"Outlining the work program for 1797, Hadfield told the commissioners to hire 'an additional number of laborers... as the setting of stone and laying of bricks will require more hands.' Hadfield was raised in a British family with an antislavery view, but he needed good workers. Hired slaves helped drive the work...."
Quote from Slave Labor in the Capitol, page 95
The words sometimes used to describe workers on the Capitol and White House were imprecise despite payrolls clearly separating the different building crafts, and separating those skilled workers from laborers. That imprecision has allowed commentators to exaggerate the exploitation of slaves. But, I think, a close look at the those imprecise words shows that workers referred to as "hands" were not necessarily slaves.
From a historian's point-of-view, the young British architect George Hadfield was too vague in his planning. James Hoban has left us plans with far more detail that make clear that he was using slaves as carpenters and laborers. The March 28, 1797, letter scanned below shows that Edwards the stone carver was the man of the hour. Hadfield wanted "one or two" stone carvers hired to join him and added that preparing the facing stone "ought not to be left to common workmen."
Here Hadfield was making a distinction between stone carvers and stone cutters. Even though the latter were better paid than masons, carpenters and brick layers, to young Hadfield they were common workmen.
His request for more laborers can be read to say that he needed more laborers to set stone and lay bricks. But it is clear from payrolls and other documents in the commissioners' records that slave laborers were used to tend stone masons and brick layers. His imprecise sentence is better interpreted to mean that more laborers will be needed because more "hands" meaning masons and brick layers will be needed. It is hard to imagine that a young British architect who dismissed stone cutters as "common workmen" would use the words "hands" to mean slaves. He was unfamiliar with slave labor and would probably not use such a familiar word to refer to slave labor.
So what I find interesting in his letter is that he doesn't distinguish slaves at all. Yet when he asked the commissioners to hire more laborers, he must have realized that he was in effect asking them to hire more slaves which leads me to believe he was confident they could well tend the masons and brick layers. He was in effect endorsing the commissioners use of slave labor, which didn't prevent the commissioners from firing him for other reasons. (In another post I will share letters showing that Hadfield had no confidence in the mostly Irish brick laying crew.)
Here Hadfield was making a distinction between stone carvers and stone cutters. Even though the latter were better paid than masons, carpenters and brick layers, to young Hadfield they were common workmen.
His request for more laborers can be read to say that he needed more laborers to set stone and lay bricks. But it is clear from payrolls and other documents in the commissioners' records that slave laborers were used to tend stone masons and brick layers. His imprecise sentence is better interpreted to mean that more laborers will be needed because more "hands" meaning masons and brick layers will be needed. It is hard to imagine that a young British architect who dismissed stone cutters as "common workmen" would use the words "hands" to mean slaves. He was unfamiliar with slave labor and would probably not use such a familiar word to refer to slave labor.
So what I find interesting in his letter is that he doesn't distinguish slaves at all. Yet when he asked the commissioners to hire more laborers, he must have realized that he was in effect asking them to hire more slaves which leads me to believe he was confident they could well tend the masons and brick layers. He was in effect endorsing the commissioners use of slave labor, which didn't prevent the commissioners from firing him for other reasons. (In another post I will share letters showing that Hadfield had no confidence in the mostly Irish brick laying crew.)
No comments:
Post a Comment