A Nation in Need of Arms
A new nation sat as an inviting target for those established countries eager to expand. With its victory over Britain, the United States needed a way to defend itself. It had men willing to be soldiers. But it would need weapons to arm those men. Prior to 1794 the country relied on contracts with many independent arms manufacturers to supply their needs. Importers and private manufacturers contracted with the government for the production of guns, to be delivered at ports in Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia. As we see today, many contractors made huge profits but provided little substance. As President, George Washington decided that the practice had to change. He helped usher in a bill that provided funding for as many as 4 national armories which would produce the arms needed to defend the nation. The arsenal in Springfield, Massachusetts was chosen as the first armory. It was already owned by the government and had the infrastructure to fit the needs of production. Harper’s Ferry was Washington’s personal choice stemming from his familiarity from his personal survey of the Potomac River and his founding and presidency of the Potowmack Company.
Two Armories, Two Very Different Worlds
Two armories, but two very different armories. Springfield was already established, situated near towns and roads that provided easy access to materials and trained craftsmen. Harper’s Ferry was not yet established, was isolated and had access to less talented manpower. By 1802 sufficient infrastructure was in place at Harper’s Ferry to begin production. In 1803 the Secretary of War informed Harper’s Ferry administrators that he was dissatisfied with the quality of arms currently in use in the Army. He directed the armorers to develop a better gun. The U.S. Model 1803 Short Rifle was subsequently introduced. Production was slow due to limited resources, remoteness and disease. To fill the manual needs, Harper’s Ferry often recruited talented artisans from Philadelphia and nearby Pennsylvania and Maryland towns. Unlike the workers in Springfield who possessed a high work ethic and Yankee ingenuity, the laborers in Harper’s Ferry often suspended chores to enjoy a cup of whiskey, converse, or watch a dog or cockfight. They expected to be coddled and not interfered with. This mentality limited innovation. These workers were not geared towards industrialization. Lack of housing and the uncleanliness of the town often reduced the workforce and even shut production down completely as workers left to find safety and better conditions.
The Push Toward Standardization
In 1807 the production of muskets and pistols required six separate branches of labor; barrel making, lock forging, lock filling, brazing, stocking and finishing. There were no standardized tools or inspection standards. Each gun was handcrafted and varied slightly to the next. There was also no standard design. Guns made in Springfield differed from those in Harper’s Ferry. As the decade moved on, war was seen on the horizon. England and France were fighting and the conflict promised to extend over the Atlantic Ocean. Production at both arsenals had to increase. To meet this need, the Springfield Superintendent introduced the division of labor in 1808. Eli Whitney however claimed to have used the division of labor to much success in the 1790’s. Breaking production down to standardized steps and processes reduced production to four steps by 1816; lock, mounting, stock and barrel production. The establishment of the Ordnance Department in 1812 brought forth the concept of a standard gun, produced by both armories, meeting the same specifications and tolerances, with interchangeable parts.
Harper’s Ferry Resists Industrialization
To produce weapons to these standards required cooperation between the armories and the use of standard machinery. Once again, Harper’s Ferry was slow to respond. Those craftsmen who could be found and induced to work at the Ferry were proud of the craftsmanship and ways of working. They resisted industrialization at every turn. Industrialization represented a threat to their jobs and craftsmanship. The remoteness of Harper’s Ferry did not help. Except for two iron works up river and a foundry in Georgetown there was nowhere workers could go to compare notes, discover new techniques or to even learn new ways of working. The speed of communication further prevented the armories from communicating issues, problems and solutions with each other. Most of the technological innovations occurred at the Springfield Armory and were not eagerly awaited at Harper’s Ferry nor enthusiastically employed. The workers at Harper’s Ferry enjoyed their way of working and thinking and distrusted and disliked anything that stood as a threat to that institution. For these reasons, Harper’s Ferry would continue to lag the results produced in Springfield up to its demise at the start of the Civil War.
