Use of Slaves to Build and Capitol and White House 1791-1801 Part Two, by Bob Arnebeck
| Part
One: Stumbling to a Slave Hire Policy Part Three: Slaves as Laborers |
Part Two:
Were Slave Carpenters, Stone Masons, Bricklayers or Slaves with Other Skilled Trades Hired to Work on the Public Buildings from 1791-1801?
As I explored in Part One of this essay, at the same time, April 1792, that the Federal commissioners in charge of building the public buildings in the future national capital were bragging to Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson that there were upwards of 2,000 mechanics and laborers ready to come to work in the city, they advertised to hire slave laborers from masters in the Potomac Valley. They made the decision without the advice or approval of Jefferson or President Washington, who made most of the crucial decisions about the design of the capital and its public buildings. To address labor shortages (nobody seemed to believe the claim about "2,000 mechanics and laborers") the president urged the commissioners to get indentured workers from Europe. Nine months after hiring slaves the commissioners bragged to Jefferson that having the slaves "kept their affairs cool," meaning that having slaves hired for $60 a year, all the money going to the slave's master, checked the wage demands of white workers.
The number of slaves the commissioners hired as common laborers annually increased from about 60 in 1793 to perhaps as many as 90 in 1798. I examine the experiences of these slaves in Part Three of this essay. The total number of workers hired by the commissioners to work on the Capitol and White House ranged from 75 in 1791, when no slaves worked on the project, to 200 or so in 1798, the peak of operations in the city. The federal government left Philadelphia and moved to the city in 1800. The White House needed much interior work and only one wing of the Capitol had been built. Yet the commissioners cut down on the number of slaves they hired, only around 25 in 1800, and layed off most of the 100 or so white skilled workers as soon as their skills were no longer needed. Most observers expected work to resume on the buildings, as it indeed did in 1803, but not under the directions of the discredited commissioners, though I should note they were discredited more for their fumbling the finances of the city, not their labor policy.
Despite the commissioners initial optimism about their labor policy, they frequently lacked the skilled workers they needed, and they thought those they could get asked for too high a wage. As that reality sank in, did the commissioners expand their use of slave by hiring skilled slaves or training the slaves hired to do common labor to fulfill their need for skilled workers?
As I discussed in Part One of this essay, the White House Historical Association website suggests that beginning in 1792 or 1793 hired slaves were trained to cut stone by Scot masons at the commissioners' Aquia quarry in Virginia. I have found no evidence of that. In 1795 one of the commissioners suggested to his colleagues that slaves, hired or purchased, be trained as stone workers. At first blush, the proposal by William Thornton seems an enlightened solution to the commissioners' labor problem. Thornton wrote:
Since it is impossible to hire a sufficient number of Stone cutters from Phila on account of the high price of work being now 13/6 per diem [13 shillings, 6 pence, or about $1.50], it perhaps would be advisable to hire 50 intelligent negroes for six years, to be superintended and directed how to cut stone by two or three persons, who may be paid, for an inducement, from 15 to 30/ per day. At first these men may be employed in cutting the stone till it nearly be ready for scrubbing; the last cutting to be done by the more experienced men. The advantage of this would be that no change of men and prices could affect the work at the Capitol and it would insure the completion of the building. If a measure of this kind be not pursued it is doubtful whether the building can be ready in the time required. If Negroes were to be purchased at the expiration of 5 or 6 years, it would be perhaps still better, as no interference of the owners could then take place. Workmen might have been purchased from Ireland but at present the Laws render it difficult to emigrate, and especially without advances are made so as to prevent the necessity of their entering as redemptioners. I am your respectful colleague, William Thornton to Gustavus Scott and Alexander White, July 18, 1795 (Commrs letters received)
To Thornton's credit, he recognized that there were "intelligent negroes," but the key sentence in the letter underscores Thornton's motive for making his proposal: If a measure of this kind be not pursued it is doubtful whether the building can be ready in the time required.
As I will explain later, in 1794 the commissioners finally realized their dream of getting stone masons to work on a piece work basis, instead of for wages. Unfortunately, the mason who organized these crews was incompetent and in the summer of 1795 most of the stone walls of the Capitol collapsed. The commissioners were always running out of money and Congress was loath to bail them out so that set back made it highly unlikely that the building could be completed by 1800. Commissioners Gustavus Scott and Alexander White, both lawyers, had little trouble accepting a scaled down version of the Capitol, with only the Senate wing and chamber completed by 1800, with the House meeting in a room upstairs from the Senate, about the size of the room it used in Philadelphia. In 1793 Thornton, who had a degree in medicine but a talent for design, won the design competiton for the Capitol, and although a trained French architect, Stephen Hallet, was hired by the commissioners to make the design workable, Thornton thought of the building as his and hated to see it diminished. So he proposed training slaves to increase the skilled labor force at little cost.
Perhaps, it is unkind to ascribe selfish motives for Thornton's proposal, but in 1794 before the catastrophe with the collapsed walls, when discussing their problems finding skilled labor, the commissioners, including Thornton, looked primarily to Europe. The wealthy speculator James Greenleaf bought several thousand lots in the city and planned to go to Europe to raise loans for himself and for the commissioners. In a 27 October 1794 letter, the commissioners urged him to find skilled stone masons in Europe, explaining "they are not to be had in this country. The few here have us under command as to terms." In this letter there was no talk of training men. The commissioners wanted men who have been bred to cutting and laying free stone. They also needed stone carvers and "some of them should be capable of cutting Capitals of the higher order." The feisty Thomas Johnson, who had, I think, engineered the hiring of slaves, was no longer a commissioner. The Virginian David Stuart, another stalwart for using slaves, had also retired. This letter, signed by Daniel Carroll and William Thornton, was probably written by Thornton who was more knowledgable than Carroll, a planter-politician, about such matters. Thornton was looking for men to execute the finer points of his classical design of the Capitol.
...You know the state of our funds and how necessary it is to make the most vigorous exertions in the course of next year.... The work before us and the period in which it is to be done urge us at this moment to enter into very extensive contracts if the state of our funds permitted, among others we deem it indispensable to procure a number of Stone Cutters. They are not to be had in this country. The few here have us under command as to terms - we therefore request you will on your arrival in Europe pursue immediately such measures as will most probably insure the obtaining of a number of men who have been bred to cutting and laying free stone, among them there should be some who have been in the practice of stone carving in the same line.... We will engage to pay not exceeding thirty Guineas per annum (we think L20 Sterling high) and for maintenance (clothing excepted) for as many years as you can obtain them for, not exceeding four years and not under two at least. We agree that you should pay their passage to the City of Washington on account of the Commissioners, they allowing 1/3 of their passage money to be deducted out of their Wages annually for three years or 1/2 for two years. It will be necessary that the terms and obligations should be fixed with precision so as to leave no difficulties on their arrival.
With respect to the Stone Carvers there is such a difference both in execution and taste, that it may be necessary to leave this to the chance of your procuring them to come over on their own risk with regard to the price for their service, but on a certainty of being very liberal according to their respective merits - from 3 to 6 at least of such persons will be necessary, we mean such as would be qualified to take each of them in charge a number of Stone Carvers & cutters. Some of them should be capable of cutting Capitals of the higher order.
We would extend our views further if not constrained by considerations already mentioned, and desire you to have procured a number of suitable tradesmen and labourers on the best terms you can, but fear this must depend on the success of the Loan - if favorable you will do so in this as you will for yourself - We see no means so likely to check the exorbitant prices of building as the arrival of a number of Tradesmen and Labourers at the City of Washington and this check will be more effectual if a proportion of them are under terms of service for a time part to yourself and others to the Commissioners....
Of course there is no reason to mention the recruitment of skilled slaves to someone going to Europe to act as your agent, but the commissioners thought themselves in the same boat as Greenleaf who under terms of his contract for buying lots in the city had agreed to an extensive program of private building. A key sentence in the letter shows that the commissioners no longer had faith in the 1792 policy of hiring slaves to keep down labor costs. Instead they now hoped to keep wages down by paying passage and deducting that from wages: We see no means so likely to check the exorbitant prices of building as the arrival of a number of Tradesmen and Labourers at the City of Washington and this check will be more effectual if a proportion of them are under terms of service for a time part to yourself and others to the Commissioners. Nothing came of this alliance with Greenleaf to get cheap skilled workers. Greenleaf soon renigged on all his obligations with the commissioners.
His fellow commissioners, both slave owners, were not impressed with Thornton's scheme to train slaves, though I have not found a reply to his letter. In 1795 Thornton probably did not have enough experience with slavery to persuasively argue his case. He was a native of Tortola, one of the Virgin Islands, but was educated in Britain. I'm not sure if Thornton owned slaves before he came to Georgetown from Philadelphia. He soon bought two, and as we shall see in Part Five, by 1800 avidly shopped for slaves to buy for his horse farm and as house servants. Prior to 1795, his only public comments on slavery urged a colonization scheme to return slaves to Africa, which probably marked him as more a visionary than a practical man. Thornton was the least esteemed of the commissioners. William Cranch who managed the affairs of the speculators James Greenleaf and Robert Morris in the city wrote to his uncle, President John Adams, evaluating the commissioners:
Perhaps you may not be personally acquainted with the Commissioners. Having had much business to transact with them, I recd from all an uniform degree of politeness. Mr. Scott however appears hasty and overbearing. Mr. Thornton is also hasty but has not the firmness of Mr. Scott. He seems to be a little genius at everything - his chief merit as Commissr consists in his knowledge in Architecture & drawing. There is little respect attach'd to either his person or manners, and as a member of the board he seems sometimes an appendage to Mr. Scott & sometimes to Mr. White. I have not had a long acquaintance with Mr. White as with the other two, but in his manners he is more mild than Mr. Scott, more firm than Mr. Thornton and more respectable than either. (Cranch to Adams, 5 March 1797)
Thornton's reputation might explain why his proposal was not taken seriously, other than its being completely foreign to the thinking of Americans in 1795.
Thornton's letter does suggest that there was no track record of either the use of skilled slaves on the public projects or of any slaves being trained to do skilled stone work. Desperate to see his design completed Thornton would have marshalled evidence to show that training slaves was feasible. But let me make clear: this essay doesn't aim to examine the skills of African Americans enslaved in the United States in the 1790s. It only examines what slaves did to forward the decade long project to ready the City of Washington for the reception of the Federal government in 1800. By examining documents about the actual building, I hope to correct any inclination of others to assume that because there were slaves with skills and because the city was built along a river between two slave states, that therefore those skilled slaves must have been exploited to build the Capitol and White House.
To be sure, having been brought to the city to work, hired slaves became an integral part of the work force. There is no evidence of anyone in power, including Washington and Jefferson, anyone observing the scene, or anyone working with them objecting to the use of slaves. There is also no contemporary detailed description of exactly what they did. But while we cannot be sure of what all of the hired slaves did, we do know that almost all the skilled workers who built the Capitol and President's House through the year 1801 were white. It is unlikely that any records have been surpressed. That skilled whites did almost all that work is not a matter of conjecture. The records in the National Archives list the names, days worked, rate of pay and total pay of all the workers. Nor were any of the skilled workers free African Americans. Much of the work done on the public buildings became a matter of controversy. At a time when people were not shy about demeaning African Americans, race was not an issue when the quality of some of the workmanship and manner of working were roundly criticized. The nationality and religion of the skilled workers did become issues. In a March 20, 1798, letter defending himself against attacks by the English architect supervising Capitol construction, the Irish carpenter Redmond Purcell tried to defuse the Irish vs. English controversy by having the carpenters attesting to his version of events sign under their nationality: four Scotch, six Irish, and ten Americans. No slaves signed.
That perspective on the use of skilled slaves said, there were a few slaves whose masters were paid for their skilled work, and some slaves who were paid an extra wage they could keep themselves for essential work that the commissioners didn't deign to label as skilled. Indeed, the crew of carpenters building the White House in 1794 and probably as early as 1793 included slave carpenters. Redmond Purcell could have had slave carpenters sign his letter if the commissioners had not banned their employment in late 1797.
Slave Carpenters
The trajectory of the slaves who worked as carpenters at the President's house is instructive, as it shows that the commissioners had little inclination to use skilled slaves. After the commissioners hired James Hoban in 1792 to superintend the construction of the President's house that he had designed, they let him return to Charleston, South Carolina. After leaving his native Ireland, in 178-, that was the first place in America where he began exhibiting the skills as a builder that he had learned in Dublin. During his presidential tour of the South in the summer of 1791, Washington met Hoban in Charleston. He was quite pleased with Hoban, because, as he explained in a July 30, 1792, letter to the commissioners, "He has been engaged in some of the first buildings in Dublin, appears a master workman, and has a great many hands of his own." When he returned from Charleston he probably brought back those hands. He worked with two Purcell brothers, also emigrant Irish carpenters, and they both soon sailed up from Charleston to Georgetown. In 1794, the first year I was able to find payrolls of the public works, we know that four slave carpenters belonging to Hoban, one belonging to Peirce Purcell (today his name is generally spelled Pierce) and at least three indentured servants, also carpenters, worked in the President's house. It is likely that this group of men were the "hands" that Hoban brought back from Charleston. (Of course, it is possible the Hoban bought the slaves when he came north.)
The transcription of one of the payrolls for carpenters in the President's house shows that two of the slaves, Peter and Tom, earned for Hoban and Purcell as much as the white indentured servant Peter Smith, and all the slaves, whose wage ranged from 4 shillings to 6 shillings six pence a day (roughly 45 cents to 65 cents) earned considerably more for Hoban and Purcell than the hired slave laborers, who at that time, early 1795, were making a little over 2 shillings a day for their masters:
We do hereby acknowledge to have received of Chas. Redmond the sums prefixed to our respective names being in full for wages due to us as Carpenters employed at the President's House in the City of Washington in the month of January 1795, Witness our Hand, this___ day of February 1795
name days rate pounds shillings pence wage signature Peirce Purcell 27 15/ 20 5 0 Twenty Pounds, five shillings Peirce Purcell Mich. Dowling 27 8/4 11 5 0 Eleven Pounds, five shillings Michael Dowling Peter Lynox 27 8/4 11 5 0 Eleven Pounds, five shillings Peter Lenox James Duncan 21 8/4 8 15 0 Eight Pounds, fifteen shillings Js. Duncan Redd. Purcell 19 1/2 8/4 8 2 6 Eight Pounds, two shillings, six pence Redd Purcell Samuel Curtis 19 1/2 8/4 8 2 6 Eight Pounds, two shillings, six pence Samuel Curtis Timoy Sheedy 17 1/2 8/4 7 5 10 Seven Pounds, five shillings & ten pence Timothy Sheedy Robert Aul 18 8/4 7 10 0 Seven Pounds, ten shillings Robt Aull Simon Toole 22 8/4 9 3 4 Nine Pounds, three shillings & four pence Simon Toole Jn. McCorkill 27 7/6 10 2 6 Ten Pounds, two shillings & six pence James Hoban Peter Smith 27 6/6 8 15 6 Eight Pounds, fifteen shillings & sixpence Peirce Purcell Peter 21 6/6 6 16 6 Six pounds, sixteen shillings & six pence James Hoban Tom 20 6/6 6 10 0 Six pounds, ten shillings Peirce Purcell Ben 23 5/ 5 15 0 Five pounds, fifteen shillings James Hoban Harry 27 4/ 5 8 0 Five Pounds, eight shillings James Hoban Daniel 27 4/ 5 8 0 Five pounds, eight shillings James Hoban Sam McCorkill 27 7/ 9 9 0 Nine Pounds, nine shillings Peirce Purcell
In a few months Peter and Tom were earning money for Hoban and Purcell at the same rate as the McCorkill brothers, white indentured servants owned by Hoban and Purcell. At this writing, several web sites offer this unattributed observation on how Hoban treated slaves: "Hoban was a humanitarian who had difficulties with slavery and always attempted to treat them with dignity and respect. Flogging was restricted and episodes of cruelty dealt with." [Wikipedia entry on James Hoban, November 2006.] Judging from these monthly payrolls in the National Archives, slavery generated a considerable added income for Hoban while he worked on salary for the commissioners. In January 1795, a rather slow month work wise, he signed for 23 Pounds 16/6 in wages and what amount he gave to his slaves, if any, was entirely up to him. Assuming his average income from this source was 25 Pounds a month, he made 300 Pounds a year, roughly $750 a year supplementing his $1500 a year salary. At least at this period what his difficulties with slavery might have been are hard to fathom.
Not much information can be gleaned from the records in the National Archives about Hoban's and Purcell's slaves. Only slaves owned by those gentlemen were listed in the roles of carpenters. Only five of them worked as carpenters on the President's house: Peter, Tom, Ben, Harry, and Daniel. I saw fewer listed on the payrolls for work done at the Capitol: Harry, Toney, and James. There was likely only one Harry who moved from one job to the other, following his master, the head carpenter at both buildings, Peirce Purcell.
One payroll rather highlights the contributions of slave carpenters. To build a bridge over Tiber Creek, that ran below the west slope of Capitol Hill, Redmond Purcell, Peirce's brother, had five other carpenters working with him, two of them were Hoban's and Peirce's slaves, Peter and Tom.
work done for the Commissioners of City of Washington at a Bridge over Tiber Creek Feb 17, 1795
Redm Purcell 17 days @10 James Duncan 161/2 10 Saml Curtis 17 10 Robt Aul 6 10 Peter 13 1/2 7/6 Tom 13 1/2 7/6
What Peter and Tom earned was paid to their masters, Hoban and Peirce Purcell. Does that payroll speak to the skill of Peter and Tom, selected to work with four white carpenters, or was it just a way for Hoban and Purcell to get some income from the project? The speculator James Greenleaf promised to pay all the expenses for the bridge. (By the way, it appears the bridge was not well made since it had to be extensively repaired in 1800.)
The evidence suggests that contemporaries thought Hoban and Purcell were unduly profiting by employing their own slaves. Not that they were in anyway secretive about using slave carpenters. In late 1795 as it became clear that the commissioners would be unable to raise enough money by selling lots to finance their operations, they asked Congress to either loan money to the city or guarantee a loan from another source, (the State of Maryland, as it turned out.) The commissioners asked Hoban to draw up a budget for the money needed to carry on construction of the public buildings. In his budget Hoban had a seperate line for twenty carpenters and another line for five slave carpenters. I don't think this document was submitted to Congress and those documents that were, both projecting and accounting for expenses avoided using the words slave or Negro. It seems clear that while the commissioners often thought of slave laborers as an essential component of the work force, and while, as we shall see, they thought of slave sawyers as an entity, they didn't accord slave carpenters any importance. This is curious. In Part Five of this essay I will try to figure out how whites in the growing city regarded African Americans, but for now, it bears pointing out that plantation owners like George Washington seemed rather proud of their slave carpenters, not so much for their skills but because of the money they saved by lessening the need for white carpenters. Evidentlly the commissioners found that paying slave carpenters a shilling or two less a day was not a notable savings. They certainly had no hesistency in banning the practice of hiring slave carpenters when one of Hoban's rivals complained.
On November 15, 1797, the commissioners responded to the complaints of Collen Williamson, the Scot stone mason who blamed Hoban for his dismissal from the public works, by banning the use of "Negro Carpenters." They
Ordered that after the expiration of the present month no Negro Carpenters or apprentices be hired at either of the public Buildings and that no Wages be allowed after that day to any white Apprentices without an especial order of the Board (Cmmrs Proceedings, p 635)
Shortly after that order, Williamson wrote to President Adams about the goings-on at the President's house, accusing Hoban and the Purcell brothers of stealing materials from the public stores and profiting from the hire of their slaves. The letter to Adams in the scroll box below also captures the Scot Williamson's dislike of the Irish and is the source of his deprecating six slaves as not equal to one good hand that I quoted in Part One of this essay:
they likewise have among them ten or twelve negro apprentices and drawing wages for them. six of them is not equale to one good hand, the gentlemen here says it was good policy in Hoban to get me putt out of place fore then there was non to restrain them, they did as they pleasd, this man have been a recepticle for all the Irish vagbons that came in his way, there is noting here but fighting lying and stealing and will be as long as this man is in power...
I don't know what became of the slave carpenters after they could no longer work with Hoban. He and Purcell probably hired them out to private builders. Hoban, who continued to be in charge of work at the White House had no trouble finding white carpenters. In April 1798 nineteen carpenters were working at the President's house. Hoban still managed to collect the wages of others, two apprentices, William Johnson and Henry Morrison, probably boys since they were paid 4 shillings and 3/9 respectively.
President's House; carpenters and joiners day work for April 1798
| John Lennox | 24 days | 17/6 a day | 21/0/0 | John Lennox | ||
| Joseph Hoban | 7 3/4 | 12/6 | 4/16/10 | Joseph Hoban | ||
| Peter Lenox | 25 | 10/0/0 | 12/10/0 | Peter Lenox | ||
| William Warrington | 25 | " | " | Wm. Warrington | ||
| George Sandford | 25 | " | " | George Sandford | ||
| Richard Whight | 22 3/4 | " | 11/7/6 | Richd White | ||
| Peter Haley | 20 1/2 | " | 10/5/0 | Patrick Healy | ||
| Daniel Caffry | " | " | " | Danl Caffry | ||
| Samil Right | 22 3/4 | " | 11/7/6 | Samuel Right | ||
| John Nixon | 22 | " | 11/0/0 | John Nixon | ||
| Robert Aull | 20 1/2 | " | 10/5/0 | Robt Aull | ||
| George Thomson | 19 | " | 9/10/0 | George Thomson | ||
| Thomas Sandiford | 23 3/4 | " | 11/12/6 | Thomas Sandiford | ||
| Thomas Burens | 20 1/2 | 6 | 6/3/0 | John Lennox | ||
| Charles Bagget | 24 1/2 | 6 | 7/7/0 | John Lennox | ||
| Phill Garlic | 25 | 5 | 6/5/0 | Peter Lenox | ||
| William Gill | 24 3/4 | 5 | 6/3/9 | George Thomson | ||
| William Johnson | 23 1/2 | 4 | 4/14/0 | James Hoban | ||
| Henery Morrison? | 24 | 3/9 | 4/10/0 | James Hoban |
Nothing is served by denigrating the five slave carpenters who worked at the White House from 1793 to 1797. In the winter when only 17 carpenters worked there they made up almost one third of the crew. But that crew of slave carpenters never grew. Year after year Hoban and Purcell collected the money their slaves earned. That seemed to be chief virtue of Peter, Tom, Ben, Harry and Daniel. Free carpenters recruited the young men who became carpenters. They did not train their slaves to be as skilled as they were. As the payroll above shows, along with Hoban's two boy apprentices, there appears to be four other apprentices. Some of those young men endured conditions not unlike slavery. On February 22, 1797, one of the carpenters listed above, Daniel Caffry, placed an add in the part offering a $15 reward for the capture and return of John Paget, 18 years old, "an Indented apprentice to the Carpenter's trade." (Wash. Gazette) But John Paget was not a slave. In looking out for younger men to learn the trade, older carpenters reaped some advantages. A letter written in 1800 by a man who had been working for the commissioners since 1792 shows that older men did care for the younger carpenters and by doing so they could help pay the rent:
January 8, 1800
Gentlemen, as I have understood that we are all to move down to the --- Square to work at the Capitol that the houses that belong to the publick will be for us that is in the employment. I don't know One of the houses that will suit me better than the One Mr Hurttestone lives in. If the Commissioners will be so good as to Let me have that house I will oblige myself to take in Borders as theair is Several young men in the Employment that will board out.
William Knowles
But there is no evidence of carpenters like Knowles who worked on the public buildings ever profited like Peirce Purcell by buying slaves, teaching them the trade and hiring them out. In September 1798 thirty nine carpenters were working at the Capitol, none of them slaves.
Carpenters - Capitol - September 1798
| Wm Kief | 21 1.2 days | 9/0/0 a day | William Kief | |
| Samuel Curtis | 23 | ' | Samuel Curtis | |
| Robert Oliver | 22 | " | Robert Oliver | |
| Jas. Thompson | 19 1/2 | " | James Thompson | |
| Andrew Farm | 24 1/2 | " | Andrew Farm | |
| Nathan Walker | 21 1/2 | " | Nathan Walker | |
| Clem Boswell | 24 1/2 | " | Clement Boswell | |
| Wm. Simms | 21 1/2 | " | William Simms | |
| Sam Clokey | 25 | " | Sam Clokey | |
| Ts Watkins | 25 | " | Thomas Watkins | |
| Wilson Bryan | 24 1/2 | " | Wilson Bryan | |
| Js Johnson | 21 | " | James Johnston | |
| Jn Dickey | 20 1/2 | " | John Dickey | |
| Sam Fowler | 21 1/2 | " | Samuel Fowler | |
| Jn Atkins | 23 | " | John Atkins | |
| Thomas Dickey | 24 1/2 | " | Thomas Dickey | |
| Jn Rae | 14 1/2 | " | John Rae | |
| George Moor | 24 1/2 | " | rcd payment Thomas Jones | |
| Js Parsons | 21 | 7/6/0 | James Parsons | |
| Leven Smallwood | 21 1/2 | 9/0/0 | Sam. N. Smallwood | |
| Js Tompkins | 10 1/2 | " | James Tompkins | |
| Jn Minor | 21 | " | John Minor | |
| Robt Aull | 12 1/2 | " | Robt Aull | |
| George Thompson | 23 | " | George Thomson | |
| Jn Nixon | 9 | " | John Nixon | |
| Pat Healy | 22 1/2 | " | Patrick Healy | |
| Wm Knowles | 23 | " | William Knowles | |
| Rich White | 21 | " | Rich d White | |
| George Sandford | 23 1/2 | " | George Sandford | |
| Sam Wright | 21 1/2 | " | Samuel Wright | |
| Thos Sandiford | 25 | " | Thomas Sandiford | |
| Daniel Caffrey | 20 1/2 | " | Danl Caffry | |
| Wm McGill | 25 | 6/0/0 | George Thomson | |
| Robt Sutton | 22 | " | William Knowles | |
| Wm Johnson | 24 | 5/0/0 | James Hoban | |
| Henry Morrison | 24 | " | James Hoban | |
| Bob Aull | 25 | 3/0/0 | Robt Aull | |
| Henry Charters | 25 | 5/0/0 | Rdm Purcell | |
| Redm Purcell | ? | ? | Redmond Purcell |
The list above has the names of both Robert Aull and Bob Aull. As we shall see in Part Three of this essay, payrolls often listed the first name of a slave followed by the last name of his master. A year later when Robert Aull was laid off, he asked the commissioners if that meant that his "boy" was laid off too. The commissioners replied: "Your Boy is dismissed of course, with his Master." (Commrs. Letters, p.231, 4/11/99 Scott and White to Robt Auld.) Boy may have meant son, or apprentice, but probably not slave.
In the list above Samuel N. Smallwood received the wages of Leven Smallwood. Samuel was overseer of the slave laborers hired by the commissioners, and, as we shall see in Part Three, owned several slaves that he hired out to the commissioners. Was Leven Samuel's slave put on the crew despite the commissioners' order banning slave carpenters? If so, he was paid more than Hoban's slaves had been, 9/0 a day instead of 7/6. But Leven was not a slave. He soon bought land in a nearby Virginia village, not a possibility for a slave. He was likely a relative.
It is possible that Peter, Tom, Ben, Harry and Daniel were not highly skilled. Judging from other documents, some white masters distinguished a slave as a carpenter merely for his ability to square cut trees with a broad axe. William A. Washington, the president's nephew, arranged to lumber a 300 acre forest in Westmoreland County, Virginia, for the commissioners, and proposed hiring "12 slave carpenters and 10 ax men." The ax men cut the trees, the carpenters squared and sawed them. A few months later the president asked his nephew if he had any Negro carpenters to hire out for work the president wanted to get done at Mount Vernon. His nephew replied that he thought all the available Negro carpenters had been hired to work in the Federal City. Since in 1793, work on private buildings in the city was minimal, this suggests that the carpenters were working on the public buildings. If they were hired by the commissioners, it evidently was not as carpenters as defined by the commissioners' payroll in the National Archives. According to a February 5, 1793 note in the Commissioners' Proceedings they employed six "hands" that Washington hired for them. They probably did the same work they did in Westmoreland County, sawing trees into lumber. There that work was called carpentry. To the commissioners, they were not carpenters, but sawyers.
The distinction between carpentry and sawing was probably made to prevent the owners of so-called Negro carpenters from thinking that their slaves might exhibit skills beyond sawing and thus command the wages of free carpenters. Indeed in their correspondence with William Washington, the commissioners seemed loath to make any commitment to hire his "12 slave carpenters" that William Washington evidently wanted to hire out at a wage higher than what the commissioners were offering for slave laborers. On January 2, 1793, the commissioners told William Washington that
wages by the month would suit us better than by the year, because nothing is within our view, on which we could employ the Negroes, after this work is done, if we are obliged to take them by the year on calculation we think a much less number than that proposed would accomplish the work before it would be applied. [commrs to WA Washington, 2 Jan 1793]
It is interesting to note that at the same time they showed such a lack of enthusiasm for William Washington's slaves, the commissioners were urging that more slaves be hired for work at the quarry they owned in Virginia. The commissioners wanted slaves but cheaply. They were not interested in skills but driving wages for free workers down.
But soon enough the commissioners did recognize the skills of those slaves who could saw wood. The slaves hired as common laborers, who served as sawyers, soon proved so indispensable, that they were paid "extra wages" as sawyers. "Extra wages" were paid directly to the slave, unlike the money for their yearly or monthly hire that went to their master. In that respect they may have fared better than Hoban's and Purcell's slaves who made more money for their masters. Sawyers were not paid as much as carpenters, quarry workers, stone masons, stone cutters, stone carvers, brickmakers and bricklayers. But sawyers were desperately needed and judging from the payrolls found in the National Archives almost all the sawing was done by slaves.
In a December 1, 1792, letter to the commissioners, James Hoban who supervised work at the President's house described the crisis in its earliest stage:
Our sawyers have dwindled a way from three pare, to two, from two to one pare, and now there is none. Mr Sandiford is now sick and his hands all dispersed, he has sent to inform me that he has got no hands, and intends to saw no more; it would be necessary to take some steps to get a Sett of Sawyers to be steady in this business, as the Pitt is in complete order, and Sawyers can work to advantage in all weather- (Commrs letters received)
Slaves hired out for the year typically went home early in December. I think that accounts for the use of the word "disperse," instead of "quit" or "broke their contract." White laborers had no home plantation to return to where they would be fed and houses. A few days later, December 5, the commissioners authorized an ad for four sets of sawyers with one set to be acquainted with sawing mahoganny. There is no evidence that the ad attracted any sawyers let alone a pair used to sawing mahoganny. I think Hoban developed a crew of sawyers from the common slave laborers hired by offering extra wages.
A year later the commissioners tried again, placing at least two ads in newspapers in Baltimore and Easton, Maryland, soliciting sawyers. (N.B. I've only seen the order in their proceedings for October 16, 1794, authorizing the ad, not that printed ad itself which probably ran just before the first of the year.) The commissioners alerted masters that they needed
a number of slaves to labor in the brick yards, stone quarries & c for which generous wages will be given. Also sawyers to saw by the hundred or on wages by the month or year apply to Mr. Hoban
I take labor in the brick yards, stone quarries & c to mean that these slaves were to be laborers and not do the skilled work. However, those slaves working in wood would not merely labor in the lumber yards, they would saw wood and masters could even negotiate a piece work contract, saw by the hundred, so that a talented slave could make even more than the generous wages the commissioners offered. I've only seen evidence that suggests that this ad only persuaded two masters to hire out their slaves. On July 6, 1795, the commissioners paid $20.33 to a Caleb Varnal for his slave on a piece work basis. That account notes that the contractor's "Negro sawyers" cut 583 feet of oak. And on August 6 they paid $30.73 to Francis Hammersley for sawyers. (Architect of Capitol, Report on Slavery, p 21.)
A crisis remained in the sawing department. Judging from two notes in the National Archives, the commissioners twice hired sawyers from contractors: "Dr. Blakes hands" for "sawing oak joists," and on April 16, 1799, they hired "sawyers from Moffet at $16 a month each." I do not know if Blake's and Moffats sawyers were slaves, but it seems likely for, as we shall see, Blake, a future mayor of the City of Washington, often collected the wages earned by slaves for their farflung masters. If Moffet's slaves did indeed make $16 a month, they would have been paid at a rate of $192 a year, almost three times the $70 that hired slaves earned for their masters then. But I was unable to find corroborating evidence, like a payroll or receipt, proving how much they were paid, nor how long they might have worked.
There was one slave sawyer, Simon, who at least for one month was paid at a higher wage. In July 1795 James Hoban placed the following ad in local newspapers: "three pairs of good sawyers will get constant employment." [I don't have the proper citation for this ad.] Slaves were in no position to answer want ads in the newspaper. Since slaves were hired in the beginning of the year, Hoban was probably not trying to persuade masters to hire out sawyers -- the promise of constant employment might give masters pause or cause them to want more money. So evidently, Hoban was looking for free laborers, and it is likely he didn't find any. The August payroll for sawyers at the President's house lists six men who did get constant employment that month, 30 days. All six were slaves. As an incentive to get more work from the sawyers he had, Hoban paid those six slaves, and two others who worked 17 days, extra wages, a shilling a day, actually given to the slaves, in addition to the yearly or monthly wages given to the slaves' masters.
The extraordinary feature of that payroll, transcribed in the table box below, is that one slave, Simon, was paid at the same rate as an apprentice carpenter, and earned Eleven pounds five shillings in one month, almost thirty dollars, almost half as much as masters hiring out a slave for the year received.
Received of Chas Redmond the sum affixed to our respective names being for Extra Wages allowed to us as sawyers at the President's house in the month of August 1795
Negro Simon 30 days 7/6 11/5/0 N Simon X his mark Jerry 30 1/0 1/10/0 N Jerry X his mark Jess 30 1/ 1/10/0 N Jess X his mark Charles 30 1/ 1/10/0 N Charles X his mark Len 30 1/ 1/10/0 N Len X his mark Dick 30 1/ 1/10/0 N Dick X his mark Bill 17 1/ 0/17 N Bill X his mark Jim 17 1/ 0/17 N Jim X his mark
This is the only reference to Simon that I could find in the National Archives records. Perhaps he parlayed his skills into a better deal with a private contractor. I was also unable to find out who owned Simon. Perhaps Simon or his master did answer Hoban's July ad and left after a month. Perhaps Simon was free, despite being listed on the payroll as slaves always were. Simon was likely a leader of his crew. However, other payrolls don't show any one slave getting paid at a higher rate.
We acknowledge to have severally received of Chars. Richmond the sums prefixed to our respective signatures being in full for Wages due to us for extra time as Sawyers at the President's House.... November 1795
Jesse Harry
Dick
Ben
Moses
Charles
25 days 25
7
7
12
12
1/ a day 1/
1/
1/
1/
1/
One Pound five Shillings One Pound five Shillings
Seven Shillings
Seven Shillings
Twelve Shillings
Twelve Shillings
his mark X his mark X
his mark X
his mark X
his mark X
his mark X
There was also a crew of sawyers working at the Capitol, and they too got a shilling a day for extra work. A September 1795 payroll listed six slaves getting a shilling a day: Ben, Alick, William, Thomas, William, and James. An August 1798 payroll listed 15 slave sawyers: Moses, Clem, Jess, Alick, Davy, Sill, Dick, Tony, Huier, Moses, George, Sam, Billy, Stephen, Perry. Useful as a second name might have been to distinguish the two Moses, slaves in the commissioners' records never had a second name. They were sometimes distinguished with the name of their master. In other payrolls there is a "Moses, Queen," and a "Moses, Plowden." And we can' t be sure if the Alick working in 1795 was the same one working in 1798.
In March 1796, the commissioners' secretary. Thomas Monroe, listed the labor expenses (the commissioners were running short of money and were looking to economize.) At both buildings "Negro sawyers" were listed as a separate category:
PRESIDENT'S HOUSE Negro sawyers $15.86 Stone cutters 387.91 Carpenters 417.20 Overseers & Labourers 33.71 CAPITOL Bricklayers $31.00 Negro sawyers 6.67 Carpenters 227.40 Stone cutters 982.76 Overseers & Labourers 65.50
I assume that the money tallied here represents the extra wages, 13 cents a day, paid to sawyers. In one month in 1798, twelve slave sawyers at the Capitol earned $35.47 for themselves, or almost three dollars each. The larger sums paid to stone cutters and carpenter were regular wages paid to free craftsmen. I'm not sure what the small amounts paid to overseers, laborers and bricklayers represent. As I will explore more fully in Part Three of this essay, at the end of 1796, crews organized to cut timber were paid extra wages. One carpenter got 2/6 a day above his usual wage, one overseer also got 2/6 more. Six sawyers got their usual shilling a day, but so did 33 common laborers. Slave sawyers were recognized as specialists, but not necessarily paid any more than laborers.
As the carpentry work ended on the public buildings, the commissioners began hiring out the slave sawyers that they had hired. A Boston speculator name John Templemen bought lots in the new city, but settled in Georgetown and began specializing in finding, cutting, and shipping lumber up and down the Potomac. According to their Proceedings from September 2, 1799, the commissioners ordered their overseer Samuel Smallwood to send six sawyers to work for Templeman until December 20th. Slaves generally were eager to work for him, especially when he took crews down river near to their home plantations. In a 1799 letter to the commissioners, Templemen described how one slave wanted to be on his crew going down the Potomac to get lumber:
Gentlemen. the Bearer, one of your sawyers, has been frequently with me begging that I would write and request the favor of your board, to let him go with the other men who you hired to me yesterday. He assures me that there is a pair of sawyers now at the Capitol, say George and Oliver, who are good and do not want to go below - I hope you will not consider me as Troublesome, I write as much to oblige the Poor Fellow as myself. He seems very uneasy at being obliged to stay, where the others are gone to work very near home. (Letters to Commrs, 9/3/99)
The letter shows that the slave sawyers had a sense of their skill, but at the same time Templemen seemed amused by this.
While the sawyers were paid far less than slave carpenters, except for Simon, there is no record of the slave carpenters getting extra wages for work at the Capitol or White House. However, there is a payroll showing that three slaves received extra wages for attending the carpenters when they worked on holidays. By law, slaves themselves had to be paid for work on Sundays and holidays
Negroes hired to attend the Carpenters, On Easter Monday and Tuesday 1796
Charles 2 days @ 3/9 7/6 Harry 2 days @ 3/9 7/6 Charley 2 days @ 3/9 7/6
Jas. Hoban ---- Peirce Purcell
History focuses our attention on certain projects in the past and can give the impression that playing a role in that project made men notable and won them accolades from contemporaries. In 1807 the men who built the south wing of the Capitol were honored with a banquet, though the hired slave laborers involved were not invited. But praise was grudging at the public works in the 1790s, and accusations of poor workmanship and chicanery were frequent. The conduct of carpenters became a matter of controversy, and in the letters generated by that controversy, a picture of demoralization if not fraud emerges. To the credit of the African Americans involved, they were implicated in thefts only in so far as they acted on their master's instructions. All to say, one must pause before inflating the skills of slaves in these projects because that might only cover them with shame, since the skilled work was often found wanting. The roofs of both buildings had some daunting leaks.
Briefly put, while James Hoban and the Purcell brothers survived the attacks of the Scot mason Collen Williamson, though they could no longer employ their slaves, they were less successful fending off the accusations of English carpenters hired to do the carpentry for the windows of the President's house, and the English architect hired to superintend the construction of the Capitol. Both the Purcell brothers were eventually fired, and the commissioners tried to fire Hoban, who was then superintendent of all public building in the city. In an April 11, 1799, letter the commissioners reiterated the charges against him, including letting the slave sawyers loaf on the job:
....If the facts be true that fourteen carpenters for a period of seven weeks or more, did not do one third of the work justly to be expected from them, that thirteen sawyers for a whole year played the same game, and sashes for temporary purposes have been made under your management which cost the United States little less than 50 cents per light; these were objects of magnitude sufficient to have attracted the attention of the Superintendent [Hoban] and ought to have been noticed and redressed by him and we are inclined to believe, the world will say by the commissioners also. (Commrs. letters, to Hoban from Scott and Thornton.)
The commissioners certainly didn't underscore the significance of the accusation that that thirteen sawyers for a whole year played the same game. I have never seen free white laborers listed as sawyers at the White House so these were probably all slaves who did not do one third of the work justly to be expected from them. I think more was not made of this lax supervision of slaves because the only point of the controversy was to justify dismissing Hoban which became a priority of William Thornton's after Hoban also began superintending construction of the Capitol that Thornton boasted of designing. Like all practical architects who had worked on the project, Hoban found Thornton's drawings unworkable. This is not to say that Hoban's supervision was not lax. The Commissioners had already fired one of Hoban's carpenters, and in his protest to the commissioners he admitted that supervision was lax:
April 9 , 1799
Gentlemen, I beg leave to write a few lines to you. Informing you of my present situation Which I hope you will take into consideration. I am discharged from public service and do not know for what. I have been informed it was for not doing my duty in plaining shingles. Gentlemen, I acknowledge that there might been more work done than was but it was so general that every man in the yard took whatever Liberty almost he pleased as the main thing was to keep time. But even the Charge which was against me is a very gross mistake for I believe I dressed as many shingles on the time I was at work as any man their. But I was not dressing shingles more than three or four weeks. I hope Gentlemen you will take this in your consideration that I have purchased a lott of you and being thrown out of work now at this dull time it will render me unable to fulfill my contract with you and support my family and if I am discharged for not doing a full days work every day, every carpenter might be discharged for the same reason. Gentlemen you will think proper to reinstate me again I dare say their will be no more complaint against us I expect their will be more regularity with the carpenters. if the Gentlemen should not think proper to put me to work I hope they will allow me a hearing. I conceive myself as much injured although I was a journeyman as if I was the master carpenter.
James Tompkins
Hoban remained as superintendent because Thornton was unable to provide a drawings that made sense to the men doing the building. But before that played out, Hoban's friends accused Hoban's accuser, the English carpenter Joseph Middleton, of stealing wood from the President's house, primarily using his slaves to do it, and using that wood for windows and fine work that he sold to private builders.
...because it is in proof before the commissioners, that a variety of cabinet work and some carpenters work have been done in Mr.Middleton's shop while he was receiving daily pay from the public, some part of which by Middleton himself and other parts by his journeyman and apprentices... That he saw Middleton's yellow Girl carry 2 x 2 1/2 inch plank about two and two and an half feet long out of the shop when Middleton was in it..... he saw Middleton hand down from the President's house 1 1/2 or 1 1/4 inch plank about 2 1/2 feet long to his little Negroes who carried them away in two baskets... He saw mahogany chairs and tables carried from the President's house after sunset by Middleton's apprentices.... Then on Friday and Saturday before Christmas he saw Middleton's Negro man Jack carrying public stuff out of the yard.... (Commrs letters received, from Redmond Purcell, 4 June 1799; That letter was in reply to a 22 March 1799 letter from Middleton to commissioners complaining about Hoban's efforts to control everything. Middleton didn't mention his or Hoban's slaves in that letter.)
The conduct of the slaves did not become a bone of contention. That the sawyers did not work was blamed entirely on Hoban; and the wood stolen profited Middleton, not his slaves. However, I think a subtext in this dispute tried to tar each party with misusing slaves. Hoban and Purcell paid slave sawyers who didn't work. Middleton had his slaves steal wood from the public store. If Middleton's journeyman and apprentice had been slaves it is likely that Hoban's friends would have made much of that. So, his little Negroes and Negro man Jack were probably house slaves, like his yellow Girl. To resolve this dispute the commissioners called witnesses and according to their preceedings of April 1, 1799, Middleton wanted Peirce Purcell's negro Tom as one of his witnesses. (If he did testify, I've seen no record of his testimony.)
My minimizing the contributions of slave carpenters on the public building flies in the face of one of the rare observations of work on the Capitol. In one of the best contemporary descriptions of work in the city the Polish nobleman Julian Niemcewicz wrote "the negroes alone work," and he visited the city when carpenters were framing the roof of the Capitol.
31 May [1798]. We went this morning to roam about the Capitol. It was eleven o'clock. No one was at work; they had gone to drink grog. This is what they do twice a day, as well as dinner and breakfast. All that makes four or five hours of relaxation. One could not work more comfortably. The negroes alone work. I have seen them in large numbers, and I was glad that these poor unfortunates earned eight to ten dollars per week. My joy was not long lived: I am told that they were not working for themselves; their masters hire them out and retain all the money for themselves. What humanity! What a country of liberty. If at least they shared the earnings! (Under Their Vine and Fig Tree: Travels Through America, p 93)
The discrepancy between my analysis and his observations can be explained. Niemcewicz happened to visit during a labor crisis. In response to attacks on him, the supervisor of the carpenters at the Capitol, Redmond Purcell, attacked the English architect supervising contruction, George Hadfield, claiming that his design for the roof was faulty. The carpenters were staging a slowdown which accounts for why Niemcewicz saw them in the grog shops so often. (After Hadfield was fired, Hoban took over and the commissioners granted his August 13, 1798, request that men working on roof of the Capitol get 1/2 pint of whiskey per day and, during the hot season, a small portion of spirits and water half a day.)
The feud had been going on for a couple months. For example, on March 27, 1798, Purcell, the head carpenter, wrote to the commissioners: "In respect to the business, the Carpenters will come to a stand this day - as Mr. Hadfield stopt the Sawyers yesterday." Purcell and Hadfield continued to accuse each of the capricious actions that slowed down the work. One letter that Purcell wrote to the commissioners complaining about Hadfield gives us an idea of the sawyers relationship to the carpenters, and how essential their work was.
The Commissioners of the City of Washington, Gentlemen, I have been in a very disagreeable situation this sometime past with respect to the roof for the Capitol - in justice to the commissioners and my own character, I am under the necessity of stating the following facts in respect to Mr. Hadfield's proceedings concerning the roof. I repeatedly called on Mr. Hadfield for drawings for the roof which he has often evaded - at length I got a sketch to regulate our plates and girders, when compleated according to his design, he gave me orders to have seven girders in place of six (which was his original plan)... I again urged the necessity of getting a general plan that I may have it in my power to keep the men employed to the best advantage, this he also evaded until the men were nearly out of work.
At length I got a sketch of one pair of rafters, had the stuff purchased according, ready to frame. When he gave me orders for several alterations from his own drawing, which I would not comply with if their was not evidence present (as I was liable to censure among the men) being sensible to the worth of the stuff, and loss of workmanship. As the stuff after being prepared was brought from the shed to be sawed and worked over again - Finding he had so many alterations, I desired he may give me a drawing according so that I may be justifiable in what I was doing (as I had my own opinion of the business.)
The sawyers at this time being nearly at a stand, I had to again request another sketch. The stuff for his former sketches being all prepared. - We went to the sawpit, and there I explained to him how the business stood, - that the carpenters would be idle in a short time, as also the sawyers in a few hours. That I really was at a loss how to proceed. His answer was to get some of the pine and have it sawed for small rafters. I told him that would be the last that would be wanted for the roof.
And requested again that he would give me a general plan that I may know what I was about. - After this I did not get a sketch for another pair of rafters for two days. During this time I was obliged to keep the men employed to the best advantage.
Yesterday morning I explained myself fully to Mr. Hadfield, that there was twenty-one carpenters & six pair of sawyers. If he did give a general plan of the roof in sedgment and his ideas in full, how the hips and valleys was to finish, wether he intended to have diagonal rafters framed or not - how the gutters were to be regulated - also whether ceiling joists was to be connected with the roof
That this information was absolutely necessary or I could not proceed much longer with the work.
His answer as usual was very dissatisfactory, that he expected papers from Philadelphia - that he has to encounter many such affairs since he came to the city and he would not be hurried to it.
Gentlemen, this is the real situation of the business, and it is necessary to have an immediate decision ... or the work will come to a stand.
Redmond Purcell Capitol February 20 , 1798
Redmond Purcell was soon fired. The pleasure he received from describing how he exhibited the incompetence of Hadfield, a young Englishman of the upperclass, in the presence of the slave sawyers about to run out of work is evident in his letter. Whether those slave sawyers derived any pleasure from Hadfield's embarrassment is unknown.
These controversies at both of the public buildings do afford a glimpse of the racial balance in the work force. There were 14 carpenters and 13 slave sawyers at the President's house. There were were 21 carpenters and 12 sawyers at the Capitol. Purcell's letter emphasizes the team work involved. The carpenters were dependent on the work of the sawyers. At the President's house, when the carpenters merely marked time rather than work, the slave sawyers could be idle too. Given that most of the common laborers were slaves, and that some of them worked with the carpenters, it becomes clear that it was easy to get the first impression, as Niemcewicz did, that slaves were doing all the work.
Unfortunately, Niemcewicz did not say exactly what work the slaves were doing on the roof. Undoubtedly they moved rafters and other timber and lumber, but did they fit the roof framing together? When speculating on that, one must remember that carpenters needed tools and that it is unlikely that common laborers hired to work in the city and housed in a common barracks had tools. In an April 12, 1797, letter to the commissioners pressing for higher wages, the carpenters at the President's house alluded to the expenses they bore for tools:
The Carpenters employed at outside work such as framing of joist and roof at the President's house beg leave to present the Commissioners that they have been at a considerable expense for Tools calculated to answer that kind of work, and that being exposed to the inclemency of the weather, equally with the Stone cutters employed at outside work. We hope your honorable board will take our Case into consideration and allow us the same advance in wages being in every respect equally entitled. We are with grate respect, Gentlemen, your most Obt Servants
The Carpenters at out side work
That whites and blacks worked together to such a degree on this major building project for several years is probably remarkable for that day. But because African Americans weren't trained, didn't have the necessary tools, and were encouraged only with the enducement of a shilling a day for the special work, their impact on the work and the works impact on them was probably limited, and didn't seem to create a group of skilled African American workers.
The commissioners contracted out for a work, and, who those contractors employed to do the work was not up to the commissioners. There is some tantalizing evidence that one contractor at least better exploited the skills of his slaves. In April 1795, James Claggett billed the commissioners for "repairing two scows." The bill included costs of materials and labor. Leading the list of workers was "Negro Davy @ 11/3" who got almost 3 pounds for 4 3/4 days worked. Then Ben White and John Hawker were listed working at the same rate, 2 1/2 and 6 days respectively, and Negro Anson working 4 1/2 days. These scow repairers were paid a wage higher than what white carpenters working in the President's house were getting. (In 1800 Claggett submitted a bill for carpentry work on John Tayloe's house near the White House, now called the Octagon, in which his three slaves earned 15 shillings per day, more than most white carperters received. In this case the slaves worked 30, 29 and 6 1/2 days respectively. Tayloe evidently objected because he refused to pay the bill until Claggett sued and won his case in July 1803. Ridout, Building the Octagon, p 157.)
Did other subcontractors the commissioners used employ skilled slave carpenters? Most of their major contracts went to low bidders, and we might imagine that using slaves might allow contractors to submit lower bids, since the slaves only had to be fed, not paid. (Obviously Claggett didn't think like that.) In 1798, Leonard Harbaugh won the bid to build the Treasury building next to the President's house. The building became controversial in two respects. First, after winning the bid and beginning the work, Harbaugh realized that he needed more money to do the job. Perhaps because of that, his monthly payrolls were processed by the commissioners' treasurer. Only two workers, both laborers, appear to be slaves. Then, a few months after the building opened, it burned down. Congress investigated, and fault was found with the carpentry, the use of "wooden bricks" for a fireplace. Here was another project with which skilled African Americans perhaps are best not associated.
It is possible that slave carpenters were not hired out to the commissioners because they could earn more working for private contractors. In a November 1798 ad, the speculator Isaac Polock wanted "to purchase 6 negro carpenters, and a few stone masons and brick layers." Polock was trying to build houses on what would become Washington Circle northwest of the White House. Shortly after the ad ran, he went bankrupt and the only chattel offered at the Sheriff's sale was a slave girl. So we cannot be sure that he purchased the skilled slaves he wanted. Private contractors who primarily built brick houses used many carpenters and bricklayers. I examine their use of slaves in Part Four of this essay.
In a previous entry in his diary, his first visit to the Capitol, Niemcewicz did describe the full crew at work:
A huge scaffolding surrounded it and all around for a considerable distance the ground was covered with huge blocks of this same stone, some already cut and polished, others yet undressed. The lower part of this picture was composed of some sheds for cutting the stone and for working on the roof and the framework, some cabins scattered here and there, a shelter for the workers, two or three small shops for liquor and other articles of prime necessity. The top of the edifice was covered with 200 workers, raising the stones by means of machines and placing the first framework of the roof. All were working in silence. p 78
As we shall explore in Part Three of this essay, it is not easy to know exactly how many slave laborers were used on the public buildings. At this time the commissioners tried to hire 120 laborers. Not all were slaves, but at this time I think there were at least 90 slave laborers. Of course, the sawyers were of that number. So probably half of the men Niemcewicz saw working on that day were slaves. Judging from Niemcewicz's description, the stone work, not the carpentry, was most impressive at this time.
Were any of the skilled stone workers slaves?
Stone and Brick Workers
While there were slave quarriers at the commissioners' Aquia, Virginia, quarry, there is no clear evidence that slaves or free blacks did the skilled stone work on the public buildings in the city, which is to say, slaves did not cut, polish, carve or set the stone. Slave laborers, and white laborers, did "tend" the masons, almost on a one to one basis. Certainly most of these were slaves, but one of the white laborers, Ambrose Moriarty, later wrote a letter to the commissioners, explaining that he had "formerly been employed in attending masons and other work for the public." These laborers who moved the stone for the masons were as essential to the operation as sawyers were to the carpenters. A March 28, 1797, letter from Hadfield to the commissioners shows both how great a premium was placed on highly skillled stone workers and how essential were the laborers, slaves, tending them:
As the season will now permit to proceed with the Building of the Capitol, I beg leave to make the following observations to the Board: That the quantity of materials already prepared will enable the building to advance as high as the capitals very rapidly
That thirty corinthian columns & three hundred and fifty feet of architrave & cornice ornamented with medallions & c & c, will delay & take a long time executing without more assistance, therefore it will be advisable to procure, if possible, one or two more ornament carvers to assist Edwards in doing what ought not to be left to common workmen & what one man cannot do with sufficient expedition.
That precaution should be taken to prevent delay in getting the necessary timber of a bill delivered to the Board in November last for the use of the Capitol, as the carpentry that will be here after wanted will take long to execute & we shall shortly be without timber
An additional number of labourers will be wanted as the setting of the stone and laying of brick will require more hands.
Making rapid progress on the Capitol depended on uncommon ornament carvers and an additional number of slaves to assist stone masons and bricklayers.
When Hadfield noted that the laying of brick will require more hands, were skilled slaves included in that number? I have found one slave bricklayer in the records, perhaps there are more that I didn't see in the unorganized mass of papers at the National Archives. The confusion in the records may reflect confusion on the ground. Niemcewicz described a confusing work site, and didn't say exactly what the slaves did, but was able to distinguish the skilled masons and would have probably noted if any were slaves or black. He even went into one of the huts of the workers
The masons and workers are paid from a dollar up to two per day. They work from 6 in the morning to 8 o'clock; they then breakfast up to 9, work then up to one o'clock, eat dinner up to two, returning to work until six o'clock in the evening. Besides these times of rest I have seen them often quit their work, come into the little dramshops in order to talk while drinking a glass of grog. Once I went into the hut of one of these workers. I found his wife there dressed very neatly, good utensils for cooking, and all the service for tea in porcelain from China.... Nearly all these workers are Irish or Scottish immigrants from Europe. (Under Vine and Fig Tree, p. 80)
Niemcewicz seemed curious about slaves and confronted some out of the city on the way to Great Falls on the Virginia side of the Potomac River.
Six miles from the bridge we passed along a field where ten negroes, men and women, were scratching at the soil and driving in little sticks. Curious to see the planting of tobacco, we thought that they were busy at this work, we tied our horses to the hedge, jumped it and went to find our Blacks. Their emaciated and black skeletons were covered with shreds of rags, bare legs, etc. etc. It was not tobacco but maize that they were planting....After asking them a few questions we were leaving when we heard a furious voice cry out: "Stop, stop." We returned and saw two men armed with guns, running all out of breath and very anxiously towards the negro with whom we had just spoken, and asking him what we had wanted and what we had said to him. Right in the middle of these interrogations we approached. "What were you looking for here? What did you want with my negroes?" he asked us in an agitated and frightened voice. We told him we were foreigners, that we were curious to see a tobacco plantation and we thought that his field offered us an opportunity. "I beg of you a thousand pardons," he said to us. "I thought you had come to corrupt and seduce my negroes." (Ibid., p 88)
That Niemcewicz had an eye for the oppression of slaves and didn't mention seeing any mistreatment of slaves in the city suggests that the conditions under which the hired slaves in Washington worked were relatively benign, that the slaves there were clothed, fed, and housed. He also attended a church service on Capitol Hill, and did not note the presence of any slaves or blacks.
The 20th of May I went to the chapel, situated by the Capitol in the top of a shed where they saw marble. The congregation was composed of 200 people, as many men as women, all very decently dressed although for the most part they were only laborers working on the Capitol. The women, mostly farmers' wives or wives of the inhabitants and officers of the town, were very healthy, very white-skinned, very pretty. The sermon was given by a promising young priest. (Ibid, p82)
I quote Niemcewicz at length to underline his style of observation which suggests that if blacks manipulated that marble in any skilled way, which a European might have never seen before, Niemcewicz would have delighted in recording the observation. It bears noting that he was unique among visitors for his interest in the workers. The French traveler La Rouchefoucalt-Laincourt dismissed them with this slur: "the workmen are the very refuse of that class, and nevertheless very high in their demands" (Travels Through the United States of North America in the Years 1795, 1796, and 1797, p330.) He did speak highly of the skill of the stone masons.
As I did for the carpenters, I feel obliged to transcribe a payroll for the stone masons, who, in 1794, were all paid a wage of 10 shillings a day, except James Henry who made 9, more than carpenters then made, and most of whom worked 24 days in December 1794, when we can imagine there was rush to get work done before winter set in:
| Alexander Reed | |
| Robert Graham | |
| David Ogilvie | |
| James Logan | |
| William Fisher | |
| Henry Cook | |
| John Henry | |
| James Henry | |
| Neal McKeever | |
| John Bennett | |
| David Kay | |
| Robert Oliver | |
| Andrew Shulls | |
| John Cochran | |
| Peter Larimore | |
| Nath. MaCleish | |
| William Beard | |
| William Symington | |
| Thomas Allen | |
| Alex Williamson | |
| Robert Tolmie | |
| William Simpson | |
| Hugh Somervill | |
| James Somervill | |
| Joseph Cockran | |
| James Jack | |
| John Shaw | |
| Thom. Barth | |
| Frederick Nie | |
| Thos. Dollar | |
| George Jacob | |
| David Waterson |
There were five more stone workers at the President's house, Henry Edwards, George Blagden, Robert Vincent, James Dougherty, and David Cumming. I doubt that the John Henry on this list was an African American. John Henry signed his own name for his wages, as did all the men listed as stone cutters, stone carvers, stone masons, and masons, at least in the payrolls I have seen in the National Archives, with one possible exception that I'll discuss later.
During the 1794 building season the commissioners negotiated a contract for stone work on a piece work basis with an Irishman named Cornelius McDermott Roe. The commissioners thought that by paying for work done and not the time spent working, they could better control their costs. They could estimate the amount of stone work to be done and know what they would pay for that amount of stone work. McDermott Roe had come to the country in 1786 and was then indentured to George Washington, who soon learned to appreciate the young Irishman.
In generalizations about labor in the full scope of American history, it is common to find descriptions of African Americans, slave or free, pitted against the Irish. In the 1790s in Washington, Irish emigrants worked with slaves and won the respect of the commissioners, all of whom owned slaves, for their knack for handling slaves. McDermott Roe was no exception. Washington often hired skilled whites to build and repair buildings at Mount Vernon, but with the clear understanding that they would work with his slaves. In 1786, when George Washington drew up a contract with McDermott Roe outlining the rights and obligations of both the master and indented servant, one provision required the stone mason McDermott Roe to teach his craft to able slaves who might work under him:
And lastly, he will instruct to the best of his skill and judgement, any person or persons who shall be placed with him for that purpose, in the Art and misteries of his Trade. (Washington Papers, August 1, 1786)
There is no evidence that he trained any slaves at Mount Vernon. He soon had Washington hire two of his brothers. (When he left office in March 1797 Washington needed to do some repairs on Mount Vernon and before carpentry could be done a chimney piece had to be repaired. Evidently McDermott Roe had not trained any slaves there in stone work. Washington wrote to the Federal City asking that Hoban send down a skilled stone worker or, better yet, McDermott Roe, if he was available. Washington to Lear, March 25, 1797.)
When McDermott Roe made his contract to do the stone work at the Capitol, he did so with the condition that the commissioners would supply all the unskilled slaves he needed. In their contract with McDermott Roe the commissioners promised that
he may have so many of the Labourers as he will require employed by the Commissioners by the year or month and at the same rate or wages that they give them, deducting the same from his bill or charges of the whole amount of his work as he thinks it would be impossible to find Labourers sufficient to manage the work during the time he would have need for them...." (signed jany 30, 1794 )
The commissioners also contracted with an English mason, John Dobson, for a crew to work on a piece work basis. Dobson was more specific in his requirements, he needed: a sufficient number of laborers to hoist & haul stone on to the scaffolds.
December 7, 1794
Understanding your wish to have the Stone work of the Capitol (or part thereof) done by contract, induces me to lay the following --- before you for your consideration and approbation: As it will be an extensive job, I do not make my estimates from the present high price of labour but depend greatly on your advancing a sum of money that would enable me to procure men from England that would gladly work at moderate wages - Therefore I would bind myself and give good security (if necessary) to work --- ---- -- ashlar at 3/ per foot superficial...etc etc.
The commissioners to find scaffolds, carpenters, to smith's work, and a sufficient number of laborers to hoist & haul stone on to the scaffolds...
These piece work contracts, especially the one with the Irishman, led to the dismissal of Scot and English masons paid by the day and agitated the Scot Collen Williamson and eventually led to his dismissal. This generated several letters from and about the masons, now in the commissioners' files in the Archives, that give us an idea of how the commissioners encouraged masons to come and then did all they could to keep wages low.
We the under named Masons, who were induced to come from different parts of the continent to the Federal City, under expectations of meeting with good wages, but who now find ourselves out of employ, certainly from no fault of our own, after having been a considerable time engaged in the Public service, performing our work faithfully and to the full satisfaction of our employer, beg leave to offer our services to the Publick on either of the following conditions. We will build the foundation of the Capitol to the height required with rough stone, in a workman like manner which we are qualified to do, at 4/6 per perch - having all materials laid down convenient to the Building - And if found with sufficient attendance we will do the same for 3/6 per perch - Or we will work at 11/3 per day. But no man who is a Tradesman will submit to work under those who are not. We therefore cannot work under McDermott Roe & cannot help thinking it very hard that we should be told we must work under him, or be discharged, after having worked so long for the publick without complaint against us.
We have heard assigned as a reason for the change which has taken place in the manner of conducting the Public work - that the Masons who were at work at the Capitol - idled their time and did not do their duty. This is not true, whoever may have made such representations to the commissioners - Let the work done this Spring be fairly estimated and it will be found that each Mason employed fully earned his wages, allowing the rate per perch at which McDermott Roe has contracts - with this wide difference in favor of the masons - that their work will stand the test of the severest examination, and McDermott Roe's is totally unfit for such a building, and must be undone or the House will be ruined, which we are willing to prove. It is also said as a reason for the change, that the masons refused to work without their wages were raised from 10/ to 11/3. This is not true, the Masons said not a word about their wages until after they were told by Mr. Hoban that those who did not choose to work under McDermott Roe might go about their business - They were well satisfied to continue as they had done for twelve months before at 10/ a day. - But after being discharged they had a right without any imputation upon them to hold their future services at what they thought proper
Robt Brown, James Maitland, John Delahunty, Thom? Maitland ( ?, 1794)
First we learn from the letter that the efforts of the commissioners to recruit skilled workers from around the country were successful, as these disgruntled masons wrote that they were induced to come from different parts of the continent to the Federal City, under expectations of meeting with good wages. We also get an idea of what masons needed from other laborers. There seems to have two kinds of assistance: merely getting the stone to the site and havings hands actively attending while the mason set the stone. Having attendance meant charging 25% less for the job: 4/6 per perch - having all materials laid down convenient to the Building - And if found with sufficient attendance we will do the same for 3/6 per perch.
I am not sure what sufficient attendance means.
Replying to the complaints of these masons working by the day, the commissioners did not feel especially alarmed. Two weeks earlier they had written to the Maitlands and three other masons suggesting they were not essential:
May 19, 1794
We have received your application for an augmentation of your wages, and have shortly to inform you that it is our determination not to raise them. We have not the smallest apprehension but your places will be immediately filled.
After the masons clarified their position on wages and offered to work on a piece work basis, the commissioners, replying through Williamson, accepted their offer to work at 4/6 per perch with materials laid down, but not with the sufficient attendance that would knock the price even lower:
7 June 1794
We desire you to inform the Masons who sent in a memorial to us respecting the work at the Capitol, that while we are happy at all times to receive any information from those engaged in the public service and their terms of work, we can never countenance a riotous and disorderly conduct. We are well informed that there are several of those who were at work at the Capitol who have issued threats against Mr. Hoban and Dermott Roe and that the latter has been for his own safety compelled to take out warrants against them. Such it would be improper to emply without their satisfying the above persons of their peaceable conduct in the future. In the Memorial presented to us an offer is made for working a 4/6 per perch having materials conveniently placed for them - we empower you to close with this proposition and engage such of them as are not included in the above description without their compliance with the above mentioned terms.
The commissioners' declining to give them sufficient attendance probably reflected the commissioners worry that they had already committed too many of their laborers to attending McDermott Roe's and Dobson's masons.
The commissioners, who had been longing for piece work contracts to enable them to get a better grip on work schedules and expenses, eventually found it a mixed blessing. McDermott Roe did not assemble a sizeable crew until 1795. He roughly used as many slaves as he had masons. In a letter to President Adams, Collen Williamson described the scene as "about thirty men beside negro's attending them." (Adams Papers, 9 June 1797) In the commissioners' accounts there is a note that in May 1795 there were 22 slaves and and 18 masons working at the Capitol. McDermott Roe peppered the commissioners with complaints about the slow delivery of stone. Presumably there was a separate group of slaves bringing the stone to the masons. However, I am not sure about this.
At the beginning of the summer of 1795 masons were working on walls of the north wing, center section and south wing of the Capitol, and then almost all the walls they were working on collapsed. The commissioners seemed to put a premium on downplaying the extent of the damage and after dismissing McDermott Roe seemed loath to pursue a full investigation of what went wrong. They did sue McDermott Roe for a little over $1,800 in damages, but I don't know if they ever collected that money. Those crews who were blamed, in turn blamed other crews. President Washington and Secretary of State Randolph did chide the commissioners. Scott and Thornton fired back describing what they had to put up with the workers on the scene: "Those not acquainted with the motley set we found here, and who from necessity have too many of them been still continued in public employment can form no adequate idea of the irksome scenes we are too frequently compelled to engage in." (Commrs to Randolph, July 13, 1795.) As one reads the files of the commissioners and realizes how much is left unsaid about the use of slaves, it is best not to jump to the conclusion that the commissioners and their superintendants of the workforce despised slaves or African Americans in particular. As the quote above makes clear, the gentlemen commissioners disliked workers in general, no matter their race or level of skill.
Just as during the controversy over carpentry, in the controversy over the stone work no one blamed slaves, which we can take as evidence that while they were instrumental in getting the stone to the building, and assisting the masons, they apparently did not do work considered skilled at that time. Slaves probably cleaned up the mess. In August 46 slaves worked at the Capitol with the stone masons. That said, in a payroll submitted by John Dobson on October 23, 1795, nine stone cutters are listed. My photocopy of this payroll is rather poor but lists two stone cutters with only one name which is how slaves are usually listed. My copy also doesn't show who received their wages. Those two men were paid at the same rate as the other stone cutters 11 shillings a day and both worked a full month in September. (I'm no longer able to visit the Archives, so If someone sees this payroll or has a better copy, I would appreciate knowing the names of those two men and if they or someone else received their wages. I doubt that they were slaves.)
Of course, with an increasing number of slaves being hired for a project poorly planned and prone to bottlenecks in supplying materials, what scruples there might have been against using skilled slaves, as evidenced in the 1797 order regarding slave carpenters, did bend. In their meeting of October 25, 1798, the commissioners ordered on their overseers of laborers, Bennett Mudd, to have "four negro labourers sawing freestone at President's house." I was unable to find a payroll reflecting this work and whether slaves received extra wages.
In the Part One of this essay, I discussed the murky issue of slave quarriers working at the commissioners' Virginia quarry. In the records there are two explicit orders from the commissioners that slaves should be hired to work there, upwards of 30 to 40 slaves, but I could only find evidence of five slaves working there. I recall making quite a search in the National Archives for a list of the quarriers, who numbered 34 in early 1793, to see how many were slaves. I did find the names of four slaves and their owners and a payroll showing how much the owners were paid. In Part One of this essay I discount the idea that slaves hired at the Aquia quarry were trained to rough cut the stone. The owner of one of the slaves hired wrote to the paymaster at the quarry on January 21, 1795:
Sir, I am informed by Mr. Watson the man who managed the Quarry business last year & who hired a Negro from me for that business that you were to pay the Hire. I was also informed yesterday by Mr. Bronaugh of acquia that you were the proper person to apply to for the payment, I therefore desire you to pay it to the Bearer Mr. James Diale whose recd(?) shall be good agt me the Negro's name was Jack fuller. Watson was to give at the rate of L14 per year he had him only eleven months which comes to L12.13.4 Virginia [currency] I hope sir you'll not fail in paying the money to Mr. Dial as I am in the greatest distress for money.
I am Sir your Hbl. Svt., John Linton
As we shall see in Parts Four and Five of this essay, whites could be quite descriptive in their ads for runaway slaves. Not so in this letter which discusses only the money for the slave's labor. One would presume that training would mean the slave's value increased. As we have seen, free workers were not shy about negotiating an increase in wages. Presumably, as the evidence grew of the value of their slave's work for the commissioners, slave masters would have been eager to get a higher wage for the slave's work.
The receipt for the money paid to Linton for the hire of Jack Fuller is in the National Archives. Listed along with Jack (the paymaster did not use his last name) are three other slaves: B. Burrough's Bob, Alex. Watson's Negro Alexander, and John Porter's Negro Moses. It's hard to believe these were the only slaves working at Aquia, that a drive to hire 25 slaves in 1793 only netted 4 slaves still working there in 1794. These slave masters all received a meagre wage, which suggests that Jack Fuller might have been a common laborer assisting the quarriers. In a note in the commissioners' proceedings for 1792, presumably referring to the Aquia quarry, Bennet Fenwick is authorized "to fix stone in quarries" and to "get up to 6 hands" to do it. (Proceedings 8/30/92) I'm not sure what this means.
However, in a list of the accounts of the commissioners with slave owners, unfortunately rather minimal accounts, I did see the slave Moses listed as a quarrier. A complete search of the records will likely reveal the names of other quarriers and I would be obliged if anyone can share the information and I'll add those names to this essay with credit to who ever supplies the information. (I now live far from Washington and can't search the Archives myself.)
I also found the payrolls made out by Robert Brent, the man whom the commissioners urged to hire slaves, for the month of June 1794. Once again my photocopy is not complete so I will just describe the payrolls. That for June 1794 lists nine men as quarriers. None worked the whole month. One, Joshua Doing, worked twenty days. Two others worked as little as 10 days, another just five days. So this does not appear to be the roll for slaves hired by the year or month. However, one man is listed as "Luke Huer's Donald Hadmary," which might be a slave save that generally slaves were only given one name even if they had two. So this man may have been an indentured servant. That said, the first names of several on the list were common names for slaves: Nias Cooper, Jesse Cooper, Joshua Doing, Jacob Piles, Nimrod Young. Certainly the impression given by these names is different than the list of stone cutters at the Capitol in December 1794. Perhaps they were free blacks.
Aquia was not the only quarry supplying stone to the public buildings. I can't be certain if slaves were used in a small quarry opened in the city itself. William O'Neale, who was sent to the city from Pennsylvania by the President to check out the possibility of quarrying stone at Mount Vernon, surpervised the city quarry. The commissioners assigned some of their laborers to him, but his payrolls of his quarriers don't list those labourers, which doesn't necessarily mean that they didn't quarry stone. While his 8 quarriers were not listed as slaves, three may have been indentured servants.
wages as Stone Quarriers in the City of Washington January 1795
| John McNamera | 27 days | 75 shillings | John McNamera | ||
| James Sheridan | 19 | 60 | James Sheridan | ||
| John Long | 14 | 60 | Wm O'Neall for John Long | ||
| John Whelan | 19 | 52/6 | John Whelan's mark X | ||
| John Underwood | 4 1/2 | 52/6 | Wm O'Neall for John Underwood | ||
| James Jones | 1 | 60 | Wm O'Neall for James Jones | ||
| Josias Simpson | 8 | 60 | Josias Simpson |
William O'Neale found his niche in history as the tavern keeping father of Peggy O'Neale whose beauty and suspect morals paralyzed the first years of the Jackson administration. In the 1790s he was a contractor in the building trades who seemed to have both ambition and imagination. His letter to the commissioners about the delivery of stone to the public buildings helps us get a better idea of the use of slaves, he called them "public hands", to move the stone. He outlined a more efficient way to use the hands to unload the stone from shallops at the dock below the Capitol, and noted that by reducing the number of hands used for that, they could work in the quarry raising stone: "four public hands saved which may be employed in raising more stone." His letter outlining his proposed efficiencies is in the scroll box below:
There is a racist subtext in O'Neale's letter. The efficiencies of his new way of unloading stone meant that there would be less opportunity for "skulking":
One part of the work would drive the other & no time for skulking, less hands employed, & less use for them in this business, as one wheel of a mill moves all must follow
The scant evidence of skilled African American stone cutters, carvers, and setters, should not surprise us. There were not that many buildings made of stone in the Potomac Valley. The Old Stone House which still stands in Georgetown was probably the only stone house in the area. David Burnes' house did have a huge stone hearth, but building the like was hardly a training ground for the skill with stone needed at the Capitol and White House. However, brick houses were common, and the commissioners insisted by way of economizing to use as much brick work as they could for the interior walls of the Capitol and White House and for the exterior walls of the Treasury building.
An ad placed in the newspapers by private builders in the city, in 1799, suggests that brickmaking and brick laying were specialties of African Americans. Lovering and Lovell, two contractors, with Lovell specializing in brick work, wanted
Negro's that have been used to the Bricklaying business, amongst which must be four good moulders, temperers, & boys as off-bearers for which generous wages will be given.
However, the commissioners certainly didn't look for brickmakers among the area's slaves. They began looking for brickmakers in Philadelphia as early as 1791, and in 1793 they advertised for them in New England papers:
City of Washington 23 September 1793
A great number of mechanicks in the building line, especially Brick-makers, who will be able to carry on their business on a large Scale, as well as great quantities of Lime & other materials will be wanted here on private as well as public account, early next Spring, By order of the commissioners of public buildings. (Emily Ford, Notes on the Life of Noah Webster p 366)
The commissioners never seemed requited in this regard. On February 16, 1795, William Deakins, their treasurer, alerted them about Nicholas Voss, a "brick maker who will bring 40 to 50 mechanics & laborers." One almost gets the impression that brickmakers followed an itinerant trade, going from job to job. The brickmaker William Hill was paid for making 180,000 bricks at the President's house from May 1 to May 4, 1792.
The commissioners principal brickmaker was John Mitchell and the commissioners allowed him to dig clay and build kilns on the public property in the city. So there was some correspondence with Mitchell and from that we can get some idea of how he used slave laborers. However, before that correspondence we learned something about Mitchell's relationship to slaves from two advertisements in the Georgetown newspaper. On July 26, 1793, he offered for sale "a likely Negro Fellow 23 years old." On September 23, 1793, he offered a six dollar reward for a 23 year old slave who "absconded from his employment in the Federal City":
absconded from his employment in the Federal City the 3rd inst. a Negro... named Jacob 23 years old 5 foot 8 yellow complexion with a bushy head of hair, has a cast in his walk from is thigh being broken - gone to Virginia where his mother lives, made the attempt in April $6 reward
Was the 23 year old slave for sale in July, the same as the slave that ran away in September? Probably. I'm not sure if Jacob worked in the Federal City for the commissioners, or for Mitchell, probably the former. Mitchell didn't seem to begin his brick making operations on Capitol Hill until later.
On February 11, 1795, Mitchell asked the commissioners for "seven of your negroes." We know that he used slaves that he hired himself. On May 2, 1795, he wrote to the commissioners:
It's probable gentlemen you have not an idea of the expense I am at for proper labour's after I found the negro's I hired from St. Marys [County] would not answer. Permit me to mention one that you may easily find the truth of - as a favour and really I look on it as a favour, I hired a laborer from Col. Deakins for 4/- per day feed him & give him a half pint of rum per day. it amts to nearly 20 dollars per month & I can have him no longer then the present month. at that rate however Mr. Deakins can hire him for 5/ per day
Since Deakins was the commissioners' treasurer, this is not a case of a contractor stretching the truth to improve his contract. While the slaves hired from St. Marys County, Maryland, did not answer, which I assume means they were not skilled enough to make bricks, Deakins' "laborer", likely a slave, seemed to have the skills. Deakins only hired him by the month perhaps to better profit from his skills.
A few months later, after the commissioners tried to deduct for damaged bricks, Mitchell complained that no proper accounting was made of the bricks he delivered. In the letter below he described the project supervisor's inattention and how he was fobbed on Hardman and Slye, who were overseers of the laborers, most of whom were hired slaves:
I beg leave to submit for your consideration the following remarks; When the first kiln was ready to be delivered, I applied to Capt. Hoban to know who was to receive and count the bricks. He informed me Hardman the overseer. We found Hardman was engaged at the E. Branch on receiving sand, we then agreed the bricks to be halled and count the next kiln. Sly was then desired to have the bricks p--- away & attend to them; Mr. Hoban from time to time since has given directions respecting the bricks, and has made use of them, without consulting me for the Temporary buildings; Can their be any stronger evidence, the bricks was securd Except a notary had been their to have everything in form. I hope you will take in view the contract, the evidence & the concomitating circumstances and I presume you will then be of the opinion the bricks was really received tho not with all the cautious formalities that now appear to be necy.(?) I am at a loss to know how the Number of brick destroyed by your Wagons, Carts, & hands can be ascertained; To obviate that & every other difficulty I will agree to have the kiln counted as was first agreed betwixt Capt. Hoban & myself, and then deduct say for the sake of round numbers 10,000 this will be an intire loss to me, for I must pay my brick makers, if not the Cart men. If you will please to advert to Bett's Evidence you will the find the Common deduction was 1500 Salmon brick in Each Kiln; I be leave to remind you that the Salmon of the first Kiln was use for building the Kiln - the Salmon of the second Kiln was used for the boarding houses; from them Kilns no Salmon was sent to the Capitol. I expect the Salmon brick now at the Capitol will be wanting for the Temporary building.... (18 August 1795, Commrs letters received)
From this letter, it seems the slaves were not doing the brickmaking for him. He wrote for I must pay my brick makers, if not the Cart men, which suggests that his brickmakers were free labors paid by the week and his cartmen were hired slaves. Or, since he referred to brick destroyed by your Wagons, Carts, & hands that he had to pay his free brickmakers and all the cartmen were public slaves. On January 4, 1796, Mitchell would advertise for hiring 40 slaves: "I want to hire 40 negro men until Xmas next...," offering masters 22 Pounds 10 shillings. The wage he offered hired slaves for 1796 was equivalent to the $60 offered by the commissioners when they solicited for the hire of 120 "good laborers" on January 7, 1796. My guess is that Mitchell was straining to find that combination of a few skilled white brick makers, though no names of those men ever pop up in his letters, and a large number of slaves hired cheaply, most of whom would dig clay and bring materials to the skilled hands at the kilns, but some of whom might have the skills or be trained to make bricks.
In Part Four of this essay which deals with the use of slaves by contractors building houses for private citizens, I quote a long and lurid letter from the wife of an agrieved builder to James Greenleaf, one of the private developers. In that letter she refers to "Ham Brickmakers." At this time Negroes were castigated as the progeny of the disgraced Ham, son of Noah, hero of one of the more fanciful stories of the Bible. The use of "ham" to describe bad actors came in the late 19th century, though it may have pertained here since Greenleaf brought the inventor of a brickmaking machine to the city, who, like many inventors of that time, might have been prone to boasting. Still most likely she was describing the race of most of the men she saw making bricks in the city.
Lovell's ad quoted above, while it especially solicits four skilled brickmakers, also solicits bricklayers. In the commissioners' payroll records for May 1796 a "Negro William" is listed as bricklayer making 10 shillings a day, which is just over one dollar a day, not much less than the 11 shillings three white workers, Brown, Maitland and Tweedy, were getting. Unfortunately, I found few payrolls for the bricklayers. In one for May 1797, there is no "Negro William" listed among the nine workers: James Stephenson, William Eves, James Maitland, Thomas Mitchum, Young Wilkenson, Thomas Dealy, James Green, Frank Thomson and George Wilkenson. One of the earliest payrolls for bricklayers that I found, dated August 1795, lists no slaves, only men with rather English sounding names: Robert Brown, James Maitland, James Whitehead and John Lipscomb. Much of the brick laying was contracted out to Allen Wiley, and he was paid by the brick, with a higher rate for "circular work," and special prices for arches, for example, "70 arches over door & windows @11/3," and "chimney passes - 219 yards @ 2/6." The 18 December 1798 receipt I am quoting does not list what Wiley paid his workers, nor if he used slaves.
In a February 25, 1795, ad offering contracts for laying stone or brick, the commissioners noted that the contractors could work "with or without labourers to be furnished by the public." However, I've seen no evidence that, like the stone setters, bricklayers worked on a one-to-one basis with slave laborers.
While the brick work never became as controversial as the carpentry and stone work, thanks to Hadfield's dislike of the Irishman Patrick Farrell who supervised the bricklayers at the Capitol, we have one long letter from Farrell describing how Hadfield insulted him in the presence of the bricklayers: "Mr. Hadfield told me in presence of the Bricklayers and I adjusting their work that if I had less Activity I should be better liked..." and "his insults and affronts on me have caused the men to take liberty that is hurtful to the building." The full letter is in the scroll box below.
It seems that Hadfield was using the audience of bricklayers to make his attacks on Farrell more biting. If the Englishman was ridiculing him in front of and adversely affecting the work of slave bricklayers, one would think Farrell would have noted that with alarm.
I've found some evidence that slaves were used was as plasterers. That work began in 1798 and the commissioners seemed to look over the shoulders of the men they hired to do the job. In their proceedings of October 16, 1798, they noted that their contractor, Kearny, only had ten plasterers, and asked him to hire ten more. In their proceedings for September 9, 1799, the commissioners authorized "2 or 3 additional labourers" for Kearny. But we can't be sure if they were used to assist the pasterers, or perhaps boil the plaster of paris which was a job usually performed by slaves. A newspaper for a runaway slave dated June 11, 1799, suggests that like bricklaying, plastering was a skill expected of slaves. C. S. Stephenson offered a fifty cent reward for the
negro boy Scarlett 11 or 12 learning bricklaying and plastering trade skulking either in town or in vicinity as he has sold most of the clothes & I expect he is almost naked.
In Part Four of this essay I will examine the use of slaves by private contractors, especially noting the use of skilled slaves. But rather than continue carefully noticing those things that slaves didn't do, I'll devote the next part of the essay to showing what the slave laborers did and how they were treated.
Part Three: Use of Slaves as Common Laborers in the City of Washington, 1791-1801
No comments:
Post a Comment