NAME
Just before the War of 1812, the successful New England merchant Francis Cabot Lowell toured Great
Britain. Among other things, Lowell was very interested in the English textile industry. The invention of the
power loom enabled spinning and weaving operations to be combined within a factory, but the factory system
had spawned mill towns with overcrowded slums, horrible living conditions, and high death rates. The
potential profits that the new technology offered were great, yet Lowell knew that Americans already feared the
Old World evils that appeared to accompany the factory system.
Back in Boston once again, Lowell and his brother-in-law built a power loom, patented it, raised
money, formed a company, and built a textile factory. Realizing that their best source of available labor would
be from the surrounding New England rural areas and that farm families would have to be persuaded to let their
daughters work far from home in the new factories, the company managers developed what eventually came to
be known as the Lowell system.
As you look at what happened when people’s ideas about women’s “proper place” conflicted with the
labor needs of the new factory system consider what the general public feared and how working girls reacted.
Background Information
By the end of the eighteenth century, the American economy began undergoing a process that
historians call modernization. This process involved a number of changes, including the rapid
expansion of markets, commercial specialization, improved transportation networks, the growth of
credit transactions, the proliferation of towns and cities, and the rise of manufacturing and the factory
system. Quite obviously these factories are interrelated. Furthermore, such changes have always had
profound effects on people’s lifestyles as well as on the pace of life itself.
While the frontier moved steadily westward, the south was primarily agrarian - tied to cash
crops such as cotton and tobacco. New England’s economy, however, quickly became modernized.
Although agriculture was never completely abandoned in New England, by the early 1800s it was
increasingly difficult to obtain land, and many small New England farms suffered from soil
exhaustion. Young men of course would go west - in fact, so many of them left New England that
soon there was a “surplus” of young women in the area. In addition, the transformation of New
England agriculture and the demise of much of the “putting-out” system of the first local textile
manufacturing left many single female workers underemployed or unemployed. What were these
farmer’s daughters supposed to do? What were their options?
At the same time that these economic developments were occurring, ideas about white middleclass women and their place in society also were changing. Even before the American Revolution,
sharp distinctions between the “better sort” and the “poorer sort” were noticeable, especially in cities
like Boston. The Revolution itself, with its emphasis on “republican virtues,” drew many women away
from their purely domestic duties and into the patriotic work for the cause. The uncertainties of the
early national period, which followed the Revolution, only intensified the concern about the new
republic: How could such a daring experiment in representative government succeed? An essential
part of the answer to this question was the concept of “republican motherhood”: Women would take
on the important task of raising children to be responsible citizens who possessed the virtues (and
value system) necessary for the success of the newly independent nation.
Those who study women’s history disagree on the question of whether women’s status
improved or declined as a result of the emphasis on republican motherhood. Nevertheless, it was clear
that the new focus on motherhood and child rearing would not only reduce the variety of roles women
could play but also limit women’s proper place to their own homes.
As historian Alice Kessler-Harris notes in her study of wage-earning women in the United
States, there was a direct conflict for poorer or unmarried women between their need to earn money
and the ideology that homes and families should be central to all women’s lives. This emphasis on
domestic ideology, Kessler-Harris concluded, sharpened class divisions and eroded any possibility of
1
real independence for women, Historian Christine Stansell reaches many of the same conclusions in
her study of gender and class in New York City. In addition, according to Stansell, young unmarried
working women often dressed and behaved in ways that directly challenged domestic ideology and
women’s place within the home. Such alternative ways of living, especially on the part of young,
white, native-born, Protestant women, were deeply disturbing to many Americans, both male and
female.
In periods of rapid change, people often try to cling to absolute beliefs and even create
stereotypes that implicitly punish those who do not conform. Such a stereotype began to emerge after
the American Revolution. According to this stereotype, every “true” woman was a “lady” who behaved
in certain ways because of her female nature. Historian Barbara Welter has called this phenomenon
the “cult of true womanhood.” True women possessed four virtues: piety, purity, submissiveness, and
domesticity. These characteristics, it was thought, were not so much learned as they were biologically
natural, simply an inherent part of being born female. Woman’s magazines, etiquette books for young
ladies, sermons and religious tracts, and popular short stories and novels all told women what they
were like and how they should feel about themselves. Such sources are called “prescriptive literature”
because they literally prescribe how people should - and should not - behave.
Of course, historians of women do not argue that there was a direct correlation between how
people were supposed to behave and how they actually did behave. The doctrine of separate spheres
could also be both restrictive for women and beneficial for women. At best, it was a complex
metaphor for the negotiation and renegotiation of gender relations. But it is clear that in the
nineteenth century the cult of domesticity (the doctrine of separate spheres) established a very
powerful and long-lasting set of gender expectations that influenced law and public policy decisions as
well as interpersonal relations.
What, then, was expected of New England farmers’ daughters and other respectable (white)
women? They were supposed to be pious, more naturally religious than men (real men might
occasionally swear, but real women never did). Because they were naturally logical and rational, men
might pursue education, but true women should not because they might be led into error if they
strayed from the Bible. As daughters, wives, or even sisters, women had the important responsibility
of being the spiritual uplifters to whom men could turn when necessary.
Just as important as piety was the true woman’s purity. This purity was absolute because
whereas a man might “sow his wild oats” and then be saved by the love of a good woman, a “fallen
woman” could never be saved. In the popular fiction of the period, a woman who had been seduced
usually became insane, died, or did both. If she had a baby, it also came to a bad end. Only on her
wedding night did a true woman surrender her virginity, and then out of duty rather than passion,
because it was widely believed that pure women were not sexually responsive. In fact, many young
women of this era knew nothing at all about their own bodies or the nature of sexual intercourse until
they were married.
Submission and domesticity were perhaps not as vital as piety and purity. Although women
who did not submit to men’s leadership were destined to be unhappy (according to the thought of the
day), they could correct their mistaken behavior. Men were, after all, stronger and more intelligent,
the natural protectors of women. A true woman, wrote then-popular author Grace Greenwood,
should be like a “perpetual child,” who is always “timid, doubtful, and clingingly dependent.” Such
pious, pure, and submissive women were particularly well suited to the important task of creating a
pleasant, cheerful home - a place where men could escape from their worldly struggles and be fed,
clothed, comforted, and nursed if they were ill. Even a woman who did not have very much money
could create such a haven, people believed, simply by using her natural talents of sewing, cooking,
cleaning, and flower arranging.
Simultaneously, then, two important trends were occurring in the early 1800s: the northern
economy was modernizing, and sexual stereotypes that assigned very different roles to men and
women were developing. Whereas a man should be out in the world of education, work, and politics,
a woman’s place was in the home, a sphere where she could be sheltered.
2
But what would happen if the economic need for an increased supply of labor clashed with the
new ideas about women’s place in society? If a young unmarried woman went to work in a factory far
away from her parents’ farm, would she still be respectable? Where would she live? Who would
protect her? Perhaps the experience of factory work itself would destroy those special feminine
characteristics that all true women possessed. All these fears and more would have to be confronted
in the course of the development of the New England textile industry in the 1830s and 1840s.
Although the first American textile mill using water-powered spinning machines was built in
1790, it and the countless other mills that sprang up throughout New England during the next thirty
years depended heavily on the putting-out system. The mills made only the yarn, which was then
distributed (“put out”) to women who wove the cloth in their own homes and returned the finish
products to the mills. In 1820, two-thirds of all American cloth was still being produced by women
working at home. But the pace of modernization accelerated sharply with the formation of the Boston
Manufacturing Company, a heavily capitalized firm that purchased a large tract of rural land in the
Merrimack River valley. The Boston Associates adopted the latest technology and, more important,
concentrated all aspects of clothe production inside their factories. Because they no longer put out
work, they had to attract large numbers of workers, especially young women from New England
farms, to their mills. Lowell, Massachusetts (the “City of Spindles”), and the Lowell mills became a
kind of model, an experiment that received a good deal of attention in both Europe and America. As
historian Thomas Dublin has shown, most of the young women at the Lowell mills were fifteen to
thirty years old, unmarried, and from farm families that were neither the richest not the poorest in
their area. Although some of the Lowell girls occasionally sent small amounts of money back to their
families, most used their wages for new clothes, education, and dowries. These wages were
significantly higher than those for teaching, farm labor, or domestic services, the three other major
occupations open to women.
The factory girls were required to live and eat in boardinghouses run according to company
rules and supervised by respectable landladies. The company partially subsidized the cost of room
and board and also encouraged the numerous lecture series, evening schools, and church related
activities in Lowell. Girls worked together in the mills, filling the unskilled and semiskilled positions,
and men (about one-fifth of the work force) performed the skilled jobs and served as overseers
(foremen). Work in the mills also was characterized by strict regulations and an elaborate system of
bells that signaled mealtimes and work times.
During the 1840s, factory girls occasionally published their own magazines, the most famous of
which was the Lowell Offering. This journal grew out of a working women’s self-improvement society
and was sponsored by a local Lowell minister. When the minister was transferred, the mill owners
partially subsidized the magazine. The female editors, who were former mill workers, insisted that
the magazine was for “literary” work rather than for labor reform. The articles presented a
description of Lowell mills and boardinghouses.
The conflict between economic modernization and the cult of true womanhood was indirectly
recognized by many New Englanders and directly experienced by the Lowell mill girls. What forms
did this conflict take? What fears and anxieties did it reveal? How did the mill girls attempt to cope
with this tension?
When historian use prescriptive literature, they ask (1) what message is being sent or conveyed,
(2) who is sending the message, (3) why it is being sent, and (4) for whom it is intended? Most of the
evidence is in some way prescriptive - that is, it tells people how women should behave.
An early major criticism of the effects of factory work on young women was written by Orestes
Brownson, a well-known New England editor and reformer. A sharply contrasting view appears in
the excerpts from a brief, popular book about Lowell written by Reverend Henry Mills in 1845.
Reverend Mills was a local Protestant minister who was asked by the textile company owners to
conduct surveys into the workers’ habits, health, and moral character. Depending heavily on
information provided by company officials, overseers, and landladies, Reverend Mills published
Lowell, As It Was, and As It Is.
3
Yet the controversy continued, because only one year later, the journal owned by the Lowell
Female Labor Reform Association, Voice of Industry, painted a much darker picture of the factory
girls “slavery.” Although purchased by a militant group of women factory workers, the Voice had
originated as a labor reform paper. Its editorial policy always addressed larger, worker-oriented
issues such as a shorter workday and dedicated a special column to women workers’ concerns.
The young women who worked in the textile mills also actively participated in the debate.
Read the articles, looking for elements of the cult of true womanhood in the writings and in the Lowell
system itself. As you read, consider the following questions for each article: What message is being
conveyed? Who is sending the message? Why is it being sent? For whom is it intended? This will tell
you a great deal not only about the social standards for respectable young white women, but also
about the fears and anxieties aroused by a factory system that employed women away from their
homes,
Reading about how people should behave, however, does not tell us how people actually
behaved. Remember that the central question of this problem involves a clash: a conflict between
ideas (the cult of domesticity) and reality (the factory system). As you read, attempt to reconstruct
what it was really like for the young women who lived and worked in Lowell. To what degree and in
what ways did they deviate from the ideal of “true womanhood?
Factory Regulations in Lowell
The regulations imposed by the Hamilton Manufacturing Company of Lowell, Mass. went beyond
controlling behavior on the shop floor; they invaded the worker’s personal life. To what extent did the
company control their employee’s lives?
REGULATIONS TO BE OBSERVED by all persons employed in the factories of the Hamilton
Manufacturing Company. The overseers are to be always in their rooms at the starting of the mill,
and not absent unnecessarily during working hours. They are to see that all those employed in their
rooms are in their places in due season, and keep a correct account of their time and work. They may
grant leave of absence to those employed under them when they have spare hands to supply their
places, and not otherwise, except in cases of absolute necessity.
All persons in the employ of the Hamilton Manufacturing Company are to observe the
regulations of the room where they are employed. They are not to be absent from their work without
the consent of the overseer, except in cases of sickness, and then they are to send them word of the
cause of their absence. They are to board in one of the houses of the company and give information at
the counting room, where they board, when they begin, or whenever they change their boarding place,
and are to observe the regulations of their boarding-house.
Those intending to leave the employment of the company are to give at least two weeks’ notice
thereof to their overseer.
All persons entering into the employment of the company are considered as engaged for twelve
months, and those who leave sooner, or do not comply with all these regulations, will not be entitled
to a regular discharge.
The company will not employ any one who is habitually absent from public worship on the
Sabbath, or known to be guilty of immorality.
A physician will attend once in every month at the counting room, to vaccinate all who may
need it, free of expense.
Any one who shall take from the mills or the yard, any yarn, cloth or other article belonging to
the company, will be considered guilty of stealing and be liable to prosecution.
Payment will be made monthly, including board and wages. The accounts will be made up to
the last Saturday but one in every month, and paid in the course of the following week.
These regulations are considered part of the contract, with which all persons entering into the
employment of the Hamilton Manufacturing Company engage to comply.
John Avery, Agent.
4
Wage Slavery in New England
Seth Luther, a poorly educated carpenter who helped construct New England textile factories, ranks as
one of the most forceful of the early labor reformers. In numerous speeches and pamphlets he condemned such
abuses as paternalistic control, “black lists” of troublemakers, low wages, and overlong hours. He especially
deplored the exploitation of children, who were sometimes dragged to “whipping rooms.” His deadly
earnestness and biting sarcasm were partly responsible for America’s first law to control child labor - that of
Massachusetts enacted in 1842. It prohibited children under twelve from working for more than ten hours a
day. Determine which was the most grievous, and why such practices were intellectually blighting.
A [Western] member of the United States Senate seems to be extremely pleased with cotton
mills. He says in the Senate, “Who has not been delighted with the clockwork movements of a large
cotton manufactory? He had visited them often, and always with increased delight.” He says the
women work in large airy apartments, well warmed. They are neatly dressed, with ruddy
complexions, and happy countenances. They mend the broken threads and replace the exhausted
balls or broaches, and at stated periods they go to and return from their meals with light and cheerful
step. (While on a visit to that pink of perfection, Waltham [Mass.], I remarked that the females
moved with a very light step, and well they might, for the bell rang for them to return to the mill from
their homes in nineteen minutes after it had rung for them to go to breakfast. Some of these females
boarded the largest part of a half mile from the mill.)
And the grand climax [says the Western Senator] is that at the end of the week, after working
like slaves for thirteen or fourteen hours everyday, they enter the temples of God on the Sabbath, and
thank him for all his benefits. . . .” We remark that whatever girls or others may do west of the
Allegheny Mountains, we do not believe that there can be a single person found east of those
mountains who ever thanked God for permission to work in a cotton mill. . . .
We would respectfully advise the honorable Senator to travel incognito when he visits cotton
mills. If he wishes to come at the truth, he must not be known. Let him put on a short jacket and
trousers, and join the “lower orders” for a short time. . . . In that case we would show him, in some of
the prisons of New England called cotton mills, instead of rosy cheeks, the pale, sickly, haggard
countenance of the ragged child - haggard from the worse than slavish confinement in the cotton mill.
He might see that child driven up to the “clockwork” by the cowskin (whip), in some cases. He might
see, in some instances, the child taken from his bed at four in the morning, and plunged into cold
water to drive away his slumbers and prepare him for the labors of the mill. After all this he might see
that child robbed, yes, robbed of a part of his time allowed for meals by the moving of the hands of the
clock backwards, or forwards, as would best accomplish that purpose. . . . He might see in some, and
not infrequent, instances, the child, and the female child too, driven up to the “clockwork” with the
cowhide, or well-seasoned strap of AMERICAN MANUFACTURE.
We could show him many females who have had corporeal punishment inflicted upon them;
one girl eleven years of age who had her leg broken with a billet of wood; another who had a board
split over her head by a heartless monster in the shape of an overseer of a cotton mill “paradise.” We
shall for want of time . . . omit entering more largely into detail for the present respecting the cruelties
practiced in some of the American mills. Our wish is to show that education is neglected, . . . because
if thirteen hours’ actual labor is required each day, it is impossible to attend to education among
children, or to improvement among adults.
The Abuses of Female Workers
The factory girls of Lowell, Massachusetts, were a showpiece for visitors, notably Charles Dickens in
1842. Having seen the miserable working conditions in England, Dickens wrote almost ecstatically of the fresh
air, the cheerful faces, and the blooming health. He also took favorable note of the girls’ cleanliness, clothes,
thrift, morals, and educational and recreational facilities. Perhaps he was unduly impressed by the contrast with
English factories; certainly he did not investigate as carefully the less savory mills. Six years earlier, an
5
associationist (Fourierist) writer in a contemporary American journal presented a striking different view. Note
the evidence that belies the reports of good health, cheerful countenances, and educational activity.
We have lately visited the cities of Lowell [Mass.] and Manchester [N.H.] and have had an
opportunity of examining the factory system more closely than before. We had distrusted the
accounts which we had heard from persons engaged in the labor reform now beginning to agitate New
England. We could scarcely credit the statements made in relation to the exhausting nature of the
labor in the mills, and to the manner in which the young women - the operatives - lived in their
boardinghouses, six sleeping in a room, poorly ventilated.
We went through many of the mills, talked particularly to a large number of operatives, and ate
at their boardinghouses, on purpose to ascertain by personal inspection the facts of the case. We
assure our readers that very little information is possessed, and no correct judgments formed, by the
public at large, of the factory system, which is the first germ of the industrial or commercial feudalism
that is to spread over our land. . . .
In Lowell live between seven and eight thousand young women, who are generally daughters of
farmers of different states of New England. Some of them are members of families that were rich in
the generation before. . . .
The operatives work thirteen hours a day in the summer time, and from daylight to dark in the
winter. At half past four in the morning the factory bell rings, and at five the girls must be in the
mills. A clerk, placed as a watch, observes those who are a few minutes behind the time, and effectual
means are taken to stimulate to punctuality. This is the morning commencement of the industrial
discipline (should we not rather say industrial tyranny?) which is established in these associations of
this moral and Christian community.
At seven the girls are allowed thirty minutes for breakfast, and at noon thirty minutes more for
dinner, except during the first quarter of the year, when the time is extended to forty-five minutes.
But within this time they must hurry to their boardinghouses and return to the factory, and that
through the hot sun or the rain or the cold. A meal eaten under such circumstances must be quite
unfavorable to digestion and health, as any medical man will inform us. At seven o’clock in the
evening the factory bell sounds the close of the day’s work.
Thus thirteen hours per day of close attention and monotonous labor are exacted from the
young women in these manufactories. . . . So fatigued - we should say, exhausted and worn out, but
we wish to speak of the system in the simplest language - are numbers of girls that they go to bed soon
after their evening meal, and endeavor by a comparatively long sleep to resuscitate their weakened
frames for the toil of the coming day.
When capital has got thirteen hours of labor daily our of a being, it can get nothing more. It
would be a poor speculation in an industrial point of view to own the operative; for the trouble and
expense of providing for times of sickness and old age would more than counterbalance the difference
between the price of wages and the expense of board and clothing. The far greater number of fortunes
accumulated by the North in comparison with the South shows that hireling labor is more profitable
for capital than slave labor.
Now let us examine the nature of the labor itself, and the conditions under which it is
performed. Enter with us into the large rooms, when the looms are at work. The largest that we saw
is in the Amoskeag Mills at Manchester. . . . The din and clatter of these five hundred looms, under
full operation, struck us on first entering as something frightful and infernal, for it seemed such an
atrocious violation of one of the faculties of the human soul, the sense of hearing. After a while we
became somewhat inured to it, and by speaking quite close to the ear of an operative and quite loud,
we could hold a conversation and make the inquiries we wished.
The girls attend upon an average three looms; many attend four, but this requires a very active
person, and the most unremitting care. However, a great many do it. Attention to two is as much as
should be demanded of an operative. This gives us some idea of the application required during the
thirteen hours of daily labor. The atmosphere of such a room cannot of course be pure; on the
6
contrary, it is charged with cotton filaments and dust, which, we are told, are very injurious to the
lungs.
On entering the room, although the day was warm, we remarked that the windows were down.
We asked the reason, and a young woman answered very naively, and without seeming to be in the
least aware that this privation of fresh air was anything else than perfectly natural, that “when the
wind blew, the threads did not work well.” After we had been in the room for fifteen or twenty
minutes, we found ourselves, as did the persons who accompanied us, in quite a perspiration,
produced by a certain moisture which we observed in the air, as well as by the heat. . . .
The young women sleep upon an average six in a room, three beds to a room. There is no
privacy, no retirement, here. It is almost impossible to read or write alone, as the parlor is full and so
many sleep in the same chamber. A young woman remarked to us that if she had a letter to write, she
did it on the head of a bandbox, sitting on a trunk, as there was no space for a table.
So live and toil the young women of our country in the boardinghouses and manufactories
which the rich and influential of our land have built for them.
The “Utopian” Lowell Looms (1844)
Charles Dickens recorded three facts about the Lowell girls that he was sure would startle his English
readers. First, many of the boardinghouses had joint-stock pianos; second, “nearly all” of the girls subscribed to
circulating libraries; third, the operatives - ultimately about seventy of the more literate - published a journal
called The Lowell Offering. The factory owners encouraged it, no doubt conscious of its public-relations value,
and probably censored it as well. Actually, the matrons of the boardinghouses went to great lengths to keep
“fallen women” from entering this “paradise” and tainting the virginal farm girls. The following imaginary and
stilted conversation, published in The Lowell Offering, is a piece of propaganda probably inspired by the
employers and certainly representing the employers’ point of view. Try to detect the serious grievances that are
not mentioned, and the ones that are least satisfactorily explained in light of the testimony already presented.
Miss S:
I am very happy to see you this evening, Miss Bartlett, for I have something particular to
say to you. Now do tell me if you still persist in your resolution to return to your factory employment?
Miss B:
I do. I have no objection, neither have I heard any sufficiently strong to deter me.
Miss S:
The idea that it is degrading, in the opinion of many, would be objection enough for me
without taking into the account its real tendency to promote ignorance and vice.
Miss B:
By whom is factory labor considered degrading? It is by those who believe all labor
degrading - by those who contemptuously speak of the farmer, the mechanic, the printer, the
seamstress, and all who are obliged to toil as belonging to the lower orders - by those who seem to
think the condition of labor excludes all the capacities of the mind and the virtues of humanity. They
forget that circumstances, over which they have little or no control, place them above the necessity of
labor; and that circumstances may yet compel them to engage in that at which they now scoff and
spurn.
Miss S:
There are objections to factory labor, which serve to render it degrading - objections
which cannot be urged against any other kind of female employment. For instance, to be called and to
be dismissed by the ringing of a bell savors of compulsion and slavery, and cannot cease to produce
mortification without having been destructive to self-respect.
Miss B:
In almost all kinds of employment it is necessary to keep regular established hours:
more particularly so where there are as many connected as in the factories. Because we are reminded
of those hours by the ringing of a bell, it is no argument against our employment, any more than it
would be against going to church or to school. Our engagements are voluntarily entered into with our
employers, with the understanding that they may be dissolved at our pleasure. However derogatory
to our dignity and liberty you may consider factory labor, there is not a tinge of slavery existing in it,
unless there be in every kind of labor that is urged upon us by the force of circumstances.
Miss S:
Objections have been brought up against the boardinghouses, and, I think, with much
plausibility. The large number of females who are there thrown together are, unavoidably, intimately
7
connected with each other. It cannot be denied that some, guilty of immoralities, find their way into
the factories and boardinghouses. The example and influence of such must be pernicious, and
terminate in the increase of vice.
Miss B:
It is true that the example and influence of immorality, wherever it exists, cannot be
otherwise than evil. We know, also, that some exceptionable characters occasionally find a place
among those employed in factories. We know it from the fact that dismissals do, now and then, occur
as the consequence. But, my dear Miss S, did you ever hear of a class of people who could boast of
perfection? among whom wrong of any description was never known?
Miss S:
O, no! And, as I am no perfectionist, I never expect to know one.
Miss B:
Then, if in one case the guilt of a few has not corrupted the whole, why should it in the
other? Living in a factory boardinghouse, and working in a factory, changes not “human nature”: it is
susceptible of good, and also of evil, there, as it is elsewhere.
Miss S:
I agree with you in thinking that among all classes, and in every condition of life, evil
influences are at work. But in some situations in life is not the exposure to these influences much
more extensive, and, therefore, more dangerous, especially to the young?
Miss B:
I believe there are many kinds of female employment offered in our large towns and
cities far more dangerous in this respect than factory employment, although they may be considered
more desirable and respectable. . . .
Miss S:
You will not acknowledge that factory labor is degrading, or that it is productive of vice,
but you must own that it fosters ignorance. When there are so many hours out of each day devoted to
labor, there can be no time for study and improvement.
Miss B:
It is true that too large a portion of our time is confined in labor. But, first, let me
remark that this is an objection which cannot be said to exist only in factory labor. . . . We have
abundant proof that unremitted toil is not always derogatory to improvement. A factory girl’s work is
neither hard nor complicated. She can go on with perfect regularity in her duties while her mind may
be actively employed on any other subject. There can be no better place for reflection, when there
must be toil, than the factory. The patronage which newspapers and periodicals find in our city, our
well-worn libraries, evening schools, crowded churches and sabbath schools, prove that factory
operatives find leisure to use the means of improvement both in mind and heart.
“Slavers” for New England Girls (1846)
Many of the Lowell girls toiled only a few years - perhaps to help needy parents, to pay off a
farm mortgage, to accumulate a dowry, or to send a brother through college. Charles Dickens noted that 978
girls had deposits in the Lowell Savings Bank totaling an estimated $100,000. But conditions in other factories
were less wholesome, and the following account in a labor journal, though no doubt overdrawn, contains a large
element of truth. Determine how free these New England girls were to quit their jobs, and in what respects the
analogy to slavery is too farfetched.
We were not aware, until within a few days, of the modus operandi of the factory powers in this
village of forcing poor girls from their quiet homes to become their tools and, like the Southern Slaves,
to give up their life and liberty to the heartless tyrants and taskmasters.
Observing a singular-looking “long, low, black” wagon passing along the street, we made
inquiries respecting it, and were informed that it was what we term a “slaver.” She makes regular
trips to the north of the state [Massachusetts], cruising around in Vermont and New Hampshire, with
a “commander’ whose heart must be as black as his craft, who is paid a dollar a head for all he brings
in to the market, and more in proportion to the distance - if they bring them from such a distance that
they cannot easily get back.
This is done by “hoisting false colors,” and representing to the girls that they can tend more
machinery than is possible, and that the work is so very neat, and the wages such that they can dress
in silks and spend half their time in reading. Now, is this true? Let those girls who have been thus
deceived, answer.
8
Let us say a word in regard to the manner in which they are stowed in the wagon, which may
find a similarity only in the manner in which slaves are fastened in the hold of a vessel. It is long, and
the seats so close that it must be very inconvenient.
Is there any humanity in this? Philanthropists may talk of Negro slavery, but it would be well
first to endeavor to emancipate the slaves at home. Let us not stretch our ears to catch the sound of
the lash on the flesh of the oppressed black while the oppressed in our very midst are crying our in
thunder tones, and calling upon us for assistance.
Disaster in a Massachusetts Mill (1860)
The lot of women factory workers in New England seemed less idyllic after an appalling
accident in the five-story Pemberton textile mill, herewith described. George T. Strong, a prominent New York
lawyer and public-spirited citizen, poured his indignation into his diary. Ascertain who was at fault and why the
South probably took some secret satisfaction in the tragedy.
January 11 [1860]. News today of a fearful tragedy at Lawrence, Massachusetts, one of the
wholesale murders commonly known in newspaper literature as accident or catastrophe. A huge
factory, long notoriously insecure and ill-built, requiring to be patched and bandaged up with iron
plates and braces to stand the introduction of its machinery, suddenly collapsed into a heap of ruins
yesterday afternoon without the smallest provocation. Some five or six hundred operatives went
down with it - young girls and women mostly. An hour or two later, while people were working
frantically to dig out some two hundred still under the ruins, many of them alive and calling for help,
some quite unhurt, fire caught in the great pile of debris, and these prisoners were roasted. It is too
atrocious and horrible to think of.
Of course, nobody will be hanged. Somebody has murdered about two hundred people, many
of them with hideous torture, in order to save money, but society has no avenging gibbet (gallows) for
the respectable millionaire and homicide. Of course not. He did not want to or mean to do this
massacre; on the whole, he would have preferred to let these people live. His intent was not
homicidal. He merely thought a great deal about making a large profit and very little about the
security of human life. He did not compel these poor girls and children to enter his accursed
mantrap. They could judge and decide for themselves whether they would be employed there. It was
a matter of contract between capital and labor; they were to receive cash payment for their services.
No doubt the legal representatives of those who have perished will be duly paid the fractional
part of their week’s wages up to the date when they became incapacitated by crushing or combustion,
as the case may be, from rendering further service. Very probably the wealthy and liberal proprietor
will add (in deserving cases) a gratuity of defray funeral charges. It becomes us to prate (talk at great
length) about the horrors of slavery! What Southern capitalist trifles with the lives of his operatives as
do our philantropes of the North?
9