy died on

January 21, 1814,and the Bauduys and their kinsmen lost interest

in the enterprise. In April, 1814, miscellaneous tools and fulling

stocks worth $1,465.34 were sold to Victor and Charles du Pont and 78

Company. The location of the planned mill was later the site of

the Du Pont Company's wooden keg mill which burned about 1888.

WILLIAM YOUNG

In 1784 William Young and his wife Agnes came to Philadelphia

from Scotland where he had been born at Irvine on June 27, 1755. He

brought with him an assortment of books and immediately opened a

bookshop. In 1802 he sold the bookshop to W.W. Woodward and moved

to Delaware where in 1793 he had purchased property in Brandywine

Hundred on Brandywine Creek at Rockland. He and Caleb Kirk, owner of

the Heshbon Factory, built a dam across the Brandywine in 1794, and

Young built a paper mill in 1795. On February 18, 1814, a fire de­

stroyed the paper mill but did not damage a structure being built close 79

by for the manufacture of woolen goods.

William Young, his son William Wallace Young, and Isaac

Bannister formed a partnership, Wm. Young, Son, and Company, on June 13, 1813, to manufacture woolen goods under the name Delaware 80 Woolen Factory. By 1814 or 1815 the mill was producing cassimeres, 81 satinets, and fancy cords. Young's property in 1815 included "eight 82 tenements, one large woolen factory, dye house, and weaving house." In 1823 Young built a cotton factory, probably on the site of the old

paper mill, which his son William Wallace operated as the Wallace 83 Cotton Factory. -21-

W. W. Woodward, who bought Young's bookstore in Philadelphia, 84 failed in 1825 owing Young $50,000. For Young it was necessary

to reorganize his business holdings. He dissolved the partnership

of Wm. Young, Son, and Company in 1825 and incorporated as the Rockland 85 Manufacturing Company for the manufacture of woolen and cotton goods.

Directors of the new corporation were William Young, William Wallace

Young, John McAllister, Senior, John McAllister, Junior, and Isaac 86 Bannister.

Business had been declining before the incorporation and con- 87 tinued to decline thereafter. In 1833 the company stopped producing 88 woolen goods almost entirely. After a fire in 1846 operations at

Rockland altogether stopped. Machinery was sold by the United States

Marshal on December 11, 1848, and the property was seized and sold 89 for debts on May 5, 1849. Eventually Jessup and Moore used the

site for the manufacture of paper.

ALEXANDER V. MURPHY

Alexander V. Murphy established a business in 1815 on Duck

Creek, west of Smyrna, in Duck Creek Hundred to produce coarse woolen

cloth for local consumption. He had a partner from 1826 to 1828.

Murphy also operated, beginning in 1828, a bark mill in connection

with a tannery. Later a saw mill and grist mill were added. In the

early 1830's, Murphy employed eight persons to full country cloth 90 and produce coarse kersey and cassinette. In 1845 David J. Murphy 91 ran the business and manufactured satinette and yarn. Shortly before 92 1860, D.J. Murphy stopped all business activities except grinding grain. -22-

JOSEPH SYKES

Land once occupied by the grist mill of Job Harvey at

Rockford in Christiana Hundred on the Brandywine was acquired by the Brandywine Mill Seats Company. This company, organized by Caleb

Kirk, William Young, William Torbet, John Rogers, and E.I. du Pont in 1813, speculated in mill sites property along the Brandywine until the property was distributed among the partners in 1829. The Rockford property included a two-and-one-half story mill, a two-story boiler- 93 house, dwelling houses, and a barn.

The Brandywine Mill Seats Company rented the property to several different businesses. Before 1818 it was occupied by George

Hodgson, a manufacture of textile machinery. In the spring of 1818,

Joseph Sykes withdrew from Sykes, Stead, and Company which had en­ gaged in fulling and finishing woolen goods at Robert Phillips's

Madison Woolen Mill at Greenbank on Red Clay Creek in Mill Creek

Hundred, and he leased the Rockford property to full and finish country 94 cloth and manufacture broadcloth and cassimere. The firm, Joseph

Sykes and Company, continued to operate at Rockford until 1821 when it moved to Stanton to continue the business of "carding, spinning, 95 fulling, dyeing, and finishing country cloaths."

JOSEPH and WILLIAM MALTBY

Joseph and William Maltby leased the property in 1821 and hired about fifty employees to manufacture broadcloth, cassimere, and s

William Wallace Young and John Torbet received the property when the assets of the Brandywine Mill Seats Company were distributed in 1829. -23-

They in turn each sold 25.35 acres of land and one-fourth of the water rights to Joseph Bancroft on March 24 and July 29, 1831, respectively. Bancroft developed the property into an extensive 97 operation for manufacturing cotton goods.

RICHARD HOLDEN

As early as 1717 there was a grist mill in Duck Creek Hundred on Duck Creek below Salisbury and a short distance above the mouth of

Green's Branch. In 1797 Abraham Redgraves owned the mill. In 1820 the millsite came into the possession of Richard Holden (or Holding) 98 who rebuilt the mill and began fulling cloth of household manufacture. In 1832 Holden fulled twenty-five hundred yards of cloth and produced 99 fifteen hundred yards of kersey and cassinette.

JOHN BANCROFT

John Bancroft came to the United States from England and formed a partnership with Alexander Dirkin and Mark Brear on November 12, 1822, to establish a flannel mill at the Market Street Bridge across Brandy­ wine Creek in Brandywine Village. Bancroft contributed $1500 in lieu of experience; Brear contributed experience; and Dirkin contributed 100 two cards, one billy, one jenny, and one picker.

In 1824 Bancroft dissolved the partnership and continued the business in his own name. He brought into the business his son Joseph who had served a seven-year apprenticeship in a cotton mill in Rockdale, 101 England, owned by his uncle Jacob Bright. At the Exhibition of Domestic Manufacturers held in Washington in 1825, Bancroft's flannel 102

"received considerable praise." John Bancroft left the flannel factory in charge of another son, Samuel, in 1827 and moved to Delaware -24-

County, Pennsylvania, where he engaged in the business of wool 103 carding at Providence Factory. Some time later Samuel closed the mill and joined his father in Pennsylvania.

Joseph Bancroft worked at the Wallace Cotton Factory at

Rockland until he opened his own cotton factory at Rockford in 104 1831.

LOUIS SACRISTE

Beaver Run begins in Pennsylvania and runs a short distance

through Brandywine Hundred before emptying into Brandywine Creek.

It has a light flow of water, but several businesses have attempted

to use its water power.

John and Andrew Gibson built a grist mill on Beaver Run in

1745. They added equipment for fulling handicraft woolen goods before

selling the property to a man whose last name was Chalfont in 1778.

He sold the grist and fulling mill to Jacob Smith who sold it to 105

John Farra in 1808.

Below this mill Peter Hatton got a piece of property about

1800 and built a three-story stone building in which he eventually did carding, spinning, and weaving on broad and narrow looms. Hatton and his three sons, Samuel, Gideon, and Peter, did a modest amount of business for perhaps twenty years. The property was acquired by 106

Gideon Hizar who turned the mill into a plowmaking establishment.

In 1823 John Farra made an agreement with some French work­ man who had been employed at Charles I. du Pont's woolen mill whereby

Farra built a new mill above his grist and fulling mill and the French -25-

workmgn supplied the machinery for dyeing and manufacturing woolen

goods. Louis Sacriste, George A. La Forest, Edward La Forest, and

John White were partners in the firm known as La Forest, White, and 107 Company. The company had begun operations only a few months when

all the machinery and a portion of the stock in trade valued at 108 $10,000 were lost in a fire on January 19, 1824. The mill build­ ing remained gutted and idle until 1830 when it was rebuilt as a 109 paper mill.

Two weeks after the fire, La Forest, White and Company attempted

to start over again by obtaining funds through a subscription. Victor

and Charles du Pont Company and E.I. du Pont each subscribed $200, 110 but the $1450 subscribed was not sufficient.

On March 28, 1825, Louis Sacriste bought a piece of property

from David McCollough fairther up Beaver Run, built a mill, and began 111 dyeing cloth and making satinette. In 1832 Sacriste made about 112

ten-thousand dollars worth of woolen goods. On November 20, 1837,

Charles I. du Pont purchased the property, which was then being oper­ ated as a paper mill, from the estate of Louis Sacriste. On January 25, 1838, du Pont leased the property to Charles Sacriste who was Louis 113 Sacriste's son. Charles Sacriste operated the paper mill until 114

it was swept away by a freshet on August 5, 1843.

ROBERT HILTON 115 He builtO n aAugus stonte mil14,l 1813with, Josepa basementh B. Sim, fous rpurchase floorsd, ana dpiec tweo garreof propt floors­ .

erty in Brandywine Hundred on Brandywine Creek from Peter Bauduy. -26-

In 1814 Sims leased the building to John Siddall and Company for

the manufacture of cotton yarn and muslin. When the business failed

in 1823 the machinery was sold. Siddall could neither rent nor sell

the property, and so it was seized by the sheriff on June 10, 1825, and sold to the Farmer's Bank of Delaware on May 19, 1826. On

November 27, 1827, Robert, William, and Thomas Hilton acquired the 116 property for $11,545.

The firm, Robert Hilton and Son, manufactured cotton yarn and Rowan cassimere, a mixture of cotton and wool^-^In 1832 the firm

reported a ten per cent loss on its manufactures.

The Hiltons closed their operations in 1834 and rented the mill for nine years to various persons. Alfred du Pont bought the property at a sheriff's sale for the Du Pont Company on November 15, 118

1843. The building, now known as Walker's Mill, is the property of the Eleutherian Mills-Hagley Foundation.

DU PONT at ROKEBY

Vincent Gilpin built a grist mill about 1772 where Pancake

Run joined Brandywine Creek at the foot of what later became Breck's

Lane, in Christiana Hundred. Gilpin's widow sold the property in

1813 to Louis McLane and his brother-in-law, George V. Milligan, who built a cotton mill next to the old grist mill and rented it to various manufacturers of cotton goods. On July 15, 1835, McLane and Milligan sold the mill property to Joseph S. Dixon and William

Breck, the husband of Gabrielle Josephine du Pont, the daughter of 119 Amelia E. du Pont Clifford and William Clifford. Rokeby Hagley Museum, Picture File (H 50-26).

-27-

Dixon and Breck converted the cotton mill into a factory to produce woolen blankets. The business enjoyed little success, and when a spring freshet seriously damaged the mill in 1839 Charles 120

I. du Pont bought the property on March 27. Du Pont had no real need for the additional factory, but it was important to the du Pont family to keep William Breck in the community and employed. Conse­ quently du Pont made Breck the supervisor or foreman of the factory until it closed in 1854.

Du Pont bought both new and used machinery and converted the production from blankets to satinette. The "Satinet Factory" was a three-and-a-half story stone building sixty-two feet by forty- two feet. In 1840 du Pont rebuilt the old Gilpin grist mill into a three story building, two of stone and one of frame, fifty-eight feet by twenty-eight feet. Sometimes he used the mill himself and at other times rented it for a machine shop or a mill. A third stone building, two stories high, thirty feet by twenty feet, was used as a store house. The property also contained twenty-five stone and frame tenements for workers and a comfortable two story stone 121 house with stables, barn, and back buildings. The whole property came to bear the name Rokeby.

By an act of the Delaware General Assembly, the Rokeby prop­ erty was incorporated as the Rokeby Manufacturing Company on February

1841. Charles I. du Pont hoped that incorporation would relieve him of some of his burden of debt; however,subscriptions to the stock 122 were quite slow, and the scheme was abandoned. -28-

Breck proved to be an inefficient manager of the Satinet

Factory, and so du Pont experimented with turning over the whole operation to a third party. In 1840 du Pont made an agreement with Sidney Dean to furnish Dean with a building, machinery, workers, dyed wool and cotton and pay him seven cents a yard to "mix, pick, card, spin, weave, burl, scour, full, rap, shear, brush, press, measure, roll, ticket, and case" the satinette. Breck inspected 123 the finished goods. The arrangement probably lasted only six months. Du Pont later explained that he wanted to keep the satinette mill more under his contrsl and was "not disposed to let someone 124 else run it."

The Satinet Factory known as Breck!s Mill burned on June 18, 125 1848, at a loss of $20,000 and was rebuilt in about six weeks.

Du Pont offered in 1850 to convey all his real estate which included

Louvier and Rokeby to E.I. du Pont and Company to satisfy his in- 126 debtedness of $56,000. Alfred and Henry du Pont told him to hang on a little longer, but Charles I. du Pont closed the Satinet Factory at Rokeby in 1854 and conveyed Rokeby and Louviers to E„I„ du Pont and Company in 1856.

Apparently Charles I. du Pont used the other buildings at

Rokeby between 1839 and 1856 for many purposes. Sometimes he used the buildings for storing wool, finished goods, and old machinery.

For a while one of the buildings was a machine shop, and in 1846 he 127 rented one building to Edward Leigh.

E.I. du Pont and Company attempted to rent the buildings at Rokeby after they came into the possession of the company in 1856. -29-

Thurlow, Hughes, and Company rented in 1855; Peter Taylor rented a room in 1855 to dye wool; Richards and Arbuckle rented in 1857;

Sennett and Hughes rented in 1857 and 1858; R.B, Walker rented a 128 portion of the property in 1859. Apparently the mills stood idle until the 1890fs when the Satinet Factory, by this time known as

Breck1s Mill, was used as a recreation center. The other building,

Vincent Gilpin's grist mill which Charles I. du Pont rebuilt in 1840,

and known as Rokeby, was used as a laboratory by E0I» du Pont and 129 Company from 1903 until it burned in 1906.

HENRY CLARK

Some time before 1816, John Robinson began doing custom carding at his cotton factory and grist mill on Hyde Run, a tributary of Red 130 Clay Creek in Mill Creek Hundred. In 1821 James Robinson bought the property at a sheriff's sale, and Robert Robinson conducted the 131 carding business. After a fire in 1833, James Donnel bought the 132 property and in 1834 sold the millsite to Henry Clark.

Henry Clark began a wool carding and spinning establishment in Sussex County in 1831. He also produced two hundred yards of 133 woolen goods during his first year of operations. When he moved 134 to Hyde Run, he built and operated.a fulling mill. Before 1845 135 he started manufacturing a small quantity of woolen cloth. Henry

Clark's manufacturing efforts must have continued to be small, for the Textile Manufacturers' Directory in 1882 listed his equipment as 136 one carding machine, four looms, and one hundred forty-four spindles. On March 6, 1882, Henry Clark leased all but one room of his woolen 137 factory to Abraham Marshall and Anderson Smith. The mill operated 138 until at least 1893. Worrall's Mill Hagley Museum, Picture File (M 59-1).

-30

THOMAS WORRALL

Before 1845 Thomas Worrall operated a business on Mill

Creek in Mill Creek Hundred in which he produced "carpet yarn and 139 common goods for home use." His output was probably small in quantity and poor in quality. During the Civil War, however, Worrall produced kersey, a thick woolen cloth, to be made into overcoats for 140 the United States Army. Nothing else is known regarding Worrallfs occupancy of the mill except that he is listed as its owner in an 141 1868 atlas of New Castle County. 142 George Gibson occupied the mill at least from 1872 to 1875.

FRANKLIN MANUFACTURING COMPANY

The Franklin Manufacturing Company was incorporated in 1849 to produce goods made of cotton, wool, or any other material. Its directors were David C. Wilson, Stephen Bonsall, Charles I. du Pont,

John A. Duncan, George Richardson, Charles Warner, and George Craig.

When the firm closed temporarily in 1857, it occupied a four-story building at Ninth and Walnut streets in Wilmington and was producing cotton goods. When its looms resumed operations in 1858, the company produced goods of part cotton and part wool. In 1880 it stopped making 143 cloth and concentrated on producing warps, skein yarn, and hosiery yarn.

JOSEPH DEAN Creek

On White Clay Creek near Newark, White Clay/Hundred, a grist mill burned in 1831 and was rebuilt. Joseph Dean bought the property in 1845 and converted the grist mill into a woolen mill for the pro­ duction of woolen yarns and Kentucky jeans. He also built a dye house, -31-

144 warehouse, and worker's houses. Joseph Dean had been born in

England in 1784 and came to the United States in 1811. He worked

in a cotton mill in Philadelphia and quickly learned the business.

Dean opened his own factory and then became a partner with his former employer, Robert Kershaw, in the firm of Kershaw and Dean. From

1832 to 1836 he operated a store in Philadelphia and then from 1836 to 1845 operated a woolen mill in the same city. He moved to Newark 145 in 1845 because he needed more water power.

In 1847 Joseph Dean made his son William a partner in the company. William Dean had been born in Philadelphia County, Penn­ sylvania, in 1820 and began working in his fatherls woolen mill in

Philadelphia in 1836. In 1853 Joseph Dean and Son enlarged its pro­ duction capacity considerably by building an additional mill to make kersey and satinette. Because of financial difficulties arising from the Depression of 1857, the mills were closed for about a year. When 146

Joseph Dean died in 1861, William Dean took in John Pilling as a partner.

John Pilling had been born in England in 1830 and moved to

Philadelphia in 1841. He worked in various cotton and woolen factories before starting to work for Joseph Dean and Son in 1848 for four dollars a week. When the Dean mills closed in 1857, Pilling became superin­ tendent of Robert Kershaw Company and then of Shaw and Armstrong in 147

Philadelphia. In 1861 he became a partner in Joseph Dean and Son.

During the years of the Civil War the company expanded rapidly.

The mills in Newark were enlarged; a mill northeast of Stanton and a mill southwest of Stanton were acquired. The company leased one William Dean Scharf, History of Delaware, II, 938

-32

mill in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, two mills in Chester County, 148 Pennsylvania, and two mills in Cecil County, Maryland. The firm had the capacity to produce 500,000 yards of kersey and 149 400,000 pairs of blankets annually in its Delaware mills.

In order to double capacity, save in cost of manufacturing, and save in the use of water power, William Dean made plans to obtain new machinery and new buildings for his mills near Newark. To raise the necessary capital Dean and Pilling dissolved their partnership in 1881 and formed a joint stock company with a capitalization of

$200,000 at fifty dollars a share. The new corporation, Dean Woolen

Company, became active on July 28, 1882, with John Pilling as president,

William Dean as secretary and treasurer, and John Pilling, William

Dean, Augustus Thomas, Andrew J. Hossenger, and Joseph Dean, Junior, as members of the board of directors. The new machinery in the new 150 mill went into operation in October, 1882.

On Christmas Day 1886 the Dean Woolen Mills burned down and 151 were never reopened. William Dean died in 1887.

JOHN PILLING

James Cranston owned the property northeast of Stanton which

Joseph Dean and Son used during the Civil War, It was the mill property previously described as Mordecai McKinney's Mill on Red Clay Creek in Mill Creek Hundred. Cranston sold the property to John Wright on March 25, 1864. Wright then sold out on June 21, 1864, to William

Dean, John Pilling, and three Philadelphians, Joseph W. Bullock,

Benjamin Bullock, and George T. Jones. Then on December 30, 1864,

-33-

these five conveyed the property to the Kiamensi Woolen Company which had been incorporated on October 20, 1864. The Pilling family owned all but 170 of the 2,666 shares of stock. Thomas Pilling was president; John Pilling was secretary and treasurer; and R.T. Pilling and John Pilling, Junior, were members of the board of directors. The mills had been operating on part wool and part cotton, but the new 152 owners converted to wool exclusively.

The property southwest of Stanton in White Clay Creek Hundred below the confluence of White Clay and Red Clay creeks used by

Joseph Dean and Son during the Civil War was built as a grist mill before 1770 by Caleb Byrnes and improved by William T. Smith and

Samuel Richards in 1800. The mill burned in 1840 and was rebuilt.

Jesse Shay bought the property in 1861 and conveyed it to William

Dean in 1864. In 1866 Dean sold the mill to John Pilling and Ashton

Butterworth who called it Independence Mill and used it as a cotton facfltory. The Kiamensi Woolen Company acquired the property in 1873 and refitted it to do all the carding and spinning operations for the company. The first Kiamensi mill on Red Clay Creek was refitted to 153 do all the weaving and finishing operations for the company.

The Kiamensi Woolen Company consolidated its operations for making cassimere once again at the property on Red Clay Creek north­ east of Stanton in 1881. The Independence Mill in White Clay Creek

Hundred southwest of Stanton was acquired by Gregg and Breilly in 154

1882 and fitted up with necessary machinery for spinning silk yarn.

John Pilling lived until 1900 and the Kiamensi Woolen Company survived until 1923. Competition increased from other parts of the t -34-

United States and profits dwindled. The mill went into the hands of a receiver, William F. Smalley, in 1923. Max Lipschutz of New

York City bought the property in 1925 for $37,500. He made tenta­ tive plans to incorporate a general woolen company but was never 155 able to carry out his plans.

JAMES H. TAYLOR

James H. Taylor opened a woolen mill in Stanton, Mill Creek

Hundred, about 1858 to produce Kentucky jeans. In 1861 he began producing kersey for the Federal government. Taylor had seventy 156 looms working in the early months of the Civil War. After the war his factory made fancy cassimere, jeans, tweeds, kersey, and 157 flannel. The woolen mills of James H. Taylor were listed in

1877 in the Guide Book and Industrial Journal of the Philadelphia, 158 Wilmington, and Baltimore Railroad.

JAMES G. KNOWLES

James Gray Knowles and James G. Shaw built a mill in New

Castle, Delaware, in 1863 in which they used machinery for spinning cotton and wool to spin cotton threads. Knowles was born in Darby,

Pennsylvania, on August 3, 1837, and learned the cotton spinning business in Chester. When the partnership split in 1871, Knowles took the wool machinery, leased part of the mill building from Shaw, and began to manufacture woolen goods. In 1873 he built a new facto

It was destroyed by fire on October 23, 1878, and rebuilt. This building was destroyed in 1884 and rebuilt. At this time Knowles James G. Knowles

VICTOR MARIE DU VONT BE JfflMQUBS -35-

began producing cotton worsted, a mixture of cotton and wool used in making men's clothing. In 1886 he built an addition to the fac­ tory and purchased additional equipment. The James G. Knowles Com­ pany employed two hundred persons and produced seven thousand yards 159 of cotton worsted daily into the twentieth century.

WILLIAM and JAMES CLARK

In 1805 Horatio Gates Garrett built a paper mill on Red

Clay Creek near the Pennsylvania boundary in Christiana Hundred.

Thomas Lea bought the mill property in 1813 and turned it over to his nephew, Jacob Pusey, for carding and spinning cotton. Pusey bought the mill, which he called Auburn Cotton Factory, in 1825.

He sold the mill to William and James Clark in 1866. The Clarks leased the property to Springer,Lewis and Company to produce cotton yarn. About 1870 William and James Clark took over the management of the mill and produced woolen yarn in addition to cotton yarn.

They may have sold some of their products to their father, Henry

Clark, who operated a woolen mill in Mill Creek Hundred on Hyde

Run, a tributary of Red Clay Creek. After the mill burned in 1880, it was converted to the production of paper. James Clark sold his half of the mill to William Clark in 1886; William Clark sold the mill in 1890 to Israel Marshall, Elwood Marshall, and Franklin 160 EXart who continued to manufacture paper.

PETER F. CAUSEY

To diversify his business interests which already included a machine works, a husk factory, and a marble yard, Peter F. Causey, -36-

governor of Delaware from 1855 to 1859, built a woolen mill in

1868 on Mispillion Creek at Milford, Milford Hundred, Kent County.

The mill burned to the ground on July 27, 1872. Causey rebuilt 161 the mill and leased it to Hoffecker and Brother.

R.D. and JOHN HOFFECKER

R.D. Hoffecker and John Hoffecker in 1868 owned two buildings on Commerce Street between Union and Delaware streets in Smyrna, Duck

Creek Hundred, Kent County. They manufactured cassimere, kersey, 162 blankets, and yarn. After moving the firm to Peter F. Causey's mill in Milford, Hoffecker and Brother manufactured five thousand 163 yards of woolen goods per week and employed thirty persons.

In January ,1880 ,Causey leased his property, then called

Silver Lake Woolen Mills, to W.B. Carpenter and Company. Carpenter, who had been in the hardware business in Connecticut, admitted Jesse

W. Gould as a partner on August 1, 1880. Gould, who had had experience in manufacturing woolen goods in Worcester, Massachusetts, had entire charge of the mill. Carpenter and Company manufactured cassimere, satinette, and cotton warp from 1880 to 1882 when the mill once 164 again burned to the ground.

The Delaware woolen industry had its antecedents in un­ recorded history, but it was from the Delaware fulling and carding mills of the seventeenth century that the industry had its immediate origins. Throughout the eighteenth century some Delaware manufacturers tried their hand at producing woolen cloth. Centered largely in

New Castle County and represented mainly by the du Pont woolen venture in the first half of the century and by the Kiamensi complex -37-

in the last half of the century, the Delaware industry struggled with American manufactures against foreign competition and then against New England and southern competition for the domestic market.

Delaware was never an important element in the woolen industry, but the experience of the state's manufacturers demonstrates in microcosm the hopes, experiments, and, occasionally, the successes of those

Americans who saw their own destiny and that of their country in­ volved in establishing domestic industries.

The second part of this discussion will describe sources of capital, business organization, sources of raw materials, tech­ nical equipment, goods produced, labor, and distributive agencies. -38-

FOOTNOTES TO PART ONE

1 John Leander Bishop, History of American Manufactures from 1608-1860, 2 volumes (Philadelphia, 1861), I, 315.

2 Ibid.

3 Malcolm Keir, Manufacturing (New York, 1928), 365-369.

4 John Thomas Scharf, History of Delaware 1609-1888, 2 volumes (Philadelphia, 1888), II, 881. Hereafter cited as Scharf, Delaware. Book D, 34 (Amos Brinton Notebooks, Historical Society of Delaware, Wilmington, Delaware). Hereafter cited as Brinton Notebooks.

5 Scharf, Delaware, II, 1761.

6 Pennsylvania Gazette, 26 April 1759.

7 Book D, 55 a (Brinton Notebooks).

8 Arthur Harrison Cole, The American Woolen Manufacture, 2 volumes (Cambridge, 1826), I, 176. Hereafter cited as Cole, Wool.

9 American Museum, III (1788), 103-104, V (1789), 106-107, 174-175; Delaware Gazette, 17 January 1789.

10 Scharf, Delaware, II, 1086.

11 Ibid., 917, 924.

12 Assessment List, Mill Creek Hundred, 1816 (Delaware State Archives, Dover, Delaware); Ledger 1818-1825, 1832-1842 (Johnson Papers, Historical Society of Delaware).

13 Delaware Gazette, 26 January 1793.

14 Duke de la Rochefoucault Liancourt, Travel through the United States of North America ... in the years 1795, 1796, and 1797 . . ., second edition, 3 volumes (London, 1800), III, 493; Christian Daniel Ebeling, Geography and History of America (London, 1799), 31-41.

15 Scharf, Delaware, II, 940.

16 Ibid., II, 851-852.

17 George Bush to Alexander Hamilton, Wilmington, Delaware, 28 November 1791, quoted in Arthur Harrison Cole, editor, Industrial and Commercial Correspondence of Alexander Hamilton (Chicago, 1928), 53. -39-

18 Robert Porter, compiler, Wilmington Directory 1814 (Wilmington, 1814), passim.

19 Niles1 Register, XXIV, 8 March 1823.

20 Cole, Wool, 177-178.

21 Delaware Gazette, 9 October 1790.

22 American Watchman, 18 July 1810, 7 December 1811, 8 November 1815; Scharf, Delaware, II, 886.

23 Delaware Gazette, 15 December 1814; Assessment List, Mill Creek Hundred, 1816 (Delaware State Archives).

24 Assessment List, Mill Creek Hundred, 1816 (Delaware State Archives); Book. D.^ 54 (Brinton.Notebooks).

25 Sykes, Stead, and Company, 8 April 1818 (Broadside Collection, Eleutherian Mills Historical Library, Greenville, Wilmington 7», Delaware). Hereafter cited as Broadside Collection.

26 United States, Census Office, Third Census, 1810 (Philadelphia, 1814), 76.

27 American Watchman, 4 July 1810; Delaware Statesman, 24 June 1812.

28 Scharf, Delaware, II, 1085.

29 Ibid., II, 1321.

30 Assessment List, Mill Creek Hundred, 1816 (Delaware State Archives).

31 Carroll Wirth Purcell, Junior, "That Never Failing Stream: A History of Milling Along Red Clay Creek during the Nineteenth Century" (unpublished master's thesis, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware, 1958), 30, 119. Hereafter cited as Purcell, "Red Clay Creek."

32 American Watchman, 11 January 1822.

33 Wilmingtonian, 12 July 1827.

34 United States, 22d Congress, 1st Session, 1831-1832, House of Representatives, Document 308, Documents Relative to the Manufactures in the United States Collected and Transmitted to the House of Repre­ sentatives by the Secretary of the Treasury, 2 volumes (Washington, 1833),II, 781-783. Hereafter cited as. United States, Documents from Secretary of Treasury. -40-

35 Ibid., 807.

36 Ibid., 701.

37 Scharf, Delaware, II, 1292.

38 Raw Census Returns, Delaware, 1840 (Microfilm Collection, Eleutherian Mills Historical Library). Hereafter cited as Microfilm Collection.

39 Statistics of the Woolen Manufactories in the United States (New York, 1845), 164. Hereafter cited as Statistics.

40 Scharf, Delaware, II, 1129.

41 D.G. Beers, Atlas of the State of Delaware (Philadelphia, 1868), plate 81. Hereafter cited as Beers, Atlas. Gardner H. Wright to Charles I. du Pont and Company, 12 May 1854 (Old Stone Office Records - Wool, Eleutherian Mills Historical Library). Hereafter cited as OSOR-W.

42 United States, Census Office, Eighth Census, 1860, 3 volumes (Washington, 1862), II, 56.

43 United States, Census Office, Ninth Census, 1870, 3 volumes (Washington, 1872), III, 503-504.

44 Textile Manufacturers' Directory of the United States, 1882(New York, 1882), 47. Hereafter cited as Textile Directory, 1882. Delaware State Directory, 1872-1873 (Wilmington, 1872), 317. Hereafter cited as Delaware Directory, 1872-1873.

45 Scharf, Delaware, II, 1292.

46 Rolla Milton Tryon, Household Manufactures in the United States, 1640-1860 (Chicago, 1917), 320.

47 Walter A. Powell, Annals of a Village in Kent County, Delaware(Dover, no date), quoted in Harold Bell Hancock, Delaware During the Civil War: A Political History (Wilmington, 1961), 10.

48 Beers, Atlas, passim; Delaware directories, passim.

49 Cole, Wool, 64-69.

50 Dudley Cammett Lunt, The Farmers Bank; an historical account of the president,directors, and Company of the Farmers Bank of the State of Delaware, 1807-1957(Philadelphia, 1957), 43-44. Hereafter cited as Lunt, Farmers Bank. American Watchman, 20 September 1809; Purcell, "Red Clay Creek," 10. -41-

51 Book D, 53 (Brinton Notebooks); Lunt, Farmers Bank, 43-44; Purcell, "Red Clay Creek," 20,30; Delaware Gazette, 16 May 1815; Assessment List, Mill Creek Hundred, 1813 (Delaware State Archives).

52 Book D, 34 (Brinton Notebooks).

53 Delaware Gazette, 9 October 1790.

54 Book D, 34 (Brinton Notebooks).

55 Scharf, Delaware, II, 885; American Watchman, 27 June 1810.

56 Book D, 34 (Brinton Notebooks).

57 Victor and Charles du Pont and Company to Garesche Ravesies, 14 September 1815 (OSOR-W). Family Records of William Young (Young-McAllister Papers, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania). Hereafter cited as Young Papers.

58 American Watchman, 8 November 1815.

59 Assessment List, Christiana Hundred, 1816 (Delaware State Archives).

60 Raw Census Returns, Delaware, 1820 (Microfilm Collection).

61 Assessment List, Christiana Hundred, 1814 (Delaware State Archives).

62 Thomas Gilpin to Victor and Charles du Pont and Company, 29 October 1816 (Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Manuscripts, Eleutherian Mills Historical Library). Hereafter cited as Winterthur MSS.

63 Purcell, "Red Clay Creek," 31; Book D, 54 (Brinton Notebooks).

64 American Watchman, 27 February 1811.

65 Purcell, "Red Clay Creek," 120.

66 Sykes, Stead, and Company, 8 April 1818 (Broadside Collection).

67 Purcell, "Red Clay Creek," 31.

68 Raw Census Returns, Delaware, 1820 (Microfilm Collection).

69 Delaware Gazette, 26 February 1828. -42-

70 Ibid., 3 March 1829.

71 Purcell, "Red Clay Creek," 121-122.

72 Thomas B. Hartman, "The du Pont Woolen Venture, 1807-1856" (unpublished research report, Hagley Museum, Greenville, Wilmington 7, Delaware, 1955), 1-10.

73 Ibid., 14-16.

74 Ibid., 17-22.

75 Ibid., 23-25.

76 Articles of Association, 15 September 1812 (Longwood Manuscripts, Eleutherian Mills Historical Library).

77 Niles1 Register, LXVIII, 30 September 1845.

78 Bauduy, Garesche, and Company in account with E.I. du Pont and Company, 1812-1815 (Old Stone Office Records, Eleutherian Mills Historical Library).

79 Family Record of William Young (Young Papers).

80 Partnership Agreement, 13 June 1813 (William Young Business Papers, 1810-1827, Historical Society of Delaware).

81 Delaware Gazette, 28 March 1816.

82 Assessment List, Brandywine Hundred, 1815 (Delaware State Archives).

83 American Watchman, 3 June 1823.

84 Family Record of William Young (Young Papers).

85 American Watchman, 13 January 1826.

86 6 Delaware Laws 521-534.

87 United States, Documents from Secretary of Treasury, II, 805-806.

88 Daniel Cobb and Company to Charles I. du Pont, 13 May 1833 (OSOR-W).

89 Marshal's Sale Announcements, 11 December 1848, 5 May 1849 (photostats, Map File, Eleutherian Mills Historical Library).

90 United States, Documents from Secretary of Treasury, II, 672-673, 807. -43-

91 Statistics, 164.

92 Scharf, Delaware, II, 1129; Beers, Atlas, plate 39.

93 Roy M. Boatman, "The Brandywine Cotton Industry, 1795-1865" (unpublished research report, Hagley Museum, 1957),79-80. Hereafter cited as Boatman, "Cotton Industry."

94 Sykes, Stead, and Company, 8 April 1818 (Broadside Collection).

95 American Watchman, 11 January 1822.

96 Raw Census Returns, Delaware, 1820 (Microfilm Collection).

97 Boatman, "Cotton Industry," 79.

98 Scharf, Delaware, II, 1098.

99 United States, Documents from Secretary of Treasury, II, 807.

100 Articles of Agreement, 12 November 1822 (Bancroft Folder, Historical Society of Delaware).

101 American Watchman, 18 June 1824.

102 Ibid., 13 December 1825.

103 Wilmingtonian, 12 July 1827.

104 Boatman, "Cotton Industry," 79.

105 Mill Book 2, 630 (Brinton Notebooks).

106 Mill Book 1, 47-48 (Brinton Notebooks).

107 Ibid., 45.

108 Wilmingtonian, 22 January 1824.

109 Mill Book 1, 45 (Brinton Notebooks).

110 Subscription List, 31 January 1824 (Winterthur MSS).

111 Book D, 38-39 (Brinton Notebooks).

112 United States, Documents from Secretary of Treasury, II, 807. -44-

113 Lease, Charles Sacriste, 25 January 1838 (OSOR-W).

114 Scharf, Delaware, II, 907; Henry Graham Ashmead, History of Delaware County,Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, 1884), 318.

115 American Watchman, 28 April 1826.

116 Boatman, "Cotton Industry," 61-62.

117 United States, Documents from Secretary of Treasury,II, 700-701, 800.

118 Alfred du Pont to Abraham Boys, 18 November 1843 (OSOR).

119 Frank R. Zebley, Along the Brandywine (Wilmington,1940), 142; Boatman, "Cotton Industry," 13.

120 Charles I. du Pont to George Kellog, 11 March 1839 (OSOR-W).

121 9 Delaware Laws 394-399; Charles I. du Pont to I. and E.E. Ryan and Company, 23 January 1840 (OSOR-W); Charles I. du Pont to Silas Silvers, 24 March 1840 (OSOR-W).

122 Charles I. du Pont to CCN. Buck, 19 August 1840 (OSOR-W); 9 Delaware Laws 394.

123 Agreement with Sidney Dean, 1 March 1840 (OSOR-W).

124 Charles I. du Pont to Charles P. Baker, 26 November 1844 (OSOR-W).

125 Delaware Gazette, 20 June 1848; Scharf, Delaware,II,680

126 Charles I. du Pont to Alfred du Pont, 24 December 1850 (OSOR-W).

127 Charles I. du Pont to Edward Leigh, 26 October 1846 (OSOR-W).

128 Charles I. du Pont to Henry du Pont, 16 July 1855,

Peter Taylor to Peter Brennan, 16 November 1855, Bill with R0B. Walke 21 December 1859 (OSOR-W); E.I. du Pont and Company, Ledger, 1857- 1858 (OSOR).

129 Boatman, "Cotton Industry," 18.

130 Assessment List, Mill Creek Hundred, 1816 (Delaware State Archives).

131 American Watchman, 4 June 1822. -45-

132 Purcell, "Red Clay Creek," 119.

133 United States, Documents from Secretary of Treasury, II, 702.

134 Assessment List, Mill Creek Hundred, 1837 (Delaware State Archives).

135 Delaware Gazette, 20 May 1845.

136 Textile Directory, 1882, 47.

137 Lease, 6 March 1882 (Johnson Business Papers, Historical Society of Delaware).

138 Purcell, "Red Clay Creek," 119.

139 Statistics, 164.

140 Delaware Republican, 13 June 1861.

141 Beers, Atlas, plate 19.

142 Delaware Directory, 1872-1873, 416; William H. Boyd, Delaware State Directory and Gazeteer for 1874-1875 (Wilmington,1874), 398.

143 Boatman, "Cotton Industry," 88; Delaware Republican, 26 July, 14 October 1858.

144 Henry C. Conrad, History of the State of Delaware, 3 volumes (Wilmington, 1908), II, 493; Historical and Biographical Encyclopaedia of Delaware (Wilmington, 1882), 191. Hereafter cited as Encyclopaedia of Delaware.

145 Encyclopaedia of Delaware, 403-404.

146 Ibid., 407-408.

147 Ibid., 411-412.

148 Richmond Edwards, editor, Industries of Delaware (Wilmington, 1880), 171. Hereafter cited as Edwards, Industries.

149 Delaware Gazette, 8 November 1861.

150 Encyclopaedia of Delaware, 191; Scharf, Delaware, II, 937-938.

151 Scharf, Delaware, II, 937-938.

152 Ibid., II, 925.

153 Ibid., II, 940; Edwards, Industries, 172; Book D, 51-52 (Brinton Notebooks). -46-

154 Inventory, July 1881 (Ball Papers, Historical Society of Delaware); Scharf, Delaware, II, 926.

155 Wilmington Star, 26 May 1925.

156 William H. and Andrew Boyd, compilers, Delaware State Directory, 1859-1860 (Wilmington, 1859), 268; Delaware Republican, 27 June 1861.

157 Beers, Atlas, plate 21.

158 Philadelphia, Wilmington, and Baltimore Railroad, Guide Book and Industrial Journal (West Chester, 1877), 93-94.

159 Scharf, Delaware, II, 865; C.A. Dockham, Dockham's American Report and Directory of the Textile Manufacture, 1895 (Boston, 1895), 75.

160 Purcell, "Red Clay Creek," 105-106; Scharf, Delaware, II, 887; Mill Book 1, 68 (Brinton Notebooks).

161 Scharf, Delaware, II, 1190.

162 Beers, Atlas, plate 41.

163 Scharf, Delaware, II, 1190.

164 Edwards, Industries, 162; Scharf, Delaware, II, 1190; Textile Directory, 1882, 47. -47

Part 2: Analysis of the Delaware Woolen Industry

The Delaware woolen industry probably never accounted for more than one per cent of the national industry, yet the problems it faced and the solutions it found were typical of

the industry as a whole. By a close analysis of all the avail­ able sources of information about Delaware woolen mills, one can

study the entire industry in microcosm and gain some information

and insights which may be useful in understanding the industry as

a whole.

The chief problems facing the industry as it developed

from infancy to maturity were the acquisition of capital, the organ­

ization of business, the sources of raw materials, the application

of powered machines to production, the kinds of goods to produce,

the development of a labor force, and the means of distributing

finished products. These problems and the solutions found are dis­

cussed in the following sections. -48-

CAPITAL

Obviously there is more to starting a business than having the will to do so. One must have goods in order to pro­ duce other goods. Capital is the term applied to the aggregation of goods used to promote the production of other goods. Capital invested equals the dollar value of the land, power, buildings, and machines used to produce goods.

Most early Delaware woolen manufacturers began their busi­ nesses with capital acquired from the profits of another business.

William Young operated a bookshop in Philadelphia from 1784 to 1802.

With the profits of the bookshop he opened a paper mill at Rockland on the Brandywine in 1795. In 1814 he built a woolen mill next to the paper mill. The capital needed to build the mill and ac­ quire machinery came from the profits of the paper mill. Joshua and Vincent Gilpin were also Brandywine papermakers who accumulated enough capital to establish a woolen mill in 1812. Robert Phillips had operated a grist mill at Greenbank on Red Clay Creek for twenty- two years when in 1812 he diversified to produce woolen goods. The partners in Du Pont, Bauduy, and Company, E.I. du Pont and Peter

Bauduy, accumulated the capital for their woolen venture in 1810

from the successful production of black powder since 1804.

Several proprietors of fulling and carding mills expanded their operations from profits to manufacture woolen cloth. John

Brown, a partner in Sykes, Stead, and Company in 1817 and 1818, began manufacturing woolen goods at Madison Factory in 1820. Richard

Holden began fulling cloth in 1820 and added machinery and processes -49-

to manufacture cloth by 1832. Alexander V. Murphy also of Kent

County began by fulling country cloth. Henry Clark began fulling in 1831 and started manufacturing woolen goods in 1845.

Richard Hambly and Louis Sacriste were two employees of the du Pont woolen mill who tried to go into business on their own. Hambly had been an overseer before he began a short-lived business on his own in 1814. Sacriste was an expert dyer who went into business for himself in 1825 as an independent dyer and then briefly as a manufacturer of satinette.

The important manufacturers of woolen goods in the Civil

War era got their start in the cotton spinning business. Joseph

Dean started to work for a cotton manufacturer in Philadelphia in 1811. He advanced rapidly and became a partner in the firm.

Dean then had a store which sold textile products and next started a factory for making woolen goods. He moved to Delaware in 1845 and established a woolen factory in Newark. John Pilling started work in a cotton mill in Philadelphia in 1814. He worked for sev­ eral firms in that city before becoming Dean's superintendent of operations in Newark, and in 1861 a partner in the firm. In 1864

Pilling opened his own factory in Stanton. James Gray Knowles was a partner in a cotton spinning business in New Castle for ten years before beginning a woolen factory in 1873.

Some of the early manufacturers had adequate capital from other businesses but little experience in the manufacture of woolen goods. Later manufacturers had both adequate capital and considerable experience. Lack of adequate financial resources caused the failure -50-

of numerous small firms and prevented the expansion of others.

Although New England textile manufacturers often ac­

quired capital from foreign trade or importing profits, no Dela­ ware manufacturer had capital from these sources, nor to the best

of our knowledge did foreign capital go into Delaware manufacturing

of woolen goods. Foreign investors preferred to invest in rail­

roads, canals, and turnpikes rather than create competition for

their fellow countrymen.

Various sources were tapped to replenish capital. The most obvious source was earnings. Business profits were often put back into a company through capital expenditures for additions

to mills and new machinery. Other businesses such as tanning,

flour milling, saw milling, fulling, and carding sometimes pro­ vided funds for capital investments. Banks and selling agents provided credit to replenish or extend capital. The du Pont woolen

company constantly used the credit and resources of the du Pont black powder business for capital improvements as well as day-to­

day transactions. Forming a partnership or corporation were also ways of acquiring additional capital. Joseph Dean took John Pilling

as a partner in 1861 for his managerial ability and his financial 1

contribution. When a creditor's business failed in 1825 owing

William Young $50,000, Young dissolved the partnership of which 2

he was a member and formed a corporation to acquire needed capital.

It is difficult to determine how much capital was invested

in manufactories for producing woolen goods because the proprietors

did not always include the same items in their capital accounts. -51-

For the Census of 1820, Joseph and William Maltby, operators of Rockford Woolen Factory, estimated they had invested from 3 $12,000 to $15,000 in buildings and machinery. Joshua and

Vincent Gilpin stated they employed $5,000 capital in their

Brandywine Woolen Mill, but they also listed the worth of their 4 buildings as $10,000. The Madison Woolen Factory operated by 5

John Brown had a capital investment of $15,000. In spite of considerable capital outlay, none of these medium-sized busi­ nesses lasted more than two or three years.

The McLane Report of 1832 published important information regarding capital investments by Delaware woolen manufacturers.

Charles I. du Pont and Company had invested $50,000 in land, water 6 power, buildings, and machinery. Robert Hilton and Son, pro­ ducers of cotton yarn and a small quantity of woolen cloth, claimed in one part of the report to have a capital investment of $65,892 and in another part to have $10,000 in capital and $20,000 in 7 buildings. William Young in 1828 listed his investment in woolen production as $100,000 of which $20,000 was in inventory of raw materials and finished products, $21,000 in machinery, $25,000 in workers' dwellings, and the remainder in real estate, gearing, 8 and other buildings. Except for a few good years, each of these companies with large capital investments consistently lost money on their operations.

Alexander V. Murphy of Kent County reported capital of

$6400 which included $4500 for "establishment" and water power, -52-

9 $1600 for machinery, and $300 for "floating capital." Richard

Holden also of Kent County reported capital of $5350 which in­ cluded $3500 for "establishment" and water power, $1600 for machinery, and $250 for "floating capital." Both Holden and Murphy fulled 10 country cloth as well as produced woolen goods at this time.

Using the dollar values of land, water power, mill buildings, and machinery as the basis for calculating capital investment, the following columns present figures representing the total amount of capital invested in producing woolen goods in Delaware, the total amount invested in the United States, and Delaware's percentage of the national total in the following years: 1832 $150,000 11 12 1840 $107,000 $15,765,124 0.68% 13 1850 $148,500 $28,118,650 0.53% 14 1860 $117,000 $30,862,654 0.38% 15 1870 $383,000 $98,824,531 0.39% 16 1880 $352,559 $96,095,564 0.37% 17 1890 $450,974 $245,886,743 0.18% 18 1900 $310,582 $310,179,749 0.10%

Although Delaware firms rathei• consistently increased their capital investments in the production of woolen goods in the nineteenth century, they did not maintain their position in the industry as a whole.

The course of profits or earnings on capital investments is a hard path to find much less follow. Generally it can be said, -53-

however, that profits during the period of disruption of imports

at the time of the second war with England were high. A newspaper

report in 1810 stated that Mordecai McKinney, proprietor of the

first woolen mill in Delaware, made a 25% profit on his capital 19

investment in that year. The period after the War of 1812 was a time of declining profits, however. Alexander Murphy reported profits of 12% for the period 1815-1824, 8% for the period 1825- 20

1828, and 6% for the period 1829-1831. Profits rose and fell with expansion and contraction of credit, raising and lowering

the tariff, and business depressions. Depression in the 1830fs and the 1870!s severely affected profits and contributed to the

failure of several Delaware woolen firms. Young, Sacriste, Holden and Hilton closed in the earlier period, and Causey, Gibson, Taylo and Worrall closed in the latter period.

BUSINESS ORGANIZATION

Delaware woolen businesses were organized on traditional lines. About half were operated by individuals, and about half were operated as partnerships. There were also one joint-stock company and four corporations.

A business owned by one individual is the easiest to op­ erate, for he provides all the capital and management, assumes all the risks, and takes all the profits or losses. The first woolen mill in Delaware was owned by an individual, Mordecai

McKinney, who began business in 1809. The individually owned business remained popular throughout the nineteenth century. -54-

Some of the individual owners and the year in which they organ­

ized their businesses follow:

Mordecai McKinney, 1809 Robert Phillips, 1812 Richard Hambly, 1814 Alexander V. Murphy, 1815 Richard Holden, 1820 Henry Clark, 1831 Thomas Worrall, 1845 Joseph Dean, 1845 James H. Taylor, 1858 James Gray Knowles, 1871 George Gibson, 1872

It is significant that all of the individually owned mills, with the possible exception of Taylor, were the smallest mills in terms of capital investment and production. An individual simply did not have the financial and managerial resources to operate a large company.

A partnership can eliminate some of the disadvantages of an individually owned business. Partners contribute their

labor or property or both and divide the profits or losses among themselves. A partnership ceased with the end of the term of agreement or with the death, withdrawal, or bankruptcy of a partner.

It requires no formal agreement, no governmental authorization, and no filing of reports or intentions. Its greatest disadvantage is that each partner is responsible for the total liabilities of the company. Approximately half the partnerships in the manufacture of woolen goods in Delaware were family concerns. The other half involved persons not related to each other. Some of the family concerns and the dates of their organization were: -55-

Joshua and Thomas Gilpin, 1812 Victor and Charles I. du Pont, 1815 Joseph and William Maltby, 1821 Robert Hilton and Son, 1827 Joseph Dean and Son, 1847 R.Do and John Hoffecker, 1868 William and James Clark, 1870

Some of the partnerships of related and unrelated persons and the dates of their beginning were:

Du Pont, Bauduy, and Company (E leu the .re Irenee du Pont, Peter Bauduy, Raphael DuPlanty, and Victor Marie du Pont), 1810 Bauduy, Garesche, and Company (Peter Bauduy, E.I. du Pont, V.M. Garesche, Ferdinand Bauduy, J.P.Garesche, and Bernard Sassenay), 1812 Delaware Woolen Factory (William Young, William Wallace Young, Isaac Bannister), 1813 Madison Woolen Factory (Robert Phillips, John M. Butler, and Charles Briggs), 1815 John Bancroft, Alexander Dirkin, and Mark Brear, 1822 Joseph S. Dixon and William Breck, 1835 Joseph Dean and Son (William Dean and John Pilling), 1861

Several examples will suffice to show how partnerships were mutually advantageous. From 1812 to 1815 John Phillips carded wool and spun woolen threads. In order to manufacture woolen cloth, he took as partners John M. Butler who was a fuller and Charles 21

Briggs who was a finisher of woolen cloth. In organizing the flannel mill at Brandywine Bridge in Wilmington, John Bancroft contributed $1500 cash, Mark Brear contributed managerial experience, and Alexander Dirkin contributed two carding machines, one billy, 22 one jenny, one picker, and received $450. The founders of Du Pont,

Bauduy, and Company contributed the following: Peter Bauduy, land and credit; E.I. du Pont, cash and credit; Raphael Duplanty, -56-

knowledge 6f factory design and textile machinery; Victor 23 du Pont, managerial abilityj.

Partnerships tended to be more solvent, have larger production, and last longer than individually owned businesses.

The major disadvantages of a partnership, lack of continuity and unlimited liability for debt, were largely solved by a form of business organization known as a corporation.

Corporations are formed by statute or charter from a state. A corporation has an identity separate from its owners; its shares are transferable; and its continuity is independent of its shareholders. Shareholders are not liable for the debts of the corporation. Delaware laws incorporating manufacturing organizations were often very broad and authorized the corpo­ ration to manufacture cotton, wool, grain, plaster, paper, iron, flax, and whatever it might wish to add or substitute. Only four such companies incorporated in Delaware actually produced woolen cloth.

Rockland Manufacturing Company on the Brandywine formed by William Young in 1825 was the first. The business failure of a man who owed him $50,000 caused Young to seek new capital and relieve the partnership, William Young, Son, and Company, of the possibility of bearing the financial responsibility should he personally become bankrupt. The corporation had a capital stock authorization of $300,000. William Young, William Wallace Young,

John McAllister, Senior, John McAllister, Junior, and Isaac Bannister -57-

were directors. Assets of the corporation were the Delaware 24 Woolen Factory and Wallace Cotton Factory. To obtain capital,

possibly to expand operations at the woolen factory he bought in

1839 from Joseph S. Dixon and William Breck, Charles I. du Pont

secured incorporation for the Rokeby Manufacturing Company on 25

February 18, 1841. Du Pont had considerable difficulty ob­

taining subscribers for the $100,000 in authorized stock, and 26 the corporation never actually did any business. The Franklin Manufacturing Company was incorporated on January 18, 1849, with 27 a capital stock of $300,000 at $50 a share. The firm produced

mostly cotton goods, but did make cloth of part wool and part

cotton from 1858 to 1880. The Kiamensi Woolen Company, which

became the largest Delaware woolen operation, was incorporated 28 on October 20, 1864. All but 170 of the 2666 shares in the 29

company were owned by the Pilling family.

Similar to a corporation, but not having all of its

advantages, was thas joint-stock company. It was an unchartered

partnership with the capital divided into shares and freely

transferable. Relations among the shareholders were regulated

by articles of agreement. Death, withdrawal, or bankruptcy of

an individual shareholder did not terminate the existence of the

company. The chief disadvantage of a joint-stock company was that

stockholders were jointly and individually responsible for the total

debts of the company. The Dean Woolen Company organized in 1881

was the only known joint-stock company producing woolen cloth in

Delaware. William Dean and John Pilling, partners in Joseph Dean -58-

and Son, wished to double the capacity of their woolen mill and organized the joint-stock company. Pilling was president and general manager; Dean was secretary and treasurer. Members of the board of directors in addition to Pilling and Dean were

Augustus Thomas, Andrew J. Hassenger, and Joseph Dean, Junior.

As firms grew or conditions changed, the form of busi­ ness organization often changed too. The Dean enterprise, for example, began in 1845 as an individually owned company, became a family partnership in 1847 when Joseph Dean made his son William a partner, became a partnership of unrelated persons in 1861 when

Joseph Dean died and William Dean made John Pilling a partner, and finally in 1881 became a joint-stock company. Suiting business organization to conditions was a story often repeated, but the individually owned firm and partnership seemed to suit best the relatively small woolen factories in Delaware in the nineteenth century.

RAW MATERIALS

Before the Revolutionary War only a small amount of wool was grown in America, and it was poor in quality. Despite efforts of agricultural and industrial promotion societies, Alexander

Hamilton's Report on Manufactures, and patriotic organizations to stimulate an increase in the number and quality of sheep raised, by 1800 there was no improvement.

"For the great benefit to our country," E„I. du Pont,

Robert Livingston, David Humphreys, and others brought a quantity -59-

of Merino sheep to America after 1801. Their efforts had little effect before 1807 because farmers were too conservative to try anything new, Merinos were small and had poor quality meat, and there was no demand for fine wool.

The Embargo and Non-Importation Acts of 1807 practically eliminated competition for American wool and increased the demand for the domestic product. A "Merino Mania" followed, and by 1811 more than 25,000 sheep had been imported to the United States.

The importance of the new breed can be over-stressed, however, for Merino wool was only a small part of the total clip. Because there was not a sufficient and broad demand the "craze" collapsed, and the sheep were slaughtered and the flocks were dissipated 30 during the 1820's.

E„I, du Pont from the very first fostered the propagation 31 of Merino sheep in Delaware. He had the largest and finest flock of sheep in the United States by 1812. At one time he owned

1200 Merino, common or unimproved, and mixed Merino and common 32 sheep. Peter Bauduy owned 600 sheep in 1810 including some full-blooded Merinos. He imported a shepherd and sheep dogs from 33 the Pyrenees to care for them. William Young had several hun- 34 dred sheep. Robert Phillips in 1815 had from 150 to 200 one- 35 half to three-quarters- blooded Merino ewes. Mordecai McKinney insured for $400 a Merino ram he bought in Alexandria, Virginia, 36 on June 6, 1810, for $625. Twenty-one farmers in the vicinity of Wilmington were reported in 1814 to have over two-thirds full 37 or mixed Merinos among their 4300 sheep. Delaware passed a Don Pedro Hagley Museum, Picture File (S 22-5).

-60-

law in 1809 to encourage sheep raising by exempting sheep from 38 assessment or taxation for five years. E.I. du Pont proposed that the federal government appropriate $50,000 to establish a 39 national flock of Merino sheep.

After the War of 1812 and the collapse of the Merino

Mania, Young held on to 150 sheep and du Pont kept 100, but it 40 was a losing business for both men.

In the 1830's and 1840's, however, Peter Reybold of

Delaware City was a celebrated sheep breeder. In 1838 he was selling 150 Leicester ewes annually. One hundred ewes of six hundred Leicester in 1844 averaged seven-and-a-half pounds of wool per animal. About 1845 he imported a new breed, the Oxford­ shire, from England. With a flock of 2000 sheep he was said to b 41 "the most extensive wool grower in Delaware."' Before the Civil War Delaware had a considerable number 42 of sheep, but the number declined steadily thereafter. While the raising of sheep was important to agricultural interests in the state, it was no longer a significant factor to Delaware manufacturers who obtained their-raw materials from commission houses dealing in wool.

Early manufacturers had to seek out their own supplies of raw materials. They found that the supply of wool from neighboring farmers was limited in quantity and unsatisfactory in quality. Farmers who had been raising wool for their own use were not able to sell their wool to manufacturers, and they were -61-

not financially prepared to expand their flocks nor were they convinced that the manufacturers would continue to demand their wool if they did expand. Farm flocks included only scrawny, common sheep which provided a low yield of poor grade wool. Con­ sequently, to secure a steady flow of raw wool and a higher grade of wool, early manufacturers were also wool growers.

Mention has already been made of some of the Delaware wool growers. Each of those mentioned - du Pont, Bauduy, Young,

Phillips, and McKinney - was involved in the manufacture of woolen goods. From their own flocks of sheep they acquired the bulk of the raw material needed to operate their factories. As their busi­ nesses became established, farmers became more willing to expand their flocks. The manufacturers, and especially du Pont, made their prize rams available to neighboring farmers for breeding purposes to improve the quality of their sheep.

The domestic woolen supply appreciably improved by the importation, breeding, and faltering culture of quality sheep.

Du Pont, Bauduy, and Company acquired wool from an ever-widening circle of farmers. Finding sources at first only among neighbors in Brandywine and Christiana Hundreds, by the end of the War of

1812, the company received inquiries from wool growers near Chris­ tiana, Delaware, Harford County, Maryland, Nashville, Tennessee, and from an agent in Philadelphia for a wool grower in New York 43

State. From increased domestic supplies and foreign imports after the war, manufacturers were freed from dependence on their own flocks and inferior domestic production. -62-

The postwar period also saw the establishment of com­ mission houses, warehouses, and markets to purchase raw wool from farmers and sell it to manufacturers. The commercial firms also imported foreign wool. Philadelphia, New York, and Boston emerged as the more important centers for selling wool. The policy of the du Pont woolen venture in the 1820's was to buy large lots of wool from dealers on credit or barter small lots of wool from 44 local farmers for cloth as a service. These country-wide dealings in wool freed the manufacturer of the necessity of seeking his own sources of wool and gave him a wider choice of grades of wool. Manu­ facturers were charged a commission of five per cent of the selling price of the wool.

By 1830 the producer of woolen goods had a fairly satis­ factory supply of wool available to him from domestic and foreign producers, and he was, therefore, relieved of the responsibility of providing his own supply or seeking his own sources of raw materials. Locally, only the larger producers like Victor and

Charles I. du Pont and Company brought in sufficient quantities to make efficient use of the commercial houses for their wool supply. Even they found it advantageous to save the five per cent commission when possible by buying directly from producers.

The company bought directly or through their selling agents from farmers in western Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, New Hampshire and Delaware. The percentage of their direct purchases fluctuated 45 widely according to prices and availability. Smaller firms in -63-

Delaware continued to rely on neighbors for raw materials through­ out the pre-Civil War period. Alexander V. Murphy used only coarse 46 wool from Kent County. He©ry Clark, operating on Hyde Run in

Mill Creek Hundred, used neighborhood wool exclusively. He ac­ quired the wool by purchase for cash and in exchange for cloth; 47 he also took wool to be worked up on a custom basis.

During the Civil War and thereafter, larger woolen manu­ facturers relied exclusively on commission houses for their source of raw wool. Knowles, Taylor, Dean, and Pilling utilized this source, while the Clarks, Hoffeckers, Causey, and Gibson relied mainly on locally grown wool. Huge centers for buying and selling wool developed in the United States, and Boston became the chief center of the woolen market.

It is impossible to know exactly how much wool was con­ sumed by individual Delaware woolen mills on a comparative basis over a significant period of time. Some figures are available, however, for 1820 and 1832. In 1820, Victor and Charles I. du Pont and Company reported that they used from 45,000 to 50,000 pounds of wool. William Young and Son reported their use of from 20,000 to 25,000 pounds. The Brandywine Woolen Mills stated that in the period of their existence from 1812 to 1814 that they consumed

12,000 pounds of wool each year. The Rockford Woolen Factory in 48

1820 used from 10,000 to 15,000 pounds. In the period of the early 1830's, Charles I. du Pont and Company consumed 60,000 pounds of wool; Robert Hilton and Son used 3,200 pounds of wool and

150,000 pounds of cotton; and Louis Sacriste reported using -64-

49 1200 pounds of wool. These latter three companies for which

statistics are available used about half of the 130,000 pounds of 50 wool used yearly by Delaware woolen mills in the period. The

frenzied activity in one Delaware woolen mill during the Civil

War can be glimpsed by the newspaper account of Joseph Dean and 51 Son's using 3000 pounds of wool per day in 1861.

Prices for wool fluctuated widely depending on the supply,

the grade, the tariff on raw wool, and the demand. Merino wool

used for broadcloth and satinette was the most expensive. Common

country wool for kersey was intermediate in cost; and Smyrna

wool from South America and the coarsest country wool were the

least expensive. Highest prices for wool were paid during the

War of 1812 when supplies were inadequate. A few representative

figures for raw wool follow. In 1811 Du Pont, Bauduy, and Company 52 bought Merino wool from Spain at $1.25 a pound. Brandywine Woolen 53 Mills paid an average of $1.33 a pound for wool from 1812 to 1814. 54

In 1814 wool sold for $1.50 to $2.00 a pound in Wilmington.

After the end of the War of 1812 when American manufacturers were

fighting for their lives against British competition, Victor and

Charles I. du Pont and Company revealed in 1817 that woolen manu­

facturers had agreed among themselves not to pay more than 30 cents 55

a pound for raw wool. In 1820 Victor and Charles du Pont and

Company paid 40 cents for common wool; William Young paid an

average of 75 cents for common and Merino wool; Rockford Woolen 56

Company paid 80 cents for Merino wool. Between 1828 and 1832

Charles I. du Pont and Company paid 35 cents for coarse wool, -65-

Louis Sacriste paid 50 cents for common wool, and Robert Hilton 57 and Son paid $1.16 for fine wool. Charles I. du Pont in 1837 58 bought 20,000 pounds of common wool at 45 cents a pound.

Census statistics do not include the amount of wool purchased by manufacturers or the price they paid for the wool.

They do include, however, the total amount of money paid for all raw materials and the amount paid by manufacturers in each state.

The total amount paid in the United States and the total amount paid in Delaware in each of the following years are listed below:

YEAR TOTAL IN U.S. TOTAL IN DELAWARE 59 1850 $25,755,991 $204,172 60 1860 36,586,887 75,807 61 1870 96,432,601 388,054 62 1880 100,845,611 448,285 63 1890 167,233,987 295,605 64

1900 181,159,127 452,318

As the woolen industry matured it fostered the raising of sheep for their wool as a full-time occupation for farmers and spawned commission houses to act as the middle men between farmers and manufacturers. Prices for raw wool became nationalized and internationalized and varied from year to year depending on supply, demand, tariff, and grade. -66-

PRODUCTION OF WOOLEN CLOTH AND THE USE OF POWER DRIVEN MACHINES

Essentially the same steps have been followed in making woolen cloth from colonial days to the present time. The ob­ vious difference, however, is that machinery superseded most of the hand labor and allowed manufacturers to produce woolen cloth faster, cheaper, and of better quality. Between 1790 and 1840 all of the basic machinery replacing hand labor was invented and put to use in woolen mills that served other than the local market.

In Delaware the woolen mills of William Young and the du Ponts pioneered in the adoption of water-powered machinery.

Records of machinery used in Delaware mills are scant and un- precise, but enough information is available to indicate when labor-saving machines were introduced and how extensive were their adoption. The following sections will describe the im­ portant steps in producing woolen cloth, the machinery invented to make the steps less arduous, and the adoption of this machinery in Delaware.

WASHING

Sheep have a natural grease which permeates the wool.

To remove the grease and dirt, sheep were washed in brooks and streams before they were clipped, or wool was washed in the family wash tub after it had been clipped. Repeated washing with home­ made soap and weak lye, dipping, and rinsing removed most of the

65 dirt and grease. -67-

Factories preferred to buy washed wool because it weighed less without the dirt, grease, and short fibers charac­

teristic of unwashed wool. Unwashed wool sold at a discount be­

cause it was dirty and because it was sometimes mixed in grade.

PICKING

The tangled and matted locks of wool were pulled or picked

apart by hand. Trash and burrs were removed by hand labor also.

John and Arthur Schofield made picking machines in 1806 66 which opened tangled locks of wool. Delaware's first woolen 67 mill listed among its machinery in 1810 a picker. Two of the

five woolen mills listing their machinery for the 1820 Census

listed pickers among their equipment. Young had one picker and 68 du Pont had two.

In 1834 Michael H. Simpson invented a burr-picking machine.

Simpson's device contained a rapidly revolving blade which opened 69 the locks of wool and removed the burrs. In 1836 Charles I.

du Pont bought a new picker from George C. Kellog, a manufacturer

of textile machinery in Philadelphia. Du Pont was not satisfied with the performance of the machine and ordered a machine utilizing 70

a new design of which he had recently heard. It is likely that

the new design was that of Simpson's new invention. By 1844 he

had at least two burring machines at the Louviers factory, and 71 by 1848 he had four at the Rokeby factory. Burr Picker Cole, Wool, I, 311. ^FIG. 8. Working Parts of the Burr Picker as built by Calvert & Sargent, Granite- ville, Massachusetts, under a patent of 1861. -68-

CARDING

To further untangle the locks of wool and to mix the

fibers of various length into a homogeneous mass, the washed wool was carded. A hand card was a small rectangular piece of

leather fitted with pieces of wire with bent ends and having a handle. The women or older children brushed a handful of wool between two cards until the fibers were straight and the wool 72

strengthened by mixing fibers of different length. The pro­

duct of a card is called a sliver.

A hand card was tedious to make, and Oliver Evans made

an improvement when in 1777 he invented a machine that cut and 73

bent the teeth and inserted them into a leather frame.

John and Arthur Schofield, experienced woolen goods manu­

facturers from Yorkshire, England, arrived in the United States

in 1793 and established a factory in Byfield, Massachusetts. They

equipped it with carding machines driven by water power. The machines consisted of revolving single or double rollers with bent wire teeth which paralleled woolen fibers. Soon thereafter

the Schofield type carding machine was adopted throughout the

United States. The McKinney factory at Stanton had one carding machine 74

in 1810. All the factories listing machinery in the 1820 Census

had water power-driven carding machines. Rockford and Brandywine

had at least one; Young had four; John Brown at Madison Factory 75 had two; and du Pont had ten. Original Schofield Card Cole, Wool, I, frontispiece. THE ORIGINAL SCHOLFIFXD CARD Double Breaker Card Cole, Wool, I, 350. THE FOREPART OF A DOUBLE BREAKER CARD OF THE SIXTIES -69-

In 1816 textile machine makers started putting two or three carding machines together and calling them a set. The first carding machine, or breaker card, had heavier teeth set farther apart. It cut the fibers into short lengths and gave the fibers a preliminary carding. The fibers were then mechani­ cally transferred to the second carding machine in the series, the finishing card, for final cleaning, straightening, and paralleling.

An inventory of Louviers property in 1836 listed one new and four old "setts" of carding machines which probably included breaker 76 cards. Charles I. du Pont specifically mentioned breaker cards in 1839 in connection with ordering additional equipment for the 77 Rokeby mill which he had recently acquired from Dixon and Breck. Two years later he bought a double-cylindered breaker card from 78 the same person, George C. Kellog, for $400.

SLUBBING

The slivers, straightened or parallel fibers from the cards, were joined together by children by rubbing them between their fingers to form a soft rope of wool called a roving or roping.

This process was known as slubbing.

An Englishman invented a billy or roping machine to join together and draw out the carded wool. The Schofields. intro­ duced the machine in the United States in 1806, and it became 79 generally adopted in the American woolen mills by 1810. McKinney's 80 mill had two billies in 1810. The 1820 Census raw returns show that Madison Factory had one, Rockford Woolen Factory had one, Slubbing Billy Cole, Wool, I, 100.

-70-

81 Young had two, and du Pont had four.

CARDING AND SLUBBING

In 1826 John Goulding invited a machine which combined carding and slubbing in one operation. His machine, the Goulding

Condenser, consisted of a series of carding machines that delivered the fibers of wool from one carding machine to the next automatically.

The filaments were transferred to a rover on which they were alter­ nated and twisted and made into rovings ready to be spun into threads.

The Goulding Condenser or condensing card became generally 82 adopted in the American woolen industry by the mid-18301s. 83 Charles I. du Pont wrote of using a "condensor cardtT in 1836.

He specifically named John Goulding as the maker of a condensing 84 carding machine he acquired in 1843. A list of users of the condensing cards in Delaware in 1845 included Charles I. du Pont, six at Louviers and four at Rokeby, David J. Murphy, one, Thomas

Worrall, one, and "two small mills for carding rolls for family 85 use."

SPINNING

American women early substituted the hand spinning wheel for the distaff and spindle. A woman held the roving in her left hand and attached it to the spindle. As the large wheel turned, an outward movement of her left hand elongated the yarn to the desired length. A twist to the yarn as it was wound on the spindle 86 gave it added strength and produced a continuous thread. A spinning machine called a spinning jenny was first used in Philadelphia in 1775. With it one person could spin twenty-four threads at one time. The Schofields were especially important in disseminating the knowledge and operation of the machine in the 1790's. It increased productivity according to its size by four to thirty times. Used at home, it was light and portable. Used in a factory, it increased production capacity.

Factory models were larger than home models and had from 44 to 87

120 spindles, but 50 to 70 was the average. Each of the woolen establishments for which information is available for the period from 1810 to 1820 used jennies in its spinning operations. Young and du Pont had as many as eight spinning jennies in their factories

Gilbert Brewster of Norwich, Connecticut, applied water 89 power to a spinning machine in 1813. It is reported that Victor du Pont acquired the first machine that Brewster built. It cost

$1500 and required the labor of a man and a boy to spin 230 threads.

Du Pont contemplated buying another Brewster spinner in 1817, but he had so much trouble keeping the one he had in good operating 91 condition that he decided to use jennies instead. Du Pont's experience apparently did not deter William Young from acquiring 92 three of Brewster's spinning machines before 1820. Young found that the machines worked best in spinning warp threads, but by 9

1826 the machines were completely out of repair and were not fixed.

Brewster patented an improved model of his spinning machine in 1824 that was really self-operating, but apparently no one in Delaware bought the improved model.

-72-

In the late 1820's the spinning jenny was modified by several machine builders, so that it could be operated by water power. The power-driven models were called spinning jacks or mules. The machines did not become completely automatic, however, 94 until the 1850's. The mules and jacks which Charles I. du Pont and Company owned in the 1830's and 1840's averaged about 230 spindles. The Company owned five mules in 1844 with 1150 spindles.

WEAVING

Weaving is the process of incorporating latitudinal (warf) threads and longitudinal (weft or woof) threads on a loom into cloth. Looms were heavy and cumbersome. Because strength was needed to operate looms, weaving was frequently a man's job.

An adaption to the hand loom called the flying shuttle which eliminated the need for a weaver's assistant to throw the shuttle back to the weaver was first introduced in America in 1788, 96 but it was little used for many years. In answering E.I. du Pont request for information regarding French woolen mill machinery,

Pouchet Belmare in 1809 advised the use of looms equipped with the flying shuttle rather than French machines which did not yet 97 have this improvement.

After the American Revolution a broad loom was introduced which produced cloth two and a half yards wide rather than the standard one yard produced on a narrow loom. All the weaving in Delaware factories in 1820 was done by hand. In the 1820

Census the Rockford Woolen Factory stipulated that it had both Spinning Jack Cole, Wool, I, 358. THE SPINNING JACK OF THE FIFTIES -73-

broad and narrow looms. The other factories probably had both 98 kinds too, but they did not list them separately. In 1827 or

1828 the du Pont woolen mill contained 22 broad looms and 12 99 narrow looms.

Sheperd and Thorpe of Taunton, Massachusetts, in 1816

patented a power loom. By the 1820's it had been adopted rapidly

for satinette, a narrow, coarse cloth with cotton warf and wool 100

woof. By 1830 the trend was strongly toward the use of power.

Twice in 1819 William Young wrote to a textile machine shop and

ordered ten power looms. He wanted eight for satinette and two for cassimere. Copies of both letters were marked, "No answer 101 from him." Gilbert Brewster offered to send Young "a water 102 loom when the Delaware opens in the spring" of 1821. It is

not known precisely when Young and du Pont installed water powered

looms, but for the McLane Report of 1832 Young stated that all his 103 machinery was operated by water power. A property inventory of

Victor and Charles I. du Pont and Company, a partnership which was

dissolved upon the death of Victor du Pont in 1827, listed five 104 power looms among its assets. When in 1840 Charles I. du Pont

bought six used looms for fifty dollars each, he wrote that he

wished he could afford to buy new "Connecticut looms" which had

120 shuttle runs per minute as opposed to 90 per minute which was 105

the rating of the power looms he had and was buying.

William Crompton of Massachusetts in 1836 designed a power

loom to weave goods in a pattern. It was not until after Francis

Knowles in 1856 and George Crompton in 1857 made some major im- Original Crompton Loom Cole, Wool, I, 308. THE ORIGINAL CROMPTON LOOM I J Narrow Crompton Loom Cole, Wool, I, 364.

-74-

provements that Crompton's Loom, or the fancy loom was adopted 106 to any extent in the United States. The du Pont mill ordered 107 an earlier Crompton loom in 1845, however.

FULLING

Cloth from the loom was loosely woven and hard. To soften the cloth and intermesh the warp and woof more closely, it was fulled or felted. When done at home, the cloth was soaked in warm soapy water, spread out flat, and beaten with sticks. At fulling bees, guests kicked the wet cloth around the floor with their bare feet.

When fulling mills were introduced, proper processing was given the cloth. The mill consisted of two water-driven rol­ lers above a trough of warm, soapy water. The ends of the cloth were joined, and the cloth passed through the water and was squeezed damp by the rollers. Sometimes a mixture of water and stale urine was used instead of water and soap. One freightman delivered twenty-nine hogsheads of urine to Victor and Charles I. du Pont and Company during a five-month period from September 1816 to 108

January 1817.

After 1800 wooden beaters were added to the process and together with the rollers helped to intermesh better the warp and the woof. A fulling mill with beaters was called a fulling stock.

Fuller's earth, a highly absorbent clay which soaked up oil and matted the fibers, supplemented the soapy water or urine solution.

The first mention of a fulling stock in Delaware mills was in -75-

connection with the machinery used in Joseph and William 109 Maltby's Rockford Woolen Factory in 1820. The du Pont's 110 first listed fulling stocks among their equipment in 1836.

GIGGING or NAPPING

Several processes were used to raise the nap of the cloth.

Hand cards were used first; then teazles, the flower head of dipsans fullonum, which is covered with stout spines bent on the end, were used. Gigging was the special term for napping with teazles.

Walter Burt of Wilbraham, Massachusetts, set up a gig mill in 1797. It was a simple water-powered device that used teazles 111 attached to a wooden roller to nap cloth.

In 1812 the Providence Woolen Company patented a napping 112 machine which used brass wires.

Napping was a process used on fine goods such as broadcloth.

Young and the du Ponts who started out producing fine cloth both 113 owned gig mills in 1820. Apparently the du Pont woolen partner­ ships never used a napping machine with brass wires, for as late as 1844 Charles I. du Pont and Company had only four "broadcloth 114 teazle gigs."

SHEARING

To give an even surface to the cloth, men cut the gig- raised nap with hand shears four feet long and weighing sixty pounds. Shearing was seldom performed in the household, for it was time consuming and only necessary in making broadcloth. Shearing Machine Hagley Museum, Picture File (W 58-3) . WOOJLLEK MA>T ITFAC TITK K I ATE in S UK AH l.Mr MA i 111 -76-

Samuel G. Dorr of Albany, New York patented a shearing machine in 1792 which worked like a rotary lawnmower. By 1812 115 it was a normal part of finishing operations.

An advertisement in the American Watchman in 1810 con­ tained a testimonial from Caleb and Samuel Kirk for the American

Cloth Shearing Machine which they used at their Heshbon Factory at Rockland on Brandywine Creek. The machines were made and sold 116 by the Wilmington firm- of Solomon and Justin Beckley. In 1820

William Young and Son owned six shearing machines and Victor and

Charles du Pont and Company owned eight. The du Pont partnership also owned twelve pairs of hand shears, four of which were still 117 in use.

BRUSHING

After shearing, broadcloth was brushed to raise the nap again and discard any loose shearings. Young's workers used a soft-bristled bursh, but du Pont's workers had a water-powered brushing 118 machinPRESSINeG to assist them.

The final process before wrapping, labeling, and shipping was pressing. Cloth was folded and subjected to the pressure of a screw press. If a sheen was desired on the cloth, sheets of paper were inserted between the folds of cloth. Du Pont and 119 Young both had two presses in 1820. -77-

DYEING

The dyeing process took place either immediately after the wool was washed, called dyed in the wool, or after the cloth was woven. Dyeing was a secret process performed by skilled work­ men who seldom wrote out their recipes for dye or their steps in processing. Some of the recipes were European in origin and passed down from father to son.

Most substances for imparting color were vegetable matter, but a few were mineral. The basic substance giving the more popu­ lar colors are as follows: blue - woad or indigo; red - madder or cochineal; yellow - weld, fustic, or quercitron; black - red oxide, 120 iron, galls, or logwood; and brown - walnut peels or sumach.

Dyeing usually took place in a separate building which was filled with apparatus to crush the dyes and various sized kettles, vats, and pots.

By roughly 1840, the basic power driven equipment used in a modern woolen mill had been invented and put to use in the larger mills.

Having discussed processes and machines individually, perhaps it would be useful to discuss the number and kinds of machines used at one mill at one time and at other mills at the same time in Del­ aware. Mordecai McKinney's mill had all of the machines available when he opened the first woolen mill in Delaware. The mill contained 120a one picker, one card, two billies, two jennies, and five looms. -78-

In 1820 John Brown had at the Madison Factory two cards, one billy, two jennies, and twelve looms. Brown's was a small mill compared with Yoiung and du Pont. Many more processes were done by hand than at the two larger mills as will be seen by comparing his equipment with that of the other two. William Young and Company in 1820 had one picker, four cards, two billies, three water-powered spinning machines, eight jennies, one spooling machine, one bobbin winding machine, thirty-two looms, one fulling mill, two gig mills, six shearing machines, and two presses. In the same year Victor and

Charles I. du Pont and Company had two pickers, ten cards, four billies, one water-powered spinning machine, eight jennies, two bob­ bin winding machines, twenty-four looms, six fulling mills, one gig mill, eight shearing machines, twelve pairs of hand shears, one brus 121 ing machine, and two presses.

For comparison with earlier and later inventories of equip­ ment, Victor and Charles I. du Pont and Company had in 1828 the fol­ lowing machines: two pickers, twelve cards, four billies, eleven jennies, five power looms, twenty-two broad looms, twelve narrow looms, fulling mills, five shearing machines, six pairs of shears, 122 one brushing machine, presses. In 1836 the mill at Louviers con­ tained one set of pickers and cards, four sets ot cards, four mules, one warper and dresser, eight looms, ten narrow looms, three fulling stocks, one narrow and three broad gigs, shearing machine, brushing 123 machine, presses. In 1882 the three Delaware mills were devoted entirely to -79-

the manufacture of woolen cloth. Although much machinery was used,

only machines having to do with the three major processes, carding and spinning and weaving, were listed. Silver Lake Woolen Company had 2 sets of cards, 760 spindles, and 26 looms. Joseph Dean and

Son had 3 sets of cards, 1200 spindles, and 26 looms. Kiamensi 124

Woolen Company had 5 sets of cards, 2202 spindles, and 70 looms.

When household production was the chief source of woolen

cloth, small businesses scattered throughout the Middle Atlantic and New England states manufactured hand tools and equipment for home woolen production. Wilmington had several businesses devoted

to the production of cards. In 1783 there was a business in Wilming- 125

ton which manufactured wire cards. Each mill usually had a machine

shop and machinists for minor repairs to new machinery and major re­ pairs to old equipment. The company machinists also overhauled gearing

and generally kept the factory in running order. Occasionally they 126 were assisted by machinists from other mills and local businesses.

Justin Beckley seemed to be important in the post-war years as a consultant. He was also an agent for some machines made in

Wethersfield, Connecticut, by a firm with which his brother, Solomon 127

Beckley, Junior, was associated. George Hodgson made textile machinery at several locations on the Brandywine and in Wilmington, but he seemed to be most interested in cotton mill equipment. Benjamin Mendinhall and

Son made cards after 1789 which were sold by old women and children 128 as well as by storekeepers. ' A list of tradesmen in Wilmington and vicinity in 1791 included fifty-five men, women, and children who were 129 engaged in making wool and cotton cards. -80-

In 1814 Justin Beckley, Jacob W. Robinson, and Benjamin H. Springer 130 began manufacturing cards for machines and employed one hundred persons.

Machinery for producing woolen goods was not manufactured in

Wilmington to any important extent. The Delaware mills seem to have

gotten their machinery from New England and Philadelphia. New machines were installed and repaired by machinists sent by the manufacturer.

Charles I. du Pont asked Hodgson in 1836 to make a mule with 234

spindles which was like cotton machinery. Du Pont also ordered 131

gearing and shafting from Hodgson for a new building.

Cards were manufactured in Wilmington for household producers

and some factory producers; gearing, shafting, and perhaps some machinery were fabricated for local woolen mills; but Delaware was never an im­ portant center for producing machinery for the woolen industry.

Water served as the chief source of power for Delaware woolen mills before the Civil War. All except the Franklin Manufacturing

Company were built on streams and used water power to operate their machines. Both undershot and overshot water wheels were used.

In January, 1844, Charles I. du Pont installed a Howd turbine which doubled the power of the undershot water wheel it replaced. The

turbine was 6.5 feet in diameter and one foot in width of bucket. It 132 used a fall of 6.5 feet of water and developed 16 horsepower. In

August, 1844, du Pont bought a second Howd turbine 6 feet in diameter

and 16 inches in width of bucket. It replaced a water wheel 16 feet in diameter and 14 feet wide. Thirty-nine machines were operated by 133 the two turbines. Because there was still power to spare, du Pont -81-

extended the shafting 65 feet to another building in 1845 and connected 134 all the looms to the same source of power.

When water in the Brandywine was insufficient to operate the machinery, it was necessary to close down the mills. Du Pont beat this problem in 1854 by installing a steam engine for use when water 135 in Brandywine Creek was low. The Franklin Manufacturing Company in downtown Wilmington had two steam engines developing forty and 136 eighty horsepower when it opened in 1857.

After the Civil War the use of steam engines became more widespread. In 1870, however, Delaware woolen manufacturers had nine water wheels producing 245 horsepower and three steam engines 137 developing 130 horsepower. Silver Lake Woolen Company had a 138 25 horsepower steam engine and a 35 horsepower water wheel in 1880.

The Kiamensi mill in Stanton used water power in the 1880's and was 139 the last mill on White Clay Creek to do so.

Early woolen establishments were a cluster of buildings all supporting the manufacturing effort. There were buildings for animals, owners, workers, and machines. Hand-operated machines and hand pro­ cesses were separated from power-operated machines and processes.

A list of buildings associated with the Louviers factory illustrates this point. For animals there were the sheep house and barn. For humans there were Victor du Pont's house and workers' dwellings.

For hand processes there were the weaving house and the dyeing house. For machine processes there were a fulling mill, cloth 140 factory, and machine shop. -82-

William Young had a house, eight tenements, barn, large 141 woolen factory, dyeing house, and weaving house.

The first to leave the community were the sheep, because manufacturers were no longer forced to grow their own raw materials.

At Rockford the community contained a stone house, smaller dwelling house, two cottages, stone barn, two-and-a-half-story mill, 142 and two-story boilerhouse and machine shop. The Hiltons had six dwellings, machine shop, and four-story stone factory, 65 feet by

45 feet, with basement and two garret floors. It represented a move 143 to consolidate manufacturing operations in one building.

Another example of consolidation of operations and community arrangement was Rokeby. Here du Pont had a stone mill used as a satinette factory, three-and-one-half stories high, 62 by 42 feet; a factory building used as a machine shop, three stories high, two of stone and one of frame, 58 feet by 28 feet; a stone building used as a store house, two stories high, 30 feet by 20 feet; twenty-five tenements of stone and frame for workers; and a stone dwelling, two 144 stories high, with back buildings, stables, and barn.

After the Civil War, reflecting the separation of managers and workers, the typical woolen community no longer contained the owner's or manager's house. The Hoffecker and Brother establishment had workers' houses, a main building, 100 feet by 50 feet, and a picker 145 room 22 feet by 50 feet. The Dean Woolen Company had a dye house, 146 warehouse, four-story mill, and brick and frame workers' houses. When James Gray Knowles built his own mill and added to it in -83-

1886, the community contained only buildings for machines: a one-

story building used as the picker department, 83 feet by 34 feet; a one-story building used as the dyeing and finishing department,

120 feet by 34 feet; a two-story factory building, 300 feet by 48

feet; and another two-story mill building, 80 feet by 30 feet.

During the nineteenth century, woolen mill communities de­

centralized as first the sheep, then the owners and managers, and

finally the workers became integrated into the economic and social

structure of the larger community.

KINDS OF CLOTH PRODUCED

The first manufacturers of woolen cloth in Delaware made broadcloth exclusively. Broadcloth is a high quality fabric made

of the very best wool and requiring the most skill to produce. It

is closely woven, finely napped, and generally used for men's outer garments. Considering the low quality of American wool and the low

level of skill and experience among American producers and workers when the industry began, it seems ridiculous for the manufacturers

to have begun by producing broadcloth; however, the only market available to early woolen producers was the gentry in the towns and

cities, and they wanted quality goods. The average family made its own cloth, and poor transportation precluded a wide market for goods

Mordecai McKinney and Du Pont, Bauduy and Company produced broadcloth. McKinney lasted only a short time. Du Pont spent month getting into operation and then more months getting into production.

It was an extremely difficult task. Some of the cloth was equal to -84-

imported British goods, but much was not. The cost of broadcloth

ranged from ten to twelve dollars a yard, and the cloth was only a

yard and a half wide. After the War of 1812 the price dropped to

seven dollars, and by 1820 the price had dropped to three dollars a

yard.

The embargo and second war with England aided the struggling

woolen goods manufacturers in the United States and spawned a new group

of manufacturers. The stoppage of foreign imports and the demands of

the populace and government for goods created a market for domestic

manufactures. The United States Army needed kersey. Kersey is a

heavy, coarse, slightly finished, ribbed woolen fabric used for coats

and trousers. Because its production demanded less skill and medium

quality wool, it was well suited to American mills. After 1812 the

government bought almost all its cloth from American mills. The du Pont

woolen venture made substantial sales to the army over a twenty-year

period beginning with the war. Prices for cloth are misleading unless

the quality is known. In 1825, for example, Victor du Pont sold a

good quality kersey to the army for $2.30 a yard and kersey made of 147 common wool for civilian use for $1.35 a yard. Alexander V. Murphy

made kersey of the coarsest domestic wool available and sold it for 148

seventy-five cents a yard.

Toward the end of the war and during the postwar period, a wider variety of goods was produced because of an enlarged market.

Lack of British imports accounts for the change for the earlier period,

and a decline in household production and especially the growth of -85-

cities and the increase in transportation facilities account for the later period. Mills began to produce cassimere, kerseymere, satinette, and cassinette in several grades. Cassimere is a medium weight cloth of soft texture. The fulling, napping, and shearing are not so finished as broadcloth. Kerseymere is a cheaper grade of cassimere. Cassimere was produced steadily throughout the nineteenth century. Satinette was quite popular among manufacturers. They used cotton threads which were stronger than wool threads for the warp and domestic wool of cheaper grades for the woof. It required less skill to produce satinette be­ cause it was usually unfinished. Consumers liked the product because it was serviceable and moderately priced. Practically all the woolen mills produced satinette. It normally sold at from fifty cents to seventy-five cents a yard. Cassinette was the same as satinette ex­ cept that it was made from cheap foreign wool. The volume of produc­ tion of cassinette depended largely on the tariff on raw wool. The cheapest, coarsest grade of cassinette was sold to southern plantation owners for their slaves and was, therefore, called Negro cloth. Not quite so poor in quality was linsey, a mixture of cheap cotton and coarse wool made up for sale to country people in competition with household goods. Linsey and Negro cloth sold for less than fifty cents and sometimes for as little as twenty-five cents a yard. Delaware mills never produced them in quantity.

Delaware woolen mills produced a little bit of anything that would sell. In 1820, for example, John Brown made broadcloth at $3.00, satinette at seventy cents, and kerseymere at $1.25. Young made cassimere, -86-

satinette, cassinette, kersey, broadcloth, and shawls. At Rockford the Maltbys produced broadcloth, cassimere, satinette, and shawls.

Du Pont was manufacturing seven varieties in several grades: kersey

for the Army, kersey for civilians, satinette, and cassinette chiefly, 149 but also broadcloth, cassimere, and Negro cloth.

By the early 1830"s manufacturers had settled down to producing only two or three types of cloth. Richard Holden,. Alexander Murphy, 150 and Henry Clark made only kersey and cassinette. William Young and Son, another small operation at this time, concentrated on blue cassimere, although the firm also made satinette and sometimes broadcloth to accom- 151 modate friends. Louis Sacriste-made only satinette, and Robert 152 Hilton and Son made Rowan cassimere. Charles I. du Pont and Company 153 made kersey, satinette, and cassinette.

For the woolen industry nationally, flannel was a popular and important product. Used for underclothing and especially for shirting, it required no finishing except washing and pressing. Domestic wool and American machines were well suited to its production; however, the only Delaware producers were John Bancroft from 1822 to 1827 and his son, Samuel, for a few years thereafter. Two or three other firms experimented with it briefly.

Blankets were made for the Army briefly during the War of

1812. Because they required looms of unusual width and because they were made from cheap imported wool which had burrs that were hard to get out, technical limitations prevented their manufacture. After

M.H. Simpson invented a burring machine in 1833 and larger looms became -88-

LABOR

Probably the most difficult problem facing an early manu­ facturer was the acquisition of a labor force. The lack of skilled workers in the early days of the United States is, of course, well known and accounts for the effort to mechanize as much as possible and to entice foreign artisans to America.

Delaware manufacturers were constantly looking for skilled

Europeans to man their factories in the early days. Du Pont, Bauduy and Company hired an Englishman, William Clifford, to manage their mill, and an English dyer named Partridge, and then a French dyer 161 named Louis Sacriste. The Madison Factory boasted in 1818 that 162 it had "experienced workmen and lately from Europe." The du Pont woolen company received several letters from recently arrived immi­ grants who offered their services and gave as their references only that they were French, English, or Swiss. L. de Thies Freres offered 163 to build machines and had just arrived in Baltimore from France. William H. Cox offered to superintend the factory and had recently 164 arrived from England. A friend in New York City reported that a 165 Swiss dyer had just come to America and was looking for a job.

E.I. du Pont was so desirous of obtaining foreign workers for American industry that he suggested that the government appropriate a few thou- 166 sand dollars to encourage skilled European workers to come to America.

When foreign workers were not available, Delaware manufacturers attempted to lure dyers, weavers, fullers, and finishers to their fac­ tories and away from independent businesses devoted to assisting house­ hold manufacturing. The manufacturers frequently advertised for these -89-

167 people in Delaware newspapers.

Another source of skilled workers was through a training or apprenticeship program. Apprentices learned more about manufacturing than boys or girlg hired to perform one task. Apprentices in the du Pont mills learned "fulling and dyeing," " the manufacture of woolen cloth except dyeing," "sorting and spinning," "fulling and finishing," "spin- 168 ning and finishing," or "carding, fulling, and finishing." Mordecai McKinney advertised in 1810 for three or four boys between 12 and 14 168a as apprentices, and John R. Phillips advertised for apprentices 12 to 169 17 years of age. Of the dozen or so du Pont apprentices of which 170 there are records, most were 16,17,or 18 years old.

Manufacturers willingly hired individuals to perform semi­ skilled or unskilled tasks in their woolen mills, but they greatly preferred whole families because they could be hired more cheaply and because, since manufacturers often provided housing, they could be 171 housed more cheaply.

American labor was not only hard to get, but it was expensive also. Businessmen found several ways to acquire cheap, unskilled labor.

They hired children. They imported labor from Europe. The du Ponts brought at least four families to America from Ireland to work in their 172 woolen mills between 1823 and 1847 at a cost of $20 to $23 per person. William Young even hired inmates of a poor house in the 1830's to obtain 173 cheap, unskilled labor.

In the first woolen mills in Delaware the work force included half to two-thirds men and the rest women and children because jobs were arduous and required skilled workmen. Half of McKinney's employees -90-

174 were children in 1810. Brandywine Woolen Mill hired twenty men 175 and twenty women and children from 1812 to 1814. In 1820 John

Brown employed 14 men, no women, 4 girls, and 1 boy, and Joseph and

William Maltby hired from 20 to 30 men, 6 or 8 women, and 8 or 10 boys 176 and girls.

As machinery made work easier and required less skill,• however, more and more women and children were employed. The more mechanized du Pont mill in 1820 had 35 men, 12 women, and 30 boys and girls, and 177 the Young mill had 12 men, 26 women and girls, and 20 boys. Even the small mills show this trend. Henry Clark in 1832 hired one man and one boy, and Alexander Murphy hired one man, four apprentice boys, 178 and three children. Robert Hilton and Son made the point quite obvious; in 1832 they employed 30 men, 63 women, and 76 children under 18 years of age.

An indication of the comparative sizes of some Delaware woolen mills in the first half of the nineteenth century and the last half can be seen by the number of persons employed. About 1832 Charles I. du Pont and Company, the largest company devoted entirely to the pro­ duction of woolen goods, employed 60 persons; Murphy employed 8; 179 Sacriste employed 12; and Holdefai employed 6 persons. In the 1870's and 1880's the Dean Woolen Company had 175 employees; Knowles 180 had 200; and Silver Lake and Causey had 30.

It is difficult to know what wages were in woolen mills be­ cause employers often furnished benefits other than money. Ferdinand

Bauduy and V.M. Garesche, who were to direct the factory of Bauduy, -91-

Garesche and Company which never got into production, were to receive

one thousand dollars a year in 1812 and an allowance of twenty cents 181 a yard for dyeing the cloth. William Clifford, manager of Du Pont,

Bauduy and Company, four dollars a week plus room and board and $400 182 at the end of the year in 1811. William Young received $800 a 183 year for "internal services" in 1832. Sidney Dean received seven

cents for each yard of cloth produced and a minimum guarantee of at

least $50 each quarter for managing the Rokeby mill for Charles I. 184 du Pont in 1840. When William Dean became a partner in his father's

firm in 1847, he received five dollars a week and one-half of the pro- 185 fits, which amounted to $121 the first year.

Weavers and dyers were paid by the yard of cloth processed.

In 1813 hand weavers received fifty cents a yard and were expected to 186 pay a helper out of their own wages. William Young reduced piece work wages for weaving to six to ten cents a yard when he hired women 187 and installed power looms. Charles Sacriste received an allowance

to dye cloth at the dye house at Louviers in 1838. He requested 1-1/2

cents a yard for sky blue kersey, 2-1/2 cents for dark blue kersey,

2-1/4 cents for black satinette, and 1-1/2 cents for "common couler."

He received about $900, paid $650 in wages, and kept $250 for himself. 188 Du Pont paid for the dye and provided the facilities.

Salaried men at the du Pont mill in 1828 received $20 a month, 189 women received $8, and children got $6. Men at Young's mill in

1828 got $5 to $7 per week, boys got $.62-1/2 to $3 a week, and females 190 received $.50 to $3.50 per week. Alexander Murphy paid one man -92-

191 $10 a month. In addition to their salaries, some families had the use of a house or were allowed to rent a house cheaply. Some single employees had room and board at a company-owned or arranged 192 boarding house. In the early days employees were sometimes paid in cloth which they then had to sell to obtain cash. The du Pont mills 193 in the 1820's also provided free medical care for the workers.

Morals of the workers were carefully looked after. Charles du Pont secured the closing of a grog shop near his factory because his employees were often drunk: and late for work. In the early 1820's,

Brandywine manufacturers petitioned the Delaware legislature for closer regulation of tippling houses. In 1828 du Pont testified to the Com­ mittee on Manufactures of the United States House of Representatives that in a Sunday School established by Brandywine manufacturers "all children employed in, and dependent on, our factories, are regularly taught in Sunday school, until they acquire the rudiments of a toler- 194 able education."

Apprentice agreements show more specifically some of the arrangements between employer and employee. John Phillips advertised for two-year apprentices in 1814 and in return for their labor promised

"a proper knowledge of the business," board, lodging, and $150 a year paying $40 for the first six months period, $60 for the second, $80 195 for the third, and $120 for the last six months. The du Ponts signed apprentice agreements for from three to seven years. To the sons of woolen workers they paid $10 a month for the first three years of the contract and increased the salary by one dollar a month each additional year the contract ran. All money over ten dollars, however, -93-

was held in reserve and paid as a lump sum when the apprentice agreement expired. When the contract ended each apprentice also received enough cloth for a suit. Because they lived with their families in company-owned homes, it was not necessary to provide them with room and board. William Breen in 1836 was promised three months of day schooling during his fourth and final year and three months of night schooling should any be established. Thomas Finnigan 196 in 1844 was promised six months of day schooling.

There is no information regarding accidents in woolen mills, but there are two records of attempts made to compensate for personal injury. As a teenager Peter Brennan had his hand crippled in a mill accident. All employees were asked to subscribe to a fund which amounted to $153 and which was invested and presented to Brennan with interest at age twenty-one. In the meantime he was given a job in the office 197 of the woolen mill. In 1847 Joseph McFarlane lost an arm in an accident at Rokeby, and Charles I. du Pont sent him for six months 198 to a local private school operated by the Reverend P. Reilley.

There is little indication of what workers thought of their life and their work, but there are two accounts which show that hand weavers were an independent lot. John Phillips inserted a tantili- zing statement in the American Watchman in 1814 which arouses one's curiosity. It said: "A few of the weavers through ignorance mis­ taking Impudence for independence, and licentiousness for liberty, have been the cause of our losing not only what we are willing to part with (themselves) but also a number of the opposite character." 199 Future workers will be required to have "moral and industrious habits." -94-

A second incident involved weavers at William Young's woolen mill in 1818. On payday the twelve weavers appeared in a body, refused to receive their pay in banknotes of the Farmer's Bank of Delaware, and demanded notes on a Philadelphia bank or in specie. When Young replied that he would have to reduce their wages if they wanted specie or more stable currency, the weavers locked the door of the weaving 200 house and left.

In 1832 the number of hours worked per week in a Delaware woolen mill was 68 or 72. Employees of William Young worked 68 hours 201 a week, and employees of Charles du Pont and Robert Hilton worked twelve hours a day, six days a week. Alexander Murphy's employees worked ten hours a day from May 1, when farmers started clipping their 202 sheep, until December 31, the end of the winter buying season.

In 1853 the workmen of Charles I. du Pont and Company requested a ten-hour day which they said was then prevalent at Brandywine mills.

The company agreed to a sixty-hour week but with a proportionate re­ duction in wages. Charles I. du Pont suggested that the employees work five twelve-hour days rather than six ten-hour days, so that they could have one full day for recreation, labor, or education as well as one full 203 day for worship.

It is not known whether the employees accepted du Pont's offer; however, after the Civil War the sixty-hour week was general in Dela­ ware woolen mills. With artificial lighting it became possible to op­ erate machines at night, and some woolen mills operated on two twelve- 204 hour shifts five days a week. -95-

Just as the factory village or community decentralized during the nineteenth century, the factory relationship depersonalized.

The early woolen companies were paternal organizations in which shelter, food, clothing, medical care, money, and moral instruction were often times provided by the mill owner. During the 1800's this relationship deteriorated, and factory workers found an independent place and pur­ sued an individual role in their social and economic community.

DISTRIBUTIVE AGENCIES

Expanding, changing, growing along with the woolen industry were the agencies for marketing or distributing the products of the factories. Sales were customarily made at the factory and through middlemen on commission. Direct sales took place at the factory, to individuals, and to contractors. Commission sales were made by local stores, patriotic and commercial warehouses, distant commission houses, and selling agents. By the end of the nineteenth century, the system of distribution was well established. Delaware demonstrates in micro­ cosm the national story of the development of the merchandising of textiles.

The first manufacturers of woolen goods in Delaware sold their products at their factories. Mordecai McKinney inserted an advertise­ ment in a newspaper in 1810 stating that he had goods for sale at his 205 factory. The owners of Madison factory made the same announcement 206 in 1813. In 1816 William Young and Son offered their goods for sale 207 at their plant. Henry Clark reported in 1832 that he produced a small quantity of goods which was consumed largely in the neighborhood -96-

208 of his mill and sold his products chiefly from the factory.

Even after other methods of distribution developed, manu­ facturers continued to make direct sales to individuals at the fac­ tory and by mail. Records of the du Pont woolen business indicate that until its close in 1856 it made special orders as a service to individuals.

Concomitant with the development of commission sales was the sale of woolen goods to volume consumers. The du Pont woolen com­ panies sold goods made to the specifications of the Virginia Military

Institute, Lexington, Virginia, the United States Military Academy at

West Point, New York, and St. Joseph's College, Emmitsburg, Maryland.

By far the largest and most consistent purchaser of du Pont goods was the United States Army. Victor and Charles du Pont and Company began bidding on army contracts in 1812 at the suggestion of Callender 209

Irvine, the chief purchaser of commissary goods for the army.

The amount of these contracts varied from year to year de­ pending on the needs of the service and the bids which were made.

Contracts between the army and the du Pont business ranged from nothing in some years to as much as $55,233.33 in 1817. Loss of a contract or a consistent portion of the total requirements could wreak havoc with a manufacturer, and so bidders on government contracts sometimes agreed among themselves as to what quantity of goods they would make and 210 at what price they would make them. During the Civil War Thomas Worrall, James Taylor, and Joseph 211 Dean had contracts with the United States Army to make kersey and blankets. -97-

Th e sale of woolen goods by individual storekeepers got a,- slow start. Mordecai McKinney announced that kerseymere made at 212 his factory had been left at Eli Mendinhall's store in 1809.

Joseph Sykes and Company distributed a circular in 1818 which listed the shop of Jeremiah Lewden at Christiana Bridge as its agent for 213 selling goods. As late as 1829, however, the Delaware Register editorialized that people would use more domestic woolen goods if they were accessible and revealed that no store in Wilmington kept 214 an assortment of domestic cloths.

In some cities individuals organized societies to promote domestic manufactures. One of their ways of promoting American made goods was to establish a warehouse or store where manufacturers could deposit their products, receive up to half of the value of the products immediately in cash, and pay interest on funds advanced and commission of five per cent on the selling price when the products were sold.

The Philadelphia Society for the Encouragement of Domestic Manufactures was organized for that purpose in 1807. Joseph Gales supervised such a warehouse in Raleigh, North Carolina, and William Coslett, president of the Athenian Society, operated a warehouse to promote domestic manu­ factures in Baltimore. The du Pont woolen venture was asked to send 215 goods to these establishments.

These patriotic organizations disbanded or were eventually taken over by commercial enterprises. The Philadelphia warehouse was taken over by the American Cotton and Woolen Manufacturers' Ware­ house. In 1816 the business sold the products of a score of mills -98-

216 including Young and du Pont of Delaware.

The most important development in the distribution of woolen goods was the establishment and spread of commission houses which accepted goods from manufacturers on consignment, sold them, and remitted the purchase price less commission and cost of sales to the manufacturer. Commission houses accepted the goods on eight months credit, and consumers bought the goods on four to six months credit or received a three to five percent discount for cash. Com­ mission houses received two and a half percent on wholesale sales 217 and five percent on retail sales; they also deducted costs of news- 218 paper advertising and transportation. Occasionally commission mer- 219 chants made their remittance in wool rather than money.

The first evidence of a commission house in Wilmington is a newspaper advertisement in 1812 for a store at the corner of Front and Market streets "for the reception and sale of all articles of 220

Domestic Manufacture." Leonard and Geddes of Wilmington, a "com­ mission store for domestic manufactures," had an assortment of "Du Pont' 221 cloths and cassimeres" in January, 1813. The following are lists of towns in which the du Pont woolen 222 companies did business in the years indicated. A comparison of the lists will show the geographical expansion of the commission house system of distribution. -99-

1814 1815 1818 1836 1840 1848 1853

Wilmington x Philadelphia x Baltimore x Alexandria x New York •, x Boston Pittsburgh x Cincinnati St. Louis Petersburg Havre de Grace Dover New Albany,Ind. New Orleans Chicago Nashville San Francisco

The establishment of an efficient system of distribution and

selling in the first half of the nineteenth century was hampered by

auction sales. British merchants after the War of 1812 sold a large

portion of their goods to individuals, storekeepers, and commission

houses at auction sales for low prices immediately after the goods

were unloaded at American ports. This custom continued for several

decades because it saved the British storage charges and commission.

The custom disrupted prices and an orderly distribution of American

made goods from manufacturer to commission house to storekeeper to

consumer. Domestic manufacturers compounded the problem by selling

their own goods at auction too. Charles du Pont instructed commission

houses with which he did business to sell at auction goods left over

at the end of the season, cloth of poor quality, and goods which were 223

no longer fashionable. The du Pont company sent special consign­

ments to Louisville where twice a year auctions were held for merchants

who came from Kentucky, Indiana, Missouri, Arkansas, and Tennessee to -100-

224 purchase their bi-annual stock of goods.

Manufacturers probably thought their participation in auctions made it easier to compete with imported goods. An article in the

American Watchman in 1824 explained that auctions of imported and domestic goods "did much to establish the character of, and remove 225 the prejudices entertained against, American woolen goods." Around

1815 and in the 1850's the du Pont woolen company devised another way to fight the competition from imported cloth. The company put English,

French, and Dutch labels on its goods and sold the cloth at substan- 226 tially higher prices than the same cloth with a du Pont label.

At the same time the company put foreign labels on its goods, it was putting brand names on the blankets it produced to reflect regional identifications. In the period from 1852 to 1855 it put

"Delaware State" labels on blankets for the mid-Atlantic and general trade, "(Quaker City" labels on blankets destined for Philadelphia and

Pennsylvania, "Union" labels for the Northeast, "Rokeby" labels for the South and Southwest, and "Mackinaw" labels on blankets for the 227 western states.

After the Civil War, the distribution system for woolen goods reflected the national trend toward centralization. Instead of dealing with a number of commission houses throughout the country, the manu­ facturer dealt exclusively with one company, called the selling agent, which sold the goods for a commission to both wholesalers and large retailers. In the 1870's the Dean mill and the Kiamensi complex dealt 228 exclusive ly with Harding, Colby and Company of New York. In 1882 the selling agent for Dean and Kiamensi was Field, Morris, Church and -101-

229 Company also of New York.

With the rapid expansion of the readymade clothing industry in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, many cloth manufacturers

found it advantageous to deal directly with clothing manufacturers.

Selling agents fought this bitterly, even refusing to sell cloth for any mill which dealt directly with clothiers. The savings in time and money to clothiers and cloth manufacturers by eliminating an intermediate party were too great, however, to allow the battle to last indefinitely. By the end of the century cloth manufacturers sold their goods directly to clothing manufacturers and through selling agents

In 1895, James G. Knowles sold the cotton worsted suiting it produced directly to ready-made clothing manufacturers and the small amount of woolen cloth it produced through a selling agent, Bacon and Company of 230 New York City. The Kiamensi Woolen Company used the exclusive ser- 231 vices of G.W. Bromhall and Company, selling agents of New York.

The development of marketing facilities or channels of distri­ bution manifested the effect of a widening trade in woolen fabrics and reflected the growth and sophistication of the woolen industry in the

United States.

Throughout the nineteenth century the Delaware woolen industry struggled in the backwash of the national industry. In its struggle, however, its problems and its solutions typified the problems and solutions of the entire industry. An analysis of the Delaware woolen industry is a microcosmic analysis of the national woolen industry in the nineteenth century. -102-

FOOTNOTES TO PART TWO

1 Historical and Biographical Encyclopaedia of Delaware (Wilmington, 1882), 407-408.

2 American Watchman, 13 January 1826.

3 Raw Census Returns, Delaware, 1820 (Microfilm Collection, Eleutherian Mills Historical Library, Greenville, Wilmington 7, Delaware).

4 Ibid.

5 Ibid.

6 United States, 22d Congress, 1st Session, 1831-1832, House of Representatives, Document 308, Documents Relative to the Manufactures in the United States Collected and Transmitted to the House of Represent­ atives by the Secretary of the Treasury, 2 volumes (Washington, 1833), II, 661. Hereafter cited as United States, Documents from Secretary of Treasury.

7 Ibid., II, 700, 800.

8 United States, 20th Congress, 1st Session, 1827-1828, House of Representatives, Document 115, Minutes of Evidence Taken Before The Committee on Manufactures (Washington, 1828), 103. Hereafter cited as United States, Minutes of Evidence.

9 United States, Documents from Secretary of Treasury, II, 807.

10 Ibid.

11 Ibid., II, 776-8.

12 United States, Census Office, Sixth Census, 1840 (Washington, 1842), compendium, 360-361.

13 United States, Census Office, Ninth Census, 1870, 3 volumes (Washington, 1872), III, 630-631.

14 United States, Census Office, Eighth Census, 1860, 3 volumes (Washington, 1862), II, 56, 742.

15 United States, Census Office, Ninth Census, 1870, 3 volumes (Washington, 1872), III, 503, 405.

16 United States, Census Office, Tenth Census, 1880, 22 volumes (Washington, 1882), II, 101, 14.

17 United States, Census Office, Eleventh Census, 1890, 15 volumes (Washington, 1892), compendium, 720, 700-701. -103-

18 United States, Bureau of Census, Twelfth Census, 1900, 10 volumes (Washington, 1902), VIII, 107-111; III, 122-125.

19 Philadelphia Aurora, no date, quoted in National Intelligencer, 6 August 1810.

20 United States, Documents from Secretary of Treasury, II, 672.

21 Carroll Wirth Pursell, Junior, "That Never Failing Stream: A History of Milling Along Red Clay Creek during the Nineteenth Century" (unpublished master's thesis, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware, 1958), 31. Hereafter cited as Pursell, "Red Clay Creek."

22 Articles of Agreement, 12 November 1822 (Bancroft Folder, Historical Society of Delaware, Wilmington, Delaware).

23 Acte d'association 19 June 1810 (Eleuthera Bradford du Pont Manuscripts, Eleutherian Mills Historical Library).

24 6 Delaware Laws 531-534.

25 9 Delaware Laws 395.

26 Charles I. du Pont and Company to C N. Buck, 19 August 1841 (Old Stone Office Records - Wool, Eleutherian Mills Historical Library). Hereafter cited as OSOR-W.

27 10 Delaware Laws 247-249.

28 12 Delaware Laws 521.

29 John Thomas Scharf, History of Delaware, 1609-1888, 2 volumes (Philadelphia, 1888), II, 925. Hereafter cited as Scharf, Delaware.

30 Arthur Harrison Cole, The American Wool Manufacture, 2 volumes (Cambridge, 1926), I, 79-80. Hereafter cited as Cole, Wool.

31 See Carroll W. Pursell, Junior, "E. I. du Pont, Don Pedro, and the Introduction of Merino Sheep into the United States, 1801: A Document," Agricultural History, volume 33, number 2, 1959, 86-88; and Carroll W. Pursell, Junior, "E. I. du Pont and the Merino Mania in Dela­ ware 1805-1815," Agricultural History, volume 36, number 2, 1962, 91-100.

32 United States, Minutes of Evidence, 70.

33 Henry Clay Reed, Delaware: A History of the First State,

3 volumes (New York, 1947), I, 381. Hereafter cited as Reed, Delaware.

34 United States, Minutes of Evidence, 103.

35 Delaware Gazette, 5 October 1815. 36 Dudley Cammett Lunt, The Farmers Bank; an historical account of the president, directors, and Company of the Farmers Bank of the State of Delaware, 1807-1957 (Philadelphia, 1957), 43-44. Hereafter cited as Lunt, Farmers Bank. -104-

37 Cole, Wool, I, 77.

38 4 Delaware Laws 267-268.

39 Merino Woolen Cloth Manufactory, no date (Longwood Manuscripts Eleutherian Mills Historical Library). Hereafter cited as Longwood MSS.

40 United States, Minutes of Evidence, 54, 71.

41 Reed, Delaware, I, 381.

42 Ibid.

43 Du Pont, Bauduy,and Company, incoming correspondence, 1814, passim (Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Manuscripts, Eleutherian Mills Historical Library). Hereafter cited as Winterthur MSS.

44 Victor du Pont to James Gregoire, 7 July 1824 (Winterthur MSS)

45 Charles I. du Pont and Company, incoming correspondence, 1830- 1840, passim (Winterthur MSS).

46 United States, Documents from Secretary of Treasury, II, 672-673.

47 Ibid., II, 702; Delaware Gazette, 20 May 1845.

48 Raw Census Returns, Delaware, 1820 (Microfilm Collection, Eleutherian Mills Historical Library). Hereafter cited as Microfilm Collection.

49 United States, Documents from Secretary of Treasury, II, 660-663, 700-701, 807.

50 Ibid., 777.

51 Delaware Gazette, 8 November 1861.

52 John Warden and Son to Du Pont, Bauduy, and Company, 22 May 1811 (Longwood MSS).

53 Raw Census Returns, Delaware, 1820 (Microfilm Collection).

54 David Baillie Warden, Statistical, Political and Historical Account of the United States of North America, 4 volumes (Edinburgh, 1819), II, 135.

55 Victor and Charles du Pont and Company to Briscoe and Partridge, 25 February 1817 (Longwood MSS).

56 Raw Census Returns, Delaware, 1820 (Microfilm Collection).

57 United States, Minutes of Evidence, 104; United States, Documents from Secretary of Treasury, II, 800, 807. -105-

58 Charles I. du Pont to Alfred du Pont, 31 December 1837 (Winterthur MSS).

59 United States, Census Office, Ninth Census, 1870, 3 volumes (Washington, 1872), III, 630-631.

60 United States, Census Office, Eighth Census, 1860, 3 volumes (Washington, 1862), II, 56, 742.

61 United States, Census Office, Ninth Census, 1870, 3 volumes (Washington, 1872), III, 503, 405.

62 United States, Census Office, Tenth Census, 1880, 22 volumes (Washington, 1882), II, 101, 14.

63 United States, Census Office, Eleventh Census, 1890, 15 volumes (Washington, 1892), compendium, 720, 700-701.

64 United States, Bureau of Census, Twelfth Census, 1900, 10 volumes (Washington, 1902), VIII,107-111; III, 122-125.

65 John W. Oliver, History of American Technology (New York, 1956), 41. Hereafter cited as Oliver, Technology.

66 Cole, Wool, I, 93.

67 Lunt, Farmers Bank, 43.

68 Raw Census Returns, Delaware, 1820, (Microfilm Collection).

69 Oliver, Technology, 162-163.

70 Charles I. du Pont and Company to George C. Kellog, 30 July, 2 September 1836 (OSOR-W).

71 Charles I. du Pont and Company to Cronisi and Soverhill, 16 August 1844, Charles I. du Pont and Company to David L. Brown and Company, 33 June 1848 (OSOR-W).

72 Oliver, Technology, 41.

73 Cole, Wool, I, 128.

74 Lunt, Farmers Bank, 43.

75 Raw Census Returns, Delaware, 1820 (Microfilm Collection).

76 Schedule of Values of Louviers Property, 30 July 1836 (Lammot du Pont Manuscripts, Eleutherian Mills Historical Library). Here­ after cited as Lammot du Pont MSS.

77 Charles I. du Pont and Company to George C. Kellog, 11 March 1839 (OSOR-W). -106-

78 Charles I. du Pont and Company to George C. Kellog, 8 November 1841 (OSOR-W).

79 Cole, Wool, I, 100.

80 Lunt, Farmers Bank, 43.

81 Raw Census Returns, Delaware, 1820 (Microfilm Collection).

82 Cole, Wool, I, 101.

83 Charles I. du Pont and Company to George C. Kellog, 14 March 1836 (OSOR-W).

84 Charles I. du Pont and Company to E. Copland, 12 December 1843 (OSOR-W).

85 Statistics of the Woolen Manufactures in the United States (New York, 1845), 164.

86 Oliver, Technology, 42.

87 Cole, Wool, I, 108-112.

88 Raw Census Returns, Delaware, 1820 (Microfilm Collection).

89 Cole, Wool, I, 117.

90 Baron Klinkowstrom, Baron Klinkowstrom's America 1818-1820 (Evanston, 1952), 53.

91 Victor and Charles du Pont and Company to Peter Cushman, 15 March 1817 (Winterthur MSS).

92 Raw Census Returns, Delaware, 1820; Gilbert Brewster to William Young, 1 May 1820 (Young Correspondence, 1819-1827, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania). Hereafter cited as Young Correspondence.

93 Isaac Bannister to William Young, 2 May 1827 (Young Correspondence); United States, Minutes of Evidence, 105.

94 Cole, Wool, I, 113.

95 Charles I. du Pont and Company to George Hodgson, 9 July 1836, Charles I. du Pont and Company to George C. Kellog, 2 March 1837, Charles I. du Pont and Company to Thomas Murphy, 26 April 1842, Charles I. du Pont and Company to Cronisi and Soverhill, 16 August 1844 (OSOR-W).

96 Cole, Wool, I, 121-122.

97 Pouchet Belmare to E. I. du Pont, 5 May 1809 (Winterthur MSS).

98 Raw Census Returns, Delaware, 1820 (Microfilm Collection). -108-

120 David Smith, The Dyer's Instructor, second edition (Philadelphia, 1860), 527-540.

120a Lunt, Farmers Bank, 43.

121 Raw Census Returns, Delaware, 1820 (Microfilm Collection).

122 Property Inventory, Victor and Charles I. du Pont and Company, no date (P. S. du Pont MSS).

123 Schedule of Values of Louviers Property, 30 July 1836 (Lammot du Pont MSS).

124 Textile Manufacturers Directory of the United States, 1882 (New York, 1882), 47-48. Hereafter cited as Textile Directory, 1882.

125 Arthur C. Biding, Pennsylvania Iron Manufacturing in the Eighteenth Century (Harrisburg, 1938), 55-56.

126 Gilbert Brewster to William Young, 1 May 1820 (Young Correspondence).

127 American Watchman, 27 June 1810.

128 Delaware Gazette, 28 March 1789.

129 Arthur Harrison Cole, editor, Industrial and Commercial Correspondence of Alexander Hamilton (Chicago, 1928), 53.

130 Niles1 Register, VI, 25 June 1814, IX, 30 September 1815.

131 Charles I. du Pont and Company to George Hodgson, 9 July 1836 (OSOR-W).

132 Charles I. du Pont and Company to I. Woodbridge, 30 January 1844 (OSOR-W).

133 Charles I. du Pont and Company to Cronisi and Soverhill, 16 August 1844 (OSOR-W).

134 Charles I. du Pont and Company to Sager and Kech, 22 October 1845 (OSOR-W).

135 Delaware Gazette, 7 March 1854.

136 Roy M. Boatman, "The Brandywine Cotton Industry, 1795-1865" (unpublished research report, Hagley Museum, Greenville, Wilmington 7, Delaware, 1957), 88. Hereafter cited as Boatman, "Cotton Industry."

137 United States, Census Office, Ninth Census, 1870, 3 volumes (Washington, 1872), III, 503-504.

138 Richmond Edwards, editor, Industries of Delaware (Wilmington, 1880), 162. Hereafter cited as Edwards, Industries. -109-

139 Scharf, Delaware, II, 940.

140 Louviers Woolen Cloth Factory, no date (Lammot du Pont MSS).

141 Assessment List, Brandywine Hundred, 1814 (Delaware State Archives, Dover, Delaware).

142 Boatman, "Cotton Industry," 79.

143 American Watchman, 28 April, 7 July 1826.

144 9 Delaware Laws, 399.

145 Scharf, Delaware, II, 1190.

146 Historical and Biographical Encyclopaedia of Delaware (Wilmington, 1882), 191. Hereafter cited as Encyclopaedia of Delaware.

147 United States, Minutes of Evidence, 124.

148 United States, Documents from Secretary of Treasury, II, 672-673.

149 Raw Census Returns, Delaware, 1820 (Microfilm Collection).

150 United States, Documents from Secretary of Treasury, 807, 672, 702.

151 Ibid., 805.

152 Ibid., 807, 800.

153 United States, Minutes of Evidence, 122.

154 Textile Directory, _1882, 47-48.

155 United States, Census Office, Sixth Census, 1840 (Washington, 1842), compendium, 360-361.

156 United States, Census Office, Ninth Census, 1870, 3 volumes (Washington, 1872), III, 630-631.

157 United States, Census Office, Eighth Census, 1860, 3 volumes (Washington, 1862), II, 56, 742.

158 United States, Census Office, Ninth Census, 1870, 3 volumes (Washington, 1872), III, 503, 405.

159 United States, Census Office, Tenth Census, 1880, 22 volumes (Washington, 1882), II, 101, 14.

160 United States, Census Office, Eleventh Census, 1890, 15 volumes (Washington,1892), compendium, 720-700-701.

161 Arthur W. Magill to Du Pont, Bauduy and Company, 28 March 1812 (Winterthur MSS), -110-

162 American Watchman, 26 August 1818.

163 L. de Thies Freres to Du Pont, Bauduy and Company, 1 January 1812 (Winterthur MSS).

164 William H. Cox to Victor Marie du Pont, 25 August 1814 (Winterthur MSS).

165 Anthony Girard to Raphael DuPlanty, 12 November 1813 (Longwood MSS).

166 Merino Woolen Cloth Manufactory, no date (Longwood MSS).

167 American Watchman, 27 February 1811, 5 May 1813, 2 July 1814, 31 December 1817; Delaware Gazette, 11 July 1815.

168 Apprentice Agreements, 1820-1844 (OSOR-W).

168a American Watchman, 3 November 1810.

169 American Watchman, 12 August 1812.

170 Apprentice Agreements, 1820-1844 (OSOR-W); Apprentice Agreements (Longwood MSS).

171 Delaware Gazette, 11 July 1815; American Watchman, 23 March 1814.

172 Victor and Charles I. du Pont and Company to John Welsh and Company, 2 July 1823; Robert Taylor to Charles I. du Pont and Company, 14 September 1839, 22 April 1847 (OSOR-W).

173 United States, Documents from Secretary of Treasury, II, 806.

174 American Watchman, 18 July 1810.

175 Raw Census Returns, Delaware, 1820 (Microfilm Collection).

176 Ibid.

177 Ibid.

178 United States, Documents from Secretary of Treasury, II, 672, 702.

179 Ibid.. II, 661, 807.

180 Scharf, Delaware, II, 938, 1190; Edwards, Industries, 162.

181 Articles of Agreement, 15 September 1812 (Longwood MSS).

182 Agreement between Du Pont, Bauduy, and Company and William Clifford, 26 April 1811 (Longwood MSS).

183 United States, Minutes of Evidence, 105. -111-

184 Agreement with Sidney Dean, 1 March 1840 to 1 September 1840 (OSOR-W).

185 Encyclopaedia of Delaware, 407-408.

186 William Logan Fiske to Du Pont, Bauduy and Company, 4 September 1813 (Winterthur MSS).

187 United States, Minutes of Evidence, 104.

188 Charles Sacriste to Charles I. du Pont and Company, 22 January 1838 (OSOR-W).

189 United States, Documents from Secretary of Treasury, II, 661.

190 United States, Minutes of Evidence, 105.

191 United States, Documents from Secretary of Treasury, II, 623.

192 American Watchman, 1 January 1812, 6 March 1813.

193 Dr. Pierre Didier, Bills (Winterthur MSS).

194 United States, Minutes of Evidence, 125; see Raymond F. Betts, "Eleuthere Irenee du Pont and the Brandywine Sunday School, "Delaware History,- volume 8, number 4, September 1959, 343-353.

195 American Watchman, 5 November 1814.

196 Apprentice Agreements, 1820-1844 (OSOR-W)J Apprentice Agreements (Longwood MSS).

197 Subscription List, no date (Winterthur MSS).

198 Charles I. du Pont and Company to the Reverend P. Reilley, 24 December 1847 (OSOR-W).

199 American Watchman, 19 February 1814.

200 William Young to Victor and Charles I. du Pont and Company, 28 November 1828 (Winterthur MSS).

201 United States, Minutes of Evidence, 121.

202 United States, Documents from Secretary of Treasury, II, 662, 700, 673.

203 Charles I. du Pont to The Hands in the Employment of Charles I du Pont and Company at Louviers, /26 August 1853/ (OSOR-W).

204 Edwards, Industries, 171-172.

205 American Watchman, 15 September 1810.

206 American Watchman, 27 November 1813. -112-

207 Delaware Gazette, 28 March 1816.

208 United States, Documents from Secretary of Treasury, II, 702.

209 Callender Irvine to E. I. du Pont, 30 August 1812 (Winterthur MSS).

210 Victor du Pont to Callender Irvine, 27 July 1822 (Winterthur MSS); Charles I. du Pont to George McCallmont, 29 December 1836 (OSOR-W.); Charles I. du Pont to E. I. du Pont, 7 January 1838 (Winterthur MSS).

211 Delaware Republican, 13 June, 27 June 1861; Delaware Gazette, 12 July, 8 November 1861.

212 American Watchman, 20 September 1809.

213 Sykes, Stead, and Company, 8 April 1818 (Broadside Collection).

214 Delaware Republican, 24 January 1829.

215 Du Pont, Bauduy and Company, Business Letters from Various Houses, 1812 (Winterthur MSS).

216 United States Gazette, 3 July 1816.

217 Charles I. du Pont and Company to Andrew Murphy, 20 December 1841, Victor and Charles I. du Pont and Company to A. McCall, 14 March 1815, Victor and Charles du Pont and Company to William Bonnell, 11 November 1815 (OSOR-W).

218 Victor and Charles I. du Pont and Company to A. Johnson, 14 September 1815 (OSOR-W).

219 Charles I. du Pont and Company to J. McAyeal and Company, 23 January 1840.

220 Americai Watchman, 7 July 1812.

221 American Watchman, 6 January 1813.

222 Letter Books, 1814, 1815, 1818, 1836, 1840, 1848, 1853, passim (OSOR-W).

223 Charles I. du Pont and Company to P. E. Blow and Company, 27 March 1841, Charles I. du Pont and Company to Thomas H. Larkin, 14 February 1845 (OSOR-W).

224 Thomas Andrews to Charles I. du Pont and Company, 7 October 1837 (OSOR-W).

225 American Watchman, 1 October 1824.

226 Victor and Charles I. du Pont and Company to Briscoe and Partridge, 11 March 1815, 31 May 1815, Charles I. du Pont and Company to David L. Brown and Company, 25 October 1850, and others (OSOR-W). -113-

227 Charles I. du Pont and Company to P. L. Duvall, 11 December 1852, Letter Book, 1853-1855, passim (OSOR-W).

228 Edwards, Industries, 171-172.

229 Textile Directory, 1882, 48.

230 C. A. Dockham, Dockham's American Report and Directory of the Textile Manufacture, 1895 (Boston, 1895), 75.

231 Textile Manufacturers' Directory of the United States, 1894-1895 (New York, 1895), 32. -114-

BIBLIOGRAPHY

MANUSCRIPTS

Delaware State Archives, Dover, Delaware. Assessment Lists, New Castle County, 1809, 1811-1816. Legislative Petitions, 1810-1855. Ridgely Papers

Eleutherian Mills Historical Library, Greenville, Wilmington 7, Delaware. Accession 411. Broadside Collection. Eleuthera Bradford du Pont Manuscripts. Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Manuscripts. Lammot du Pont Manuscripts. Longwood Manuscripts. Map File, Microfilm Collection. Old Stone Office Records. Old Stone Office Records - Wool. Pierre Samuel du Pont Manuscripts.

Historical Society of Delaware, Wilmington, Delaware. Amos Brinton Notebooks. Ball Papers. Bancroft Folder. Johnson Business Papers. Johnson Papers. William Young Business Papers, 1810-1827.

Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Young-McAllister Papers. Young Correspondence, 1819-1827.

NEWSPAPERS

American Museum, 1788-1789. American Watchman, 1809-1825. Delaware Gazette, 1789-1861. Delaware Republican, 1829, 1861. Delaware Statesman, 1812. National Intelligencer, 1810. Niles' Register, 1814, 1815, 1823, 1845. Pennsylvania Gazette, 1759. United States Gazette, 1816. Wilmingtonian, 1824, 1827. Wilmington Star, 1925. -115-

BQQKS and ARTICLES

Ashmead, Henry Graham. History of Delaware County, Pennsylvania. Philadelphia, 1884.

Bagnall, William R. Textile Industries in the United States. 2 volumes. Cambridge, 1893.

Baist, G. William. Atlas of New Castle County, Delaware. Philadelphia, 1893.

Beers, D. G. Atlas of the State of Delaware. Philadelphia, 1868.

Benton, C. and S. F. Barry. A Statistical View of the Number of Sheep... . Cambridge, 1837.

Betts, Raymond F. "Eleuthere Irenee du Pont and the Brandywine Sunday School," Delaware History, volume 8, number 4, September 1959, 343-353.

Bigelow, Erastus B. An Address upon the Wool Industry of the United States. New York, 1869.

Bining, Arthur C. Pennsylvania Iron Manufacturing in the Eighteenth Century. Harrisburg, 1938.

Bishop, John Leander. History of American Manufactures from 1688- 1860. 2 volumes. Philadelphia, 1861.

Boatman, Roy M. "The Brandywine Cotton Industry, 1795-1865." Unpublished research report, Hagley Museum, Greenville, Wilmington 7, Delaware, 1957.

Bolles, Albert S. Industrial History of the United States. Norwich, Conn., 1878.

Boyd, William H. and Andrew, compilers. Delaware State Directory, 1859-1860. Wilmington, 1859.

Boyd, William H., compiler. Delaware State Directory & Gazeteer for 1874-1875. Wilmington, 1874.

Bristed, John. America and Her Resources... . London, 1818.

Brown, Harry. "The Fleece & the Loom: Wool Growers & Wool Manufacturers in the Civil War Decade," Business History Review, volume 29, 1955, 1-27.

Cole, Arthur Harrison. The American Wool Manufacture. 2 volumes. Cambridge, 1926.

Cole, Arthur Harrison, editor. Industrial and Commercial Corre­ spondence of Alexander Hamilton. Chicago, 1928. -116-

Gommercial Directory. Philadelphia, 1823.

Conrad, Henry C. History of the State of Delaware. 3 volumes. Wilmington, 1908.

Cooch, Francis A. Little Known History of Newark, Delaware, and its Environs. Newark, 1936.

Delaware State Directory, 1872-1873. Wilmington, 1872.

Delaware's Industries: An Historical and Industrial Review. Philadelphia, 1891.

Derry, T. K. and Trevor I. Williams. A Short History of Technology. New York, 1961.

Digest of Accounts of Manufacturing Establishments in the United States, and of Their Manufactures. Washington, 1823.

Dockham, C. A., compiler. Dockham's American Report and Directory of the Textile Manufacture, 1895. Boston, 1895.

Dunn, Robert W. and Jack Hardy. Labor and Textiles. New York, 1931.

Ebeling, Christian Daniel. Geography and History of America. London, 1799.

Edwards, Richmond, editor. Industries of Delaware. Wilmington, 1880.

Haigh, James. The Pier's Assistant in the Art of Dying Wool and Woolen Goods. Philadelphia, 1810.

Hancock, Harold Bell. Delaware During the Civil War: A Political History. Wilmington, 1961.

Hartman, Thomas B. "The du Pont Woolen Venture, 1807-1856." Unpublished research report, Hagley Museum, Greenville, Wilmington 7, Delaware, 1955.

Hayes, John L. The Fleece and the Loom: An Address before the National Association of Wool Manufacturers, at the first annual meeting in Philadelphia, September 6, 1865. Boston, 1865.

Hazard's United States Commercial and Statistical Register. Philadelphia, 1842.

Historical and Biographical Encyclopaedia of Delaware. Wilmington, 1882.

Keir, Malcolm. Manufacturing. New York, 1928.

Klinkowstromy Baron. Baron Klinkowstrom's America 1818-1820. Evanston, Illinois, 1952. -117-

Laws of Delaware. Volumes 1-34, 1700-1926.

Lincoln, Anna T. Wilmington Delaware Three Centuries under Four Flags, 1609-1937. Rutland,Vermont, 1937.

Liamcourt, Duke de la Rouchefoucault. Travel through the United States of North America ... in the year 1795, 1796, and 1797.... Second edition. 3 volumes. London, 1800,

Lunt, Dudley Cammett. The Farmers Bank: an historical account of the president, directors, and company of the Farmers Bank of the State of Delaware, 1807-1957. Philadelphia, 1957.

Mease, James. Archives of Useful Knowledge. 4 volumes. Phila­ delphia, 1813.

Mitchell, S. Augustus. A General View of the United States in the year 1840. Philadelphia, 1846.

Montgomery, Elizabeth. Reminiscences of Wilmington. Phila­ delphia, 1851.

Oliver, John W. History of American Technology. New York, 1956.

Philadelphia, Wilmington, and Baltimore Railroad. Guide Book and Industrial Journal. West Chester, 1877.

Porter, Robert, compiler. Wilmington Directory, 1814. Wilmington, 1814.

Pursell, Carroll Wirth, Junior. "E. I. du Pont, Don Pedro, and the Introduction of Merino Sheep into the United States, 1801: A Document." Agricultural History, volume 33, number 2, 1959, 86-88.

Pursell, Carroll Wirth, Junior. "E. I. du Pont and the Merino Mania in Delaware 1805-1815." Agricultural History, volume 36, number 2, 1962, 91-100.

Pursell, Carroll Wirth, Junior. "That Never Failing Stream: A History of Milling along Red Clay Creek during the Nineteenth Century." Unpublished master1s thesis, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware, 1958.

Reed, H. Clay. Delaware: A History of the First State. 3 volumes. New York, 1947.

Reed, Henry Clay, editor. "Readings in Delaware History, Economic Development." Mineographed. Newark, 1939.

Scharf, John Thomas. History of Delaware, 1609-1888. 2 volumes. Philadelphia, 1888.

Smith, David. The Dyer's Instructor. Second edition. Philadelphia, 1860.

Statistics of the Woolen Manufactories in the United States. New York, 1845. -118-

Textile Manufacturers' Directory of the United States, 1882. New York, 1882.

Textile Manufacturers' Directory of the United States, 1894-1895. New York, 1895.

Tryon, Rolla Milton. Household Manufactures in the United States, 1640-1860. Chicago, 1917.

United States, 20th Congress, 1st Session, 1827-1828, House of Representatives. Document 115, Minutes of Evidence Taken Before the Committee on Manufactures. Washington, 1828.

United States, 22nd Congress, 1st Session, 1831-1832, House of Representatives. Document 308, Documents Relative to the Manufactures in the United States Collected and Transmitted to the House of Representatives by the Secretary of the Treasury, 2 volumes. Washington, 1833.

United States, Census Office. Third Census, 1810. Philadelphia, 1814.

United States, Census Office. Eighth Census, 1860. 3 volumes. Washington, 1862.

United States, Census Office. Ninth Census, 1870. 3 volumes. Washington, 1872.

United States, Census Office. Tenth Census, 1880. 22 volumes. Washington, 1882.

United States, Census Office Eleventh Census, 1890. 15 volumes. Washington, 1892.

United States, Bureau of Census. Twelfth Census, 1900. 10 volumes. Washington, 1902.

United States, Bureau of Census. Thirteenth Census, 1910. 11 volumes. Washington, 1912.

United States, Bureau of Census. Fourteenth Census, 1920. 11 volumes. Washington, 1922.

Ure, Andrew. Philosophy of Manufactures ... in Great Britain. London, 1835.

Warden, David Baillie. Statistical, Political & Historical Account of the United States of North America. 4 volumes. Edinburgh, 1819.

Weslager, C0A. Delaware's Forgotten River. Wilmington, 1947.

"Wilmington and Its Industries," Lippincott's Magazine, volume 11, 1873, 369-388, 511-527.

Wilson, Thomas. Picture of Philadelphia for 1824, containing the "Pictures of Philadelphia for 1811, by James Mease, M.C." with all the improvements since that period. Philadelphia, 1823. -119-

Winterbotham, B. W. An Historical, Geographical, Commercial & Philogical View of the American United States ... . 2 volumes. London, 1795.

Zebley, Frank R. Along the Brandywine. Wilmington, 1940.