 |
 |
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]