"We can only get a general idea of what they did."
Quote from Slave Labor in the Capital, page 16
In early 1795, the commissioners listed the duties of their newly hired clerk/paymaster. They were most particular in tying payments to payrolls certified by superintendents. As I read the long document, I expected to find at least a recognition of hired slaves, how they were managed and how their masters were to be paid. I didn't. The document does not use the word "slave," only "laborer." The 13th rule listed in the document says: "That the Superintendent of the Laborers employed by the year shall make quarterly returns at least of their numbers and the places where employed, of the supplies furnished, the supplies on hand and where stored." A scan of that and other "rules" are at the end of this post.
I found no such records. But evidently the "returns" were made. For example, the commissioners' proceedings for May 2, 1797, reports "Return of Provisions and the number of laborers at the Capitol and President's house at the commencement of the present month received from Samuel Smallwood and Isaac Nesmith."
Samuel Smallwood complained about how difficult it was to keep track of laborers: "I have a great deal of trouble making out return of labs and paying the monthly labs...." http://capitalslaves.blogspot.com/2015/03/more-than-farm-overseer-smallwoods.html
There seemed to be a grasp of how much it cost to feed the laborers. In one of his estimates of expenses Hoban used the figure 12 cents a day to feed each of the hired "Negroes." http://capitalslaves.blogspot.com/2015/01/hobans-estimates-of-expenses-and-use-of.html
If their written reports were lost, how important is that lost information? Payrolls gave a very particular idea of where all the laborers worked. Here is a link to one for May 1797: http://archivepayrolls.blogspot.com/2015/01/payroll-for-laborers-may-1797.html
However, payrolls kept track of monthly wages. Slaves hired by the year would have been noted on the quarterly "returns" that seem to be missing or at least they weren't given me when I did research at the National Archives. Most masters were paid quarterly so I think by going more carefully through all the accounts kept by the commissioners someone can get a good picture of the number of slaves hired.
But a complete "return" of where the slaves worked and any possible variation in their monotonous diet would be interesting. Also the returns might show the employment of white laborers hired by the year differed from that of hired slaves.
However, we should remember that the whole point of hiring slave laborers was to suppress wages and the "demands" of free workers. The commissioners did not have a management team collecting data so that workers could be employed more efficiently, let alone trying to pinpoint individual laborers showing exceptional skill. As long as laborers, black or white, were simply called laborers, there could be no suggestion that they had skills that deserved extra pay. So we have no evidence that a certain laborer always worked the cranes or mixed mortar. I think the commissioners only kept a close eye on the expense of feeding the laborers.
Samuel Smallwood complained about how difficult it was to keep track of laborers: "I have a great deal of trouble making out return of labs and paying the monthly labs...." http://capitalslaves.blogspot.com/2015/03/more-than-farm-overseer-smallwoods.html
There seemed to be a grasp of how much it cost to feed the laborers. In one of his estimates of expenses Hoban used the figure 12 cents a day to feed each of the hired "Negroes." http://capitalslaves.blogspot.com/2015/01/hobans-estimates-of-expenses-and-use-of.html
If their written reports were lost, how important is that lost information? Payrolls gave a very particular idea of where all the laborers worked. Here is a link to one for May 1797: http://archivepayrolls.blogspot.com/2015/01/payroll-for-laborers-may-1797.html
However, payrolls kept track of monthly wages. Slaves hired by the year would have been noted on the quarterly "returns" that seem to be missing or at least they weren't given me when I did research at the National Archives. Most masters were paid quarterly so I think by going more carefully through all the accounts kept by the commissioners someone can get a good picture of the number of slaves hired.
But a complete "return" of where the slaves worked and any possible variation in their monotonous diet would be interesting. Also the returns might show the employment of white laborers hired by the year differed from that of hired slaves.
However, we should remember that the whole point of hiring slave laborers was to suppress wages and the "demands" of free workers. The commissioners did not have a management team collecting data so that workers could be employed more efficiently, let alone trying to pinpoint individual laborers showing exceptional skill. As long as laborers, black or white, were simply called laborers, there could be no suggestion that they had skills that deserved extra pay. So we have no evidence that a certain laborer always worked the cranes or mixed mortar. I think the commissioners only kept a close eye on the expense of feeding the laborers.
No comments:
Post a Comment