 |
 |
Even if this data is accurate, and I suspect it is more of a SWAG than based on real data, that only comes to 2.400 tons a year. That is the production of only 3-4 18C blast furnaces (maybe as many as 6). Virginia has at least sixteen going during the colonial period (admittedly not all at once), but that still leaves a great deal of iron for the local market. Also keep in mind Bining was written in 1938. There are a number of ironworks that he didn't know about. And people like Peter King keep turning up new sources all the time. This is a major problem with much of what has been written about the colonial iron industry over the past 50 years. Except where it is a case study, like Bonds of Iron, much of the "data", and almost all of the background history, is taken from Bining (38) and Kathleen Bruce (1931). Both are great places to start, but Bruce even said in her introduction that her work was a first cut and she hoped that others would follow to fill in the gaps and correct her errors. Come to the Ironmasters Meeting at MAAC in March and hear some of the more recent research. James Brothers, RPA [log in to unmask] On Jan 25, 2007, at 11:34, Evelyne Godfrey wrote: > Hi, > The "Chesapeake was world's third largest producer of iron in the 18th > C..." idea was something that they told me when I first come to > work in > Virginia (18 months ago).... indeed I think they mentioned it at > the job > interview, as if it were a well known fact. This is a published source > for that statement: > http://departments.umw.edu/hipr/www/Godfrey/Va_iron_plantations.pdf > > This paper also reproduces the export data from Bining, i.e. that the > around 60,000 tons of pig iron was sent from the Chesapeake to Britain > between 1730 and 1755. > > > Cheers, > > > Evelyne > > > > >>>> Peter King <[log in to unmask]> 1/25/2007 9:55 AM >>>> > I think that most of my information came from a book by A C Bining, > British > Regulation of the Colonial Iron Industry. It provides data on > exports, > but > some one needs to collect all the data and make an estimate for > American > production. Studies have been made of the pre-Revolutionary industry > in > several states, but I do not think any one has drawn all this > together. > > The American industry appears only to have begun to take off about > 1720, > though there were a few earlier ironworks. Before that America was > almost > entirely dependent on Britain. I know of some research which will be > undertaken into the trade in manufactured iron, but it will be a while > before it is complete, yet alone published. The trade data is > available for > each colony (or group of them), but only aggregate figures have been > published. > > Evelyn Godfrey's statement about manufacture in America was too > strong. > The > prohibition (in 1750) was designed to limit its expansion, and was > probably > not in practice enforced. I suspect that the attempt to rank > countries > in > order of size of production is rash. I have never seen any estimate of > the > size of the industry in France, Germany or Italy; all had a > significant > iron > industry and they were far closer to being self-sufficient than > Britain. > The population of France was bigger than that of Britain and its iron > industry may have been too. We notice the Russian and Swedish > industries, > because they were heavily export-orientated, as was that of Virginia > and > Maryland, whereas the industry in New England and Pennsylvania was > much > less > concerned with export. > > Peter King > 49, Stourbridge Road, > Hagley, > Stourbridge > West Midlands > DY9 0QS > 01562-720368 > [log in to unmask] > -----Original Message----- > From: Arch-Metals Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf > Of > James Brothers > Sent: 25 January 2007 00:52 > To: Peter King > Subject: Re: American pre-Revolution iron production > > > There is ample evidence that the colonies were producing about as > much > iron as England right up to the time of the Revolution. English > production, > due to the adoption of coke as a fuel, takes off in the last > quarter of > the > 1700s and England is the leading producer of iron by 1800. > > > It was not all shipped back to England, most of it stayed in the > colonies. > The Chesapeake industry was geared toward export. But even so there > was > enough demand for local cast iron products that Alexander Spotswood > build a > foundry (double air furnace) at Massaponnax around 1732. A total of 16 > blast > furnaces were running at one time or another during the 1700s in > Virginia. > While Issac Zane started out shipping iron to England, he found it > much > more > profitable to sell locally, or ship to Philadelphia. Almost all of the > iron > produced in Pennsylvania, NY, and NJ was consumed locally. And we are > talking thousands of tons. Peter King has been able to trace a bit > over > 7,000 tons of iron from colonial furnaces to Britain during the 1st > half of > the 1700s. But that is a small fraction of American production. > > > I wrote my MA on this. If you want lots of data, I can send you > more. > > > James Brothers, RPA > [log in to unmask] > > > > > > > On Jan 24, 2007, at 17:06, Torbert, Barton wrote: > > > Thanks for the reply. > > > So once war was declared all the production would have stayed > in-country. So you seem to be saying that there was significant > American production available no matter how it was previously > accounted > for. > > > Where was the ore coming from for the iron production in the > Chesapeake > region? > > > Bart > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Arch-Metals Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On > Behalf Of > Evelyne Godfrey > Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 2:42 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Falling Creek IW side question > > > Hi, > > > I think that the situation so long as the American colonies were > under > British control was that colonists were banned from keeping or > selling > locally produced iron; cast iron was just being produced in > America, and > it all had to be shipped straight to Britain where it could be > taxed and > some of it perhaps sold back to the colonists. This was one of the > points of contention at the time of the Revolution. Of course by > then, > colonists were regularly flouting the laws and casting cannons and > all > sorts to use against the British Army. > > > Supposedly by the mid-18th century, the Chesapeake region > (Maryland > and > Virginia) had been the worlds third biggest iron producer, after > Russia > and Sweden, but colonial iron would have counted as "British" > production > rather than "American" per se. > > > The English settlers from Jamestown, who built that blast furnace > at > Falling Creek just twelve years after arriving, were presumably > being > pushed by the Virginia Company back in London to establish some > sort of > profitable industry as soon as possible... they had started out > looking > for gold of course, and when that didn't pan out as it were, they > decided to go after the iron ore. Even though work at Falling > Creek > came > to an abrupt end with the massacre of 1622, iron remained > Virginia's > second big 'cash crop', alongside tobacco, up until the late 18th > C, and > the blast furnaces were organised according to the plantation > system, > just like the tobacco growing, i.e. with slave labour (sadly, > slaves > continued to make up the bulk of the workforce in the Virginia > iron > industry right up until 1864). > > > > > cheers, > > > > > Evelyne > > > > > > > > > > > Bart Torbert <[log in to unmask]> 1/24/2007 3:42 PM >>> > This discussion brings up a side question. > > > What was the iron production in pre-Revolutionary America? The > question is relative to the Americans ability to provide war needs > from > native sources. > > > Bart > > > -------------- Original message ---------------------- > From: Steve Gray <[log in to unmask]> > The precursors of the furnaces are more likely to be Welsh > rather > than English, > from such counties as Carmarthenshire, Glamorgan and Gwent. > Yours Steve Gray > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Peter King > To: [log in to unmask] > Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 10:08 AM > Subject: Re: Falling Creek IW > > > > > The precursors of the furnace would inevitably be English. I > cannot think of > evidence from 1620s or earlier, but later English furnaces had > systems for > draining water from below the furnace, but I think the > foundations > would have > been in stone. However, at that period, timber-framing of > buildings > was still > common in England, with lath and plaster between the timbers. It > is > thus quite > possible that other parts of the furnace buildings would be of > timber, not to > mention the waterwheel. > > > The traditional view is that furnaces went into blast in the > autumn > and blew > until the early summer. While this was not invariably done in > places > where the > water-supply was good enough, it almost certainly has an element > of > truth in it. > I would have expected May to be the anticipated end of the first > blast, not its > start. On the other hand, if the furnace was in blast at the > time > of > the > massacre, I would expect it still to be (or have been) there and > full > of its > large charge. > > > This is of course all speculation. > > > Peter King > 49, Stourbridge Road, > Hagley, > Stourbridge > West Midlands > DY9 0QS > 01562-720368 > [log in to unmask] > -----Original Message----- > From: Arch-Metals Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On > Behalf Of > James Brothers > Sent: 23 January 2007 02:47 > To: Peter King > Subject: Falling Creek IW > > > > > Lyle Browning, the Falling Creek IW archaeologist, has proposed > a > number of > possible explanations for the timbers recently discovered at the > site. While > much of the equipment at an ironworks (e.g. wheel, bellows, > anvil, > and hammer) > rested on substantial timber structures, is there evidence > elsewhere > for heavy > wood foundations for blast furnaces? Or is this more likely to > be > part of the > wheel support/foundation or some other part of the water power > system? Or is > there another possibility that hasn't been thought of yet? If > Winchester > Cathedral could be built on a raft, why not a blast furnace? > > > > > James Brothers, RPA > [log in to unmask]