Space and Society in a Railroad Town: The Making of Renovo, Pennsylvania, 1863-1925.

7/29/2019 Space and Society in a Railroad Town: The Making of Renovo, Pennsylvania, 1863-1925.

1/159

The Pennsylvania State UniversityThe Graduate School

SPACE AND SOCIETY IN A RATI...ROAD TOWN: THE MAKINGOF RENOVO, PENNSYLVANIA, 1863-1925.

A Thesis in

Geographyby

Stewart Cameron Bruce

Copyright 1997 Stewart Cameron Bruce

Submitted in Partial Fulfillmentof the Requirements

for the Degree of

Master of Science

May 1997


2/159

I grant The Pennsylvania State University the nonexclusive right to use this work for theUniversity's own purposes and to make single copies of the work available to the publicon a not-for-profit basis if copies are not otherwise available.

Stewart Cameron Bruce


3/159

We approve the thesis of Stewart Cameron Bruce.

Deryck W. HoldsworthProfessor ofGeographyThesis Advisor

Rodney EricksonProfessor ofGeography

Roger M. DownsProfessor ofGeographyHead of the Department ofGeography

Date of Signature


4/159

Abstract

Space and society in a railroad town: the making of Renovo, Pennsylvania, 1863-1925 .

This study ofRenovo, a divisional railroad town on the P&ERR in centralPennsylvania, assesses the extent to which variations in occupation influences residentialsegregation. Previous studies on railroad shop workers have shown that they tended tocluster near their shop. But analysis for' 1920 data suggests that no clustering by railroad

occupation is observable. Other demographic factors such as ethnicity, age, or gendermay be more important. Utilizing Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps and Manuscript Censusdata, a Geographic Information System is compiled and used as a primary research tool.Detailed analysis of land use and local property capital is used to understand the makeupof urban space and how it impacts residential choices.

Keywords: Renovo, Philadelphia and Erie Railroad, Pennsylvania Railroad, space, class,urbanizatio.n, residential segregation, occupation, and status.

iii


5/159

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES.... .. .......................... .... ............................. ................. ..... ... .... VILIST OF FIGtJRES... .... .. ... ....... .. ... ... .. ..... .......... .. ........... ...... .... .... .... .................. VllChapter 1. INTRODUCTION. ... .... ....... . .. ... .. .............. ........... ...... . ............... ..... . 1Chapter 2. THE FORMATION OF SOCIAL SPACE IN

INDUSTRIAL SOCIETy .. ...... ......... ............... ....... ..... .... ................. . 62.1 Industrialists ...................................................................................... 82.2 The Middle Class.......... . ..... ........ .... ..... ....... .......... ......... .. ............ ..... 13

2.2.1 The Petite Bourgeoisie ......................................................... 142.2.2 The White Collar... .......... ....................................... .............. 16

2.3 Property Capital .... ........ ............. ................. ............... ...... ....... ..... ...... 192.4 Working Class ............................................... ......... ....... .......... ...... ..... 22

2.4.1 Ethnicity ......... .............. ........ .. ... ............ .............................. 252.4 .2 Age and Gender ............. .. .................................................... 31

2.5 Class Struggle ......... ............ ..... .. ........................................ ............. .... 332.6 Urban Industrial Space ...... ......................... ............ .. ............... ......... .. 36

Chapter 3. PROPERTY AND LAND USE IN RENOVO ...... ..... ......... ........ ........ 403.1 Property Ownership ....... ................ ...... .... ............ ........ ........... .. ......... 423.2 Land Uses ..... .... ..... .... ......... ........ .. ...... ... .... ........ ....... ..... ....... ............. 57

Chapter 4. SPATIAL CONSIDERATIONS OF SOCIALDEMOGRAPHICS IN RENOVO ..................... .......... .. ........ .......... ... 66

4.1 Ethnicity ............................................................................................ 664.2 Population ......................................................................................... 814.3 Age . .. .. ......... ......... .......... .................................. ........ ..... .................... 844.4 Gender ............................................................................................... 90

IV


6/159

Chapter 5 OCCUPATION, DEMOGRAPHICS, AND SPACE........................... 955. 1 Management.. ......... .. ..... ....... ... ........................................... ................ 955.2 Middle Class ... ....... ... .................................................................... ..... 995.3 Working Class ......... ............................................... ............................ 115

5.3.1 Trainmen .. ........................................................................... 1175.3 .2 Shopmen ............. .................................................. .............. 123

Chapter 6. CONCLUSION ... ......... .. .............. ...... ..... .... .. ........ .... ........... .............. 138REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 143

v


7/159

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1. Property status by ward including data on suburbs...... ... ...... ... ...... .. 48Table 3.2. List of hotels present in Renovo during the 1870s. .. ...... ..... ..... ..... ... 60Table 3.3. Renovo business district, 1887-1911.. .. .... ... ..... ........ .. .......... .. .. ... ..... 61

VI


8/159

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure l.l. The route of the Pennsylvania and Erie Railroad.... ... .......... ........... 3Figure 2.l. Variables to consider in an analysis of an industrial location.. .... ... 9Figure 3.1 . Street and property map ofRenovo, including the suburb ofSouth Renovo.... ... ....................................................................... 41Figure 3.2. Lots owned by the P & E Land Company........................ ...... ......... 46Figure 3.3. Property status by ward, Renovo, 1900.............................. .......... .... 49Figure 3.4. Property status by ward, Renovo, 1920.... .......... ............... ............ ... 51Figure 3.5. Location ofhomes that were owned free, Renovo, 1920................. 52Figure 3.6. Location ofhomes that were owned with mortgage, Renovo,1920.......... .. ... .......... .... .. ... .......................... ............................ ... .. 53Figure 3.7. Location of homes that were rented, Renovo, 1920......................... 55Figure 3.8. Location ofboarding houses and number of boarders,Renovo, 1920 ...... ...... ....... ........ .. .... ....... ..... ..................... .... .......... 56Figure 4 1. Year of immigration for Renovo residents born in Ireland,Sweden, Germany, and Hungary.... .......... .... .......... ................. ..... 69Figure 4.2. Distribution of native-born population, Renovo, 1920......... .... .. .... .. 71Figure 4.3. Distribution ofGerman population, Renovo, 1920...... ..................... 72Figure 4.4. Distribution ofEnglish population, Renovo, 1920........ .................. .. 73Figure 4.5. Distribution ofIrish population, Renovo, 1920........ ................ ......... 74Figure 4.6. Distribution ofSwedish population, Renovo, 1920........................... 76Figure 4.7. Distribution ofHungarian population, Renovo, 1920...... ................. . 77

Vll


9/159

Figure 4.8. Distribution of Austrian population, Renovo, 1920...... .. .............. .... . 78Figure 4.9. Distribution ofItalian population, Renovo, 1920.......... ...... .. ............ 79Figure 4.10 . Renovo population data by ward, 1870, 1900, and 1920.... ............. 82Figure 4.1l. Population pyramid, Renovo, 1870.... ........ .................... .. ................ 83Figure 4.12. Population pyramid, Renovo, 1900....... ... .... ............... ..... . ..... .... ... .. 85Figure 4.13 . Population pyramid, Renovo, 1920............ .... .... .. .... .... .................... 86Figure 4.14. Property status by age groups, Renovo, 1900................ .......... ........ 88Figure 4.15 . Property status by age groups, Renovo, 1920...... .. .......................... 89Figure 4.16 . Distribution offemale head of household, Renovo, 1920..... ....... ... 92Figure 4. 17. 1900 mortality data for children based upon grouping ofmother by age group . ......... .... ....... ............. .. .. ... .......... ................. 93Figure 5.1. Foremen: demographic data on age, property status, andethnicity, 1870-1920 .. .. ............. ..... ............. ...... ...... .. ..... ............... 97Figure 5.2. Distribution offoremen residences, Renovo, 1920.. .. .. .. .. ...... ...... ...... 98Figure 5.3. Merchant: demographic data on age, property status, and

ethnicity, 1870-1920................................................... .................. . 100Figure 5.4. Distribution of merchant residences, Renovo, 1920.. .. ... ................... 101Figure 5.5. Shoemaker: demographic data on age, property status, andethnicity, 1870-1920. ...... .. .. .... .............. ..... ........ .... ....... .. .. ..... ....... 103Figure 5.6. Tailor: demographic data on age, property status, and ethnicity,1870-1920 . .. .......... .. .... .... ... .. ...... ........... .... ..... .. ...... ......... ........... .. 104Figure 5.7. Distribution of butcher residences, Renovo, 1920........ .... ..... ......... .. 105Figure 5.8. Distribution ofdoctor/dentist residences, Renovo, 1920.... ........... ... 107Figure 5.9. Railroad clerk: demographic data on age, property status, and

ethnicity, 1870-1920....... ... ..... .... ...... ....... ....... .... .... ... ..... ...... ....... 108

Vlll


10/159

Figure 5.10. Distribution of railroad clerk residences, Renovo, 1920........... .... . 109Figure 5.11. Watchmen: demographic data on age, property status, andethnicity, 1870-1920 .. .............. ... ......... .. ...... ....... ..... .. ...... ......... .... IIIFigure 5.12 . Janitor: demographic data on age, property status, andethnicity, 1870-1920 .. ..... .. ......... .... .. ... ....... .... .... ... ............ .... ...... .. 112Figure 5.13 . Domestic servant: demographic data on age, property status,

and ethnicity, 1870-1920 ........ ........ ..... ... ... ....... ... .. ... .......... ... :..... 114Figure 5.14. Wash women: demographic data on age, property status, and

ethnicity, 1870-1920 .... ......... .... ....... ....... .... ........ ..... ..... ... ....... .... . 116Figure 5.15. Conductor: demographic data on age, property status, andethnicity, 1870-1920 .......... ......... .... .. ..... ... ..... ..... ..... ..... .. ... .. .. .... .. 118Figure 5.16 . Railroad engineer: demographic data on age, property status,and ethnicity, 1870-1920............... .... ...... .. ........... ... ........ ... ....... .... 119Figure 5.17. Brakemen: demographic data on age, property status, andethnicity, 1870-1920 ........ ......... ...... .. .... .. ... .. .... ..... ..... ..... ...... ....... 120Figure 5.18 . Railroad firemen: demographic data on age, property status,

and ethnicity, 1870-1920. ......... ....... ............ .......... ............. .......... 121Figure 5. 19. Flagmen: demographic data on age, property status, and

ethnicity, 1870-1920 .. ... ...... ................... .. ......... ... ... .. ... ..... .... ..... .. 122Figure 5.20. Distribution of conductor residences, Renovo, 1920.. .. ... ..... ....... .... 124Figure 5.21. Distribution of railroad engineer residences, Renovo, 1920.. ... .. ... .. 1259"igure 5.22. Distribution ofbrakemen residences, Renovo, 1920.. ... .. ... ... .......... 126Figure 5.23 . Railroad laborer: demographic data on age, property status,and ethnicity, 1870-1920... ........ ..... ... ... ... ..... ...... ..... .... .... ... ..... .. ... . 128Figure 5.24. Distribution of railroad laborer residences, Renovo, 1920....... .. .... . 129Figure 5.25. Machinist: demographic data on age, property status, and

ethnicity, 1870-1920. ..... .... ...... ... .... ............. ...... .... ..... ............. .... 130

IX


11/159

Figure 5.26. Moulder/pattern maker: demographic data on age,property status, and ethnicity, 1870-1920.. ... ... ............... ..... .... ..... 132Figure 5.27. Distribution ofmachinist residences, Renovo, 1920. ............ .......... 133

Figure 5.28. Blacksmith: demographic data on age, property status, andethnicity, 1870-1920. ... ....... ...... .... ....... .... ................................... .. 134Figure 5.29. Distribution ofblacksmith residences, Renovo, 1920. .. ....... .......... 135Figure 5.30. Inspector: demographic data on age, property status, andethnicity, 1870-1920... ...... ........ ............ .................. .. .... ... .. ...... .. .. 137

x


12/159

Chapter 1INTRODUCTION

How was social space organized in the railroad town ofRenovo, Pennsylvania, anewly built, single-industry town where workers had more freedom than was the case inother isolated industrial communities? Without corporate paternalistic interference todictate residential location through tied company housing other class interests such asethnicity, race, religion, and status became involved with the control and use of space(Thrift and Williams 1987; Bodnar 19.82; Fried 1973). These class interests weresuppressed in some urban industrial landscapes but in railroad towns these interests had achance to influence the use of space. This study is an attempt to gain understanding intohow these unshackled class interests worked to create and modify the urban morphologyof their industrial setting.

Renovo provides a unique opportunity to explore the influences of class interestson the formation of space. Like the railroad towns ofAltoona, Sayre, and McKees Rocksin Pennsylvania, Renovo had only one industry. This is important for this study because ifthere were two industries then it would be difficult to separate the impact of each industry.Railroad towns are also different from single industry towns that were primarily created inthe mining and lumbering sectors. The key difference is in the variety ofworkers found ina railroad town. Railroad shops requited a very diverse workforce with many different


13/159

occupational skills; mines and mills typically sought a far more limited set of occupationalskills. This variety, consequently allows for a broader-based analysis of class intereststhan provided by a case study of an isolated mining or lumbering town.

2

Renovo was created in 1863 by the Philadelphia and Erie Railroad Company(hereafter P&ERR) to serve as a division point and repair facility for the main line of thisnew railroad (Rosenberger 1975). The P&ERR, a subsidiary of the Pennsylvania Railroad,was created primarily to prevent the route to Lake Erie from falling into the hands of

competitors . It was intended to capture some of the Great Lakes trade from theBuffalolNew York axis and divert it to Philadelphia by way ofErie, Pennsylvania (Vance1986). Renovo, which means "I renew" in Latin, was selected because of its geographiclocation (figure 1.1) at the approximate midpoint of the new track. This provided aconvenient place for the railroad to consolidate its repair operations, in a place farremoved from the labor struggles of bigger cities like Philadelphia (Magliaro 1994;Alexander 1971). Because the railroad had employees at all division points and mainadministrative facilities in Philadelphia and Erie, it differed from other companies that hadall their industrial assets at one location. This diffusion of corporate resources may haveplayed a large role in the lack of paternalism for anyone specific site. This lack ofpaternalism also sets railroad towns apart from mining and lumbering communities.

The P&ERR used a land company, the Philadelphia and Erie Land Company, toacquire property both for the right-of-way for the track and for town sites along the route.This subsidiary was responsible for selecting the site ofRenovo, determining the town


14/159

ERIE NW*Es, . . . . . a .

LOCK HAVEN

PENNSYLVANIAe HARRISBURGPITTSBURGH

Figure 1.1 . The route of the Philadelphia and Erie Railroad.......


15/159

4

layout, and may have been an important influence in the business community that wouldspring up in Renovo . It also intended to profit from the sale of land to individuals. Thissame pattern was being repeated across America as railroads spread west across the GreatPlains. Land ownership would prove to be a consideration in the allocation of spacewithin Renovo and it is an important part of this study because the control of housing bylarge individual property owners created a significant renting class within the town .

In fact , the determination ofwhether a resident rented or owned property may

have been a more important class determinant than whether or not the person was aworker. Consequently, this study begins by reviewing the competing definitions of classproposed by Marx and Weber (Chapter 2). It will be shown that the struggle for classstatus in the Weberian model played a significant role in shaping Renovo. Since theownership of property is key to class in the Weberian sense, data on the amount ofproperty one controlled is an important prelude to ascribing class status. The distinctiveurban morphology that resulted from various factions vying for control of space withinRenovo will be discussed by analyzing changing property ownership and land-use patterns(Chapter 3). One focus of this analysis will be the distinct housing types : single-familyhouse, duplexes, row houses, alley houses, hotels, boarding houses, and tenements. Anexamination of the pattern of housing types provides a better understanding of theunderlying forces of property ownership.

Following a discussion of the urban morphology of Renovo then it becomespossible to see how the individual residents, influenced by their individual class interestsand other demographic variables such as ethnicity, age, and gender, filled in the urban


16/159

5space that was created (Chapter 4) . The main question to be answered in this thesis iswhat class interest, and/or demographic variable, played the biggest role in determiningresidential clustering within the urban space that comprised the town ofRenovo (Chapter5). Did Marx's theory ofworker struggle against capital translate into a noticeablepattern of residential segregation, articulated as zones of separation from the oppressedand the oppressors? Or was Weber's theory of occupational status more a factor in wherean individual worker would settle within Renovo?

In order to analyze the spatial patterns of settlement within the municipalboundaries ofRenovo an advanced Geographic Information System was created. Detailedinformation on social and economic indicators for each and every resident ofRenovo wasinputted into the GIS. These data are available on a decadal basis between 1870 and1920, except for 1890. The precise spatial accuracy of that data is only available for 1910and 1920 however, the only years in which census enumerators recorded street addresses.This study uses 1920 data as input for GIS technology to provide a spatial matrixheretofore difficult in urban historical geography.


17/159

Chapter 2THE FORMATION OF SOCIAL SPACE IN INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY

The industrial age brought about many changes in American society. One of theimportant demographic shifts was an increase in urban populations as many peoplemigrated from farms to cities in order to seek employment in new industrial occupations.It was the rise of industrial capitalism in the nineteenth century that eliminated thecommon bond ofman to the land (Montgomery 1987). Additionally, immigration fromEurope increased because of the new economic opportunities created by the industrialrevolution and the poor economic conditions existing in rural Europe. These migrations

swelled the populations of existing urban settings and filled newly created urban placesdeveloped for the primary purpose of industry.

6

The increase in urban populations as a result of industrialization would havedramatic effects: "Industrialization and urbanization in the nineteenth century brought withthem fundamental changes in the spatial organization of towns and in the relationshipsbetween classes and groups within urban society "(Johnson 1982, p. 6).The forces of capitalism played an important role in shaping these urban centers. Theresulting urban landscape was "a mirror reflecting the society which maintains it"(Johnston and Herbert 1976, p. 5). It is this society that must be examined in order tounderstand the resultant landscape. Indeed, as David Harvey noted, "We must somehow


18/159

relate the social processes of the city to the spatial form which the city assumes" (Qtd . inCannadine 1982, p. 235). The first step towards understanding the social process is toexamine the inherent production relations.

7

The transformation from a pre-industlial to an industrial economy changed the waythat people worked. With the onset of capitalism the traditional work relationships ofcraftsman, journeyman, and apprentice were replaced by employer and worker (Greenberg1985). As early as 1820 the conditions for industrial production were in place . Forexample, in the shoe industry in Lynn, Massachusetts, individual craftsman were replacedby factory workers. This caused a change in the relations of production. Now largemerchant-manufacturers controlled the factory and the profits while the workers receivedonly a daily wage (Dawley 1976). This meant they now sold their labor without any sharein the wealth (Pred 1990). These production shifts would lead to a gradual deskilling ofthe labor force as capitalists discovered ways of breaking apart complex tasks into simplesteps.

The deskilling of the labor force did not occur overnight; rather, it was a slowtransformation that took many years (Eggert 1993). Although there was a trend towardslarger manufacturers for many items, there were some small shops where individualartisans such as shoemakers continued to manufacture for a local clientele (Greenberg

1985). Some crafts persisted and even expanded; blacksmiths, carpenters, painters, andsimilar occupations kept their skills although many would eventually be forced to work fora wage (Eggert 1993).

Studies ofLynn, MA (Dawley 1976), Albany, NY (Greenberg 1985) Harrisburg,


19/159

P A (Eggert 1993) are excellent sources for information on this transformation process inexisting urban settings. However, in towns which were founded solely for industry thistransformation was not present from start to finish (Pred 1990). At the time of thedevelopment of new industrial towns the workers and other members of society thatmoved into these settings brought with them many of the changes that had alreadyoccurred. But there was still continued transformation after these new industrial placeswere settled.

Before any detailed analysis of the process of change in urban settings can begin,the relevant social actors -- industrialists, merchants, craftsmen, landlords, workers, andtheir families -- need to be understood. The interplay of these groups shaped the process.As shown in figure 2.1, further divisions based on occupation, property ownership,ethnicity, religion, race, gender, and age also influenced the transformation ofurbanplaces. All of these must be considered when analyzing the spatial structure of a givenurban industrial place.

2.1 INDUSTRIALISTS

The industrialists held most of the power in the emerging industrial state.Considerable capital was needed to build large factories, to open mines to supply rawmaterials, and to create transportation infrastructure to deliver raw materials to factories

8


20/159

I INDUSTRIALISTS ~ ~ ; \ P I T AL + ~ i 1 - ? J f ~ ~ - R S J~SPACE MERCHANTS SOCIETYCRAFTSMENFACTORY LANDLORDS ETHNICITYPROFESSIONALSBUSINESSES MANAGERIAL RELIGIONCRAFT SHOPS CLERICAL RACEMUNICIPAL SKILLED AGERECREATIONAL LABOR GENDERUNSKILLEDCHURCHES PROPERTYSTATUSFRATERNAL SURPLUSLODGES LABOR FAMILYSIZEHOTELS/ FAMILYBOARDING . WEALTH

REPRODUCTIONAPARTMENTS OFLABORHOUSES V I I IIVI--THE STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTFigure 2.1, Variables to consider in an analysis of an industrial location.

\0


21/159

10

and to deliver the products of the industrial revolution to consumers. The control of thenecessary capital to undertake these ventures allowed industrialists to wield an enormousamount of power over society. A good example of a typical industrialist is provided by J.Edgar Thomson, who by the later part of the nineteenth century was president of theworld's largest corporation, the Pennsylvania Railroad (Ward 1980) .

Thomson began his career as a surveyor for the Pennsylvania Mainline canalproject. Later he moved to Georgia where he became a journeyman engineer for the

Georgia Railroad. From 1834 until he left Georgia in 1847 he accumulated over $44,000dollars from his salary and from shrewd investments (Ward 1980) . One of his sizableinvestments was in the railroad that he worked for. He also invested heavily in thecommodities markets and relied on his extensive network of fellow investors to gaininsights into where to maximize profits (Ward 1980). His early career in Georgia gavehim not only an accumulation of wealth but practical knowledge of how manipulate it tohis personal benefit.

Thomson got his biggest opportunity to accumulate wealth when he wascommissioned as Chief Engineer of the Pennsylvania Railroad. The PRR was an ambitiousproject to link Philadelphia and Pittsburgh by rail in an attempt to capture some of thetrade from the west that was then mainly being shipped along the Erie Canal to New YorkCity (Ward 1980). Thomson accepted the post because he saw it as a chance to manage amulti-million undertaking and to give him contacts with rich eastern businessmen. In thisassignment he was very successful and through his efforts the world's largest corporationwas created. For example, by 1875, the country's largest manufacturing plant, Cambria


22/159

11

Iron, had 4,000 employees while the Pennsylvania Railroad had almost 55,000 employees(Montgomery 1987).

Thomson had many allies to credit towards his success. Among those were thelikes of Carnegie, Vanderbilt, and other emerging capitalists (Hacker 1968) . Theynurtured a corporate community that helped spread the power of capitalism throughoutAmerica. This network of capitalists supported each other and helped fuel the industrialrevolution (Roy 1983). It is in this respect that industrialists formed a separate social class

and distanced themselves from the workers.But it was not solely the efforts of a few entrepreneurs that provided the capital

necessary to undertake these large industrial projects. The state played an important roleby providing start-up capital, paying for infrastructure, and giving out free land to theemerging railroads (Vance 1995). And there were the countless investors who boughtstock in these new industrial firms . While these stockholders provided the majority ofinvestment funds they were usually content to let someone like Thomson control thecompany as long as they received dividends (Ward 1980). Also ofgreat importance wasthe influx of foreign investors whose capital was essential to keeping the industrialrevolution expanding in North America (Kealey 1980). This capital infusion helped propelnew industries located near railroads so they could exploit the new transport. And thesenew industries needed new workers to keep the wheels of progress moving forward.

While industrialists controlled the factories, mines, and railroads, the associatedprofits from these enterprises were also the result ofmany workers' skill and knowledge(Montgomery 1987). Without the workers' skill and knowledge industrialists' profit levels


23/159

12would not have been possible. These industry moguls realized the control that workershad over the industrial process. They realized that they would have to wrest this controlover the process from the workers if they were to achieve the profit levels required bystockholders. They achieved this by "dispossessing the craftsmen of their accumulatedskill and knowledge" (Montgomery 1987, p. 46).

Capitalism's greatest effect on the work experience was an "unequal distribution ofrewards and privileges" (Savage and Warde 1993, p. 149). Industrialists such as Thomson

considered labor as just another commodity to be obtained at the cheapest cost (Ward1980). This exploitation ofworkers would set up future struggles between capital andlabor. Throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth century, industrial history and laborhistory were often marked by the successes and failures of the union movement.

Capitalists exerted powerful control over many industrial cities even whereunionism gained a toehold. In remote locations this control was more severe because theinfluence ofunion organizers was weak (Savage and Warde 1993). It was for this reasonthat many new industrial sites were located in remote areas far from the influence ofunions. One example of this would be railroad division points. It was common forrailroad companies to locate repair facilities in rural locations. The purpose was to keepshop workers away from the influence of other more organized workers (Licht 1983).


24/159

132.2 THE MIDDLE CLASS

The places and associated space of the production sphere were selected by thecapitalists without any input from the workers. The selection of a specific site locationwas certainly influenced by geographic variables such as sources ofmineral wealth andaccess to easy transportation routes, but the primary determinant was the capitalist powerstructure. While capitalists may have picked the location of production, in some casestheir influence was at a distance and it was other, more local groups that had an importantrole in determining how space within some of these new places was allocated. One ofthese groups would be the middle class.

Two main elements are considered part of the middle class: the first group aresmall shopkeeper Imerchants and master craftsmen/artisans; and the second consist ofmanagers, foremen, clerks, teachers, and other professional occupations (Dennis 1987; seealso Abercrombie and Urry 1983). These two groups are differentiated by fractions ofcapital. The first group, often called the petite bourgeoisie, all have capital; they have astake in the profits of their enterprises (Bechhofer 1976). The second group, sometimescalled white-collar, do not have a stake in the profits. But since the white-collar does notadd surplus value to commodities they are not usually considered as part of the workingclass. White-collar influence on the urban environment did not compare to the influenceof the petite bourgeoisie.


25/159

142.2 .1 THE PETITE BOURGEOISIE

Because of their active (albeit modest) role in the control of capital, the petitebourgeoisie played a more significant role in the shaping ofurban society. One of theways was through domination of local politics. They were very active in municipalgovernments (Crossick and Haupt 1984; Bechhofer 1976; Wallace 1987). Because theircapital was place specific, they became very interested in insuring that the value of their

capital would increase (Savage and Warde 1993). Often this capital was tied up in theownership of property and being in control of local government helped them to controlpolicies that would affect the land values of their investments. Some of these largeproperty owners were also industrial workers and this status boost helped insure that theywere involved in political activities such as serving on municipal councils. Since thesepersons were both workers and small capitalists, one wonders i f heir political effortshelped workers or preserved their property interests within the town?

Shopkeepers were the most visible member of the middle class. "Shopkeeperswere that section of the propertied classes with whom working class men and womencame into the most regular and daily contact" (Crossick and Haupt 1984, p. 4). Debt tothe many merchants in the community was also a significant drain on the local workers'daily wage (Montgomery 1987). Workers living in working-class communities oftenshopped on credit, which meant loyalty to certain shops but also insured that they paidhigher prices (Fried 1973). Local stores also provided a milieu for social interaction andwere therefore important spaces within the urban setting.


26/159

15

One of the most important characteristics of the small shopkeeper was hisindependence.1 The control of one's working condition is one of the key factors thatseparated him from the working class (Bechhofer 1968). But the price of this freedomwas high. Shopkeepers often worked very long hours and had to employ family memberssince they often could not afford to hire laborers. Because of this need to employ familymembers there was little separation between work and home life (Bechhofer 1968). Therewas also a high turnover in shopkeepers. Many who started new businesses failed (Dennis

1987). This resulted in urban business areas undergoing constant change as old shopsfailed and new ones sprung up in their place.

Master craftsmen were also an important component of the urban setting. Whilemany craftsmen were being pulled into industry, some remained free of the yoke ofindustrialists and kept their own independent shops. Since they controlled their profitsthey became petty capitalists (Bechhofer 1976). These craftsmen served a local clientelethat was in need of their services. Individual craftsmen like shoemakers, tailors, milliners,bakers, and brewers continued to operate just as they did before the industrial revolution .They maintained pre-existing systems of ourneymen and apprentices that kept their craftsalive. Often these skills were handed down from generation to generation within thefamily unit (Dennis 1987).

One important consideration to take into account when looking at the petitebourgeoisie of shopkeepers and craftsmen was their ethnicity. Many merchants were

I. In this time period, nearly all shopkeepers were male, hence the use of gendered pronoWls. Of course,there were instances when women ran or owned shops.


27/159

foreign-born who brought their capital with them from Europe and set up shop here inAmerica. There were also ethnic links to certain skilled trades. Some crafts had a highpercentage offoreign born (Eggert 1993). For example, many bakers and brewers innineteenth century Pennsylvania were German.

While the petite bourgeoisie played an important role in shaping the urban settingthey were never very numerous in comparison to the working class . Therefore it wasunlikely that they lived in segregated areas of the city (Dennis 1987). In fact, due to the

need of shopkeepers to serve small subareas of the city it seems likely that they werescattered throughout the urban area.

2.2.2 THE WHITE COLLAR

16

The other distinct subgroup of the middle class was the white-collar group. At thetop of this group were the professional managers who carried out the orders of theirindustrialist employers. The local salaried manager represented the force ofmodemcapital. Whereas in the past the person who had put up the capital would usually have adirect hand in managing the business, after the industrial revolution this became much lesscommon (Chandler 1977). Management had become separated from ownership. Whilethese managers insured that the dominance of the capitalist system would be perpetuatedthey usually had no direct share in the profits of the firm. This lack of participation in theprofits really excluded them from membership in the petite bourgeoisie who did havecontrol over small amounts of capital (Bechhofer 1976).


28/159

17

When the industrial revolution first started, skilled workers were in control of theproduction process. They controlled the labor power. Puddlers, for example, knew howto make iron through the amounts of ore, charcoal, and lime, as well as the amount of timethe 'heat' should take; they hired their own crews, and often traveled from job to job. This"manager's brain beneath the workman's cap" was one of the talents that capital came toresent as they sought different production levels and efficiencies (Montgomery 1987, p .34) . By studying this talent, as well as taking advantage of technological innovations,

industrialists were able to break apart complex jobs into simple steps . They used the newmanagement group to advance their cause. These managers learned the technical aspectsof the work so they, instead of skilled workers, could control the factory process (Urry1987). Beneath the manager were teams of foremen who now supervised the workers andno longer participated directly in the work process as the skilled workmen with his ownwork crew of ourneymen and apprentices had done before.

As the representative for the capitalist business, the head manager and hismanagement team wielded an enormous amount of power over the community. Whileforemen played a significant role in the local community the manager's power was morelikely reflected in how the work place operated and did not extend to the actual day-today operations of the town or city. Managers did control some of the housing market,however. Many firms made boarding houses and rental housing available to theiremployees. The extent of this varied widely. Firms that were very paternalistic to theiremployers not only controlled all the housing in a town but would also extend their powerthrough the local manager to exert control over all phases of the workers' life. Examples


29/159

18

of this type of "company town" will be discussed later.Beneath the managers and foremen was an army of clerks necessary to keep the

wheels of industry moving at a rapid pace. As corporate America grew so to did the needfor clerks. In the nineteenth century some men became clerks as a stepping stone tomanagement positions. In these cases they were usually related to the manager. Thetypical clerk rarely rose to higher management positions (Davies 1972). In many ways thelife of a clerk was no different then that of the average wage laborer. The only difference

was that a clerk did not add surplus value to commodities except in a very indirect way.One important factor to consider about clerks as an occupational group is the shift

from male domination of this occupation to female domination. It was during the CivilWar that female clerks were first permitted to perform clerical functions because of thereduction in available male employees. But by 1880 only 4 percent of the clericalworkforce was female (Davies 1972). It took the introduction of the typewriter to make itpossible for more women to enter this field. Since typing was a new occupation it was notalready considered a male occupation and in fact came to be considered women's work.Another factor was that the pool of educated women was growing at the same time as thedemand for clerks increased. Women were attracted to this kind ofwork because it paidhigher wages in comparison to other female occupations such as domestic servants(Davies 1972). Of course, capitalists liked the idea of female clerks because they couldpay them half the wage that a male clerk would demand.

It was for this reason that women made breakthroughs in other white-collaroccupations as well. Many educated women in the nineteenth-century became


30/159

19

schoolteachers. In 1840 forty percent of all schoolteachers were women but by 1860eighty-six percent of this workforce was female. The main reason for replacement ofmenas teachers during this period was that women could be paid less but also because ofhighmale casualties from the Civil War (Davies 1972). Nursing also provided another area ofemployment for educated middle-class women.

One of the most powerful white-collar groups were the doctors and lawyers . Inmany cases these professionals worked directly for capital and certainly did not support

worker efforts to fight for better wages. Their presence on the boards of directors ofmany fraternal organizations is an indication of their relative power in the community.

2.3 PROPERTY CAPITAL

It is the dream ofmost Americans to own their own home. However, in thenineteenth century, for many this was an impossible dream. Few people had the capital toinvest in a home of their own. It became necessary to borrow money from someone whodid have the capital. Historically, this person was perhaps a relative or some individualwith enough assets to loan (Tabb and Sawers 1978). But with the Industrial Revolutionand the pressing demands for more housing in urban systems this historic method ofobtaining funds was insufficient to meet the housing needs of the population. There weresimply too many people (Vance 1976).


31/159

20

Since it was capitalists that created new factories in places with inadequatehousing, some of them offered their capital to help workers build housing (Vance 1976) .But it was more common for capitalists to make rental housing available or providelodging for their workers. For example, it was not uncommon for railroads to rent somehousing for their workers (Licht 1983). They did this in order to attract more reliableemployees, such as men with families. But railroads never met all of the housing needs ofthe workforce, unlike company towns where industry built the entire town and rented all

the houses to the workers.The net result was that there was a lack of housing and a huge demand. Due to

the demand and need for adequate housing and the inability of corporate capitalists toprovide this housing a new group of property capitalists emerged (Mosher 1989). Thisnew group was comprised ofboth large and small landholders who gained their profitsthrough rent or direct sale of property. The petite bourgeoisie played a significant role inproviding housing for workers. They felt it was a safe investment for their profits(Bechhofer 1976; Dennis 1987). The house, like the worker, became just anothercommodity to be bought and sold (Williams 1987). Opportunities for other investmentswere limited so those with money took advantage of the local situation and boughtproperty (Harloe and Lebas 1981).

Most of this property investment went into rental housing meaning that mosthousing needs were met by private landlords (Harloe and Lebas 1981). This new class oflandlords was a direct response to the housing needs ofworkers (Williams 1987). Thusmost of the new class of landlords were people who were simply investing their extra


32/159

21

capital into rental property (Harloe and Lebas 1981). But some landlords were also fromthe working class. They either owned multiple properties or perhaps had built an alleyhouse at the back of their property (Williams 1987; Mosher 1989; Mosher andHoldsworth 1992). When new housing was not available, density increased and buildingswere modified so that multiple families could reside in a single structure (Mosher 1989).

This infusion of petty capital was crucial to the worker in need of housing to rent.Private rental agreements provided the easiest access to the housing market (Badcock

1984). In the short run it was much cheaper to rent than to pay a mortgage (Modell andHareven 1973). Because of this factor most workers rented their housing (Williams1987). But while the landlord had a stake in the town via his property, the propertylessworker had no physical connection to the urban setting; ultimately he had no future stakeinvested in the community.

There were other options beside renting for the common worker. Many workerscould find even cheaper lodgings by boarding with other families, who in many cases wererenting themselves (Williams 1987). Many families took in boarders solely because of theeconomic benefit gained (Modell and Hareven 1973). The extra income often helped thefamily meet high monthly mortgage payments and helped insure that they might survivethrough periods ofunemployment. For many widows it was a primary source of incomeand in households where the husband earned some but not sufficient wages, it also allowedthe wife to earn additional income for taking care of the boarders.


33/159

2.4 WORKING CLASS

One important requirement for class formation is that there must be a powerrelation. Just as there cannot be a slave without a master, or good without evil, then sotoo without the worker there could not be capitalists (Vanneman and Cannon 1987) .Class experience comes about because of the way people spend their productive lives .Therefore, "class is a relationship and not a thing" (Thompson 1963, p. 10). AsThompson (1963) observes, you can not understand class except as how it relates to thesocial and cultural experience. These processes can only be studied over a historicalperiod.

22

Many scholars understand class as being derived from the social relations ofproduction. Karl Marx identified three important production relations in determiningclass: who owns the means ofproduction, who purchases labor as a commodity, and whosells their labor for a wage without shares in the profit (Eichar 1989). These threerelations of production divide society into two groups, the bourgeoisie (capitalists) and theproletariat (workers) . Marx then implied that capitalists exploit workers and thisexploitation would result in resistance, thereby creating class struggle and inevitableconflict (Eichar 1989). In this respect Marx was quite correct. It has been shown thatclass struggle has resulted in conflict: "Class conflict was an inherent part of industriallife" (Montgomery 1987, p. 44). But these conflicts did not lead to the global workerrevolution that Marx envisioned (Vanneman and Cannon 1987).


34/159

23

Max Weber also based his definition of class on economic reasons. He definedclass as groups of people who share the same class situation. But for Weber ownership ornon-ownership of property was the main division determining class (Eichar 1989). Weberalso indicated that within each class there is further status differentiation based on types ofproperty and types of skill. Weber's approach was interpreted by later scholars to meanthat stratification by status determines class (Eichar 1989). These classifications are usefultools to be used when examining industrial society and the spatial patterns that result in

industrial urban settings.One of the significant status divisions was the skill required to accomplish certain

tasks. There is a big difference between skilled labor and unskilled labor. One of theprimary differences is the earned wage although there are many others. The disparity inwages among the American workers was one of the reasons that American workers werenot as successful at class struggle as their European counterparts (Shergold 1982). Thesewages differences create a status consciousness which masks the underlying classconsciousness (Vanneman and .Cannon 1987). One way this status was expressed was byhaving different unions for different occupations. Capital was able to exploit theseindividual unions to their own benefit by dividing the work force into groups with separatelabor agreements. This prevented a common worker solidarity and therefore weakenedany attempts at striking against the capitalist machine.

This status consciousness may have influenced residential segregation in the urbanindustrial setting. Historically in Europe there was often residential segregationdetermined by occupation: "The occupational structuring of housing that was the norm


35/159

24for the medieval merchant's and craftsmen's town became the common practice in colonialAmerica" (Vance 1976, p. 83). It seems logical to expect that this practice ofoccupational clustering would continue in industrial cities. In larger cities it has beenobserved that certain broad categories of occupation by specific industry type do cluster inwards but this is primarily a function of proximity to the work place (Ducker 1983). Butthese types of studies did not look at exact occupational clustering within wards .

Another concern is trying to identify which occupations had higher status. The

National Opinion Research Center (NORC) developed occupational prestige rankings formany occupations. These came to be seen as ranks of socio-economic status (Eichar1989). For example, a doctor would rate very high while a domestic servant would ratevery low on this scale. While these were developed in the 1940's they might have somerelevance to earlier periods.

Perhaps more important than occupational status is whether the worker ownedproperty or rented. As Weber theorized, this is the most important determinant of class.While certainly the class of capitalists owned more property than the working class, ananalysis ofwhich occupations within the working class owned property can aid in anunderstanding of some of the status divisions that existed among them. For example,railroad shop men were more likely to become homeowners than conductors and trainmenbecause of the stability of shop work (Licht 1983). One could also argue that theownership of property made some lucky workers petty capitalists if they owned multipleproperties and rented to other workers.


36/159

252.4.1 ETHNICITY

Class, whether divided by production relations or by status divisions, is not theonly factor influencing residential selection. One of the most enduring divisions of theworking class was drawn along ethnic lines (Ashton 1978): "Antagonisms within thework force indicated that ethnic, religious, and racial loyalties took precedence over classsolidarity" (McCaffrey 1985, p. 173). If ethnicity was a more important factor in the work

force then perhaps it played a larger role in determining residential structure.Ethnic segregation was a common feature to be observed on the landscape ofmost

American cities. Immigrant enclaves stood out from native-born populations(Montgomery 1987). Even in smaller towns ethnic divisions were evident (Fried 1973).But these groupings were more likely based on economic reasons than ethnic reasons .New immigrants tended to occupy the least expensive housing available. It was the rentcost that determined the location of these ethnic clusters (Boal1976). The area ofurbanspace that had the lowest rent at the time of immigration determined spatial location. Thismakes a lot of sense because these new immigrants were usually working at the lowestpaid, least-skilled occupations and could only afford the cheapest rents.

Many immigrants formed colonies when they arrived in a new urban setting.These colonies were usually formed when a small number of the ethnic group established anew residence. Once this location was selected it served as a landing zone for futurewaves of immigrants (BoaI1976). Eventually these immigrants would disperse. If therewere few differences from the existing urban group then these immigrants would disperse


37/159

26rapidly into the existing structure. This process is known as assimilation. Originally putforth by Robert Park of the Chicago school, the theory of assimilation worked fairly wellfor European immigrant groups but not necessarily so with migrant racial groups (Persons1987).2

Capitalists hated assimilation though they preached patriotic messages ofassimilation in community settings. Just as they used status divisions to divide theworking class, they also used ethnicity as a powerful tool in their inventory against worker

solidarity. With the deskilling of the American labor force came the need to lower relativewages for these new occupations that any man with a strong back could perform. Theexisting workers were not happy about these reductions in wages as a result of thedeskilling. They formed unions and went on strike to oppose these changes. Capitalists,in tum, drew upon large reserves of immigrants as strike breakers and broke the backs ofthe unions with the help of a little federal government intervention (Ashton 1978).

The specific ethnicity of immigrant groups changed over time. As the newimmigrant group became assimilated with the existing workers they began to solidify intoa unitary group. Capital responded by finding new immigrant groups who would be paidless than the existing worker and thereby create worker conflict among themselves thatwould effectively prevent unity. It is a never-ending cycle. Just as Scots-Irish consideredIrish immigrants as threatening, so the Irish considered later Italian and Slovak immigrantsas threatening (McCaffrey 1985). These Italians and Slovaks would later feel threatened

2. Capitalists would later take advantage of this by bringing in Blacks from the south who did not assimilatewell into the mostly European populations.


38/159

by Black migrants from the south. Today, many workers feel threatened by Hispanicworkers who are willing to work for a lower wage.

27

Capital was very effective at finding the cheap labor that they required. Agentsfrom coal mining companies in Pennsylvania were sent to Eastern Europe in the late1860's to recruit cheap labor to fill unskilled positions (Stolarik 1985). These newimmigrants wrote home and the letters brought many thousands more to America. Whilethey were paid substandard wages for America when it was compared with the money

they made at home it was not substandard.When immigrants landed at New York City they were often met by employment

agencies who would steer them towards employment across America (Sheridan 1907).Under the padrone system, capitalists would contract for labor directly with labor bossesin Italy. These workers were exploited by both the capitalists and the labor boss whooften kept portions of their meager wage. There was also an ethnic sorting that occurredalong industrial types. In 1906, for example, 57.5 percent ofItalians were referred torailroad companies by employment agents at Ellis Island while 47.4 percent of Slavs weresent to coal mines (Sheridan 1907). Depending on the industry of a smaller urban centerthis could have dramatic effects on the ethnic breakdown of the community.

Not all immigrant groups were used by capitalists to fill deskilled jobs. It isimportant to discuss the various groups that were prominent during the industrializationperiod and how they fit into the new American reality of the industrial age.

One of the earliest immigrant groups in the industrial age were the Irish. The Irishpotato famine in the late 1840's was the root cause of an unprecedented wave of Irish


39/159

28immigration to America (Clark 1991). The start of railroads created employmentopportunities for the Irish and helped them disperse across Pennsylvania and the nation.Many of these railroad jobs were as low-paid laborers on railroad construction crews.Many later settled into new urban centers: "In the railroad centers of Johnstown andAltoona they lived in areas still separate from the dominant non-Irish" (Clark 1991, p. 20).In Renovo, the Irish section of town became known as the "Irish Acre. "

Many Irish who began their industrial work careers as unskilled labor moved up

the ranks and became foreman, engineers, and other higher paying occupations(McCaffrey 1985). There was also a small minority ofIrish immigrants who did becomesuccessful as merchants and other petite bourgeoisie but many of these were merchants inthe old country. Regardless of economic status, all Catholic Irish faced discriminationfrom the native-born Americans, many ofwhom were of Scots-Irish stock and Protestant.It was the Irish's religious devotion to the Roman Catholic Church that divided them fromthe native population (Clark 1991).

Irish women were also a significant portion of the immigrant wave. "Between1885 and 1920 almost 82,000 more females left Ireland than males" (Clark 1991, p. 26).3They came from poor farms and hoped to send money home to help out. Irish womenworked mainly in menial jobs. The majority were housewives of working-class men.Others were servants, garment workers, laundresses, etc .

There was also significant immigration from Sweden. Before 1850 many Swedesmigrated for religious reasons. After 1850 it was mainly for economic reasons. While

3. Including my grandmother, Josephine Collins, in 1915 from a small family farm outside of Dublin.


40/159

29many early Swedish immigrants became farmers others became involved in logging,mining, and railroad construction (Benson 1950). Swedish men "have a natural aptitudefor carpentry and house construction" (Benson 1950, p. 276). The need for winter housesand the availability of building materials in their homeland developed these skills. Some ofthese m ~ n also ran their own lumber mills. Because of their preexisting skills, mostSwedes avoided low-paying unskilled labor jobs. Instead of becoming laborers, manySwedes became skilled machinists.

After the 1880's Italian immigration to America swelled. About 90 percent of theimmigrants were from Southern Italy and came because of environmental problems causedby deforestation and pests, and also for economic reasons (Grifo 1990). Those that camefrom Northern Italy were more likely to be businessmen than unskilled labor. Many earlyItalian immigrants were seasonal workers who returned to Italy after their labor contractwas completed (Gabbaccia 1984; Iorizzo 1980). Some decided to stay.

Many of the early Italian colonies in urban America were comprised of individualsfrom the same village in Italy. Some had their own dialect ofItalian and could not beunderstood by other Italians. Italian merchants helped insure that villagers clusteredtogether so that they would have a captive market (Iorizzo 1980). These settlementpatterns were shattered in the twentieth century by huge increases in Italian immigration.

Most Italians did not find work relating to their experience as farmers and in tradebut as common laborers. Italians worked in many industries including railroads, tanneries,mines, and in the textile industry, mostly as low-paid laborers (Grifo 1990). Italians mayhave avoided unions because of economic reasons. They could not afford to go on strike


41/159

30and were often used by capitalists as strikebreakers .

Immigrants from Eastern Europe included Slavic, Hungarian, and Austrianpeoples. Most of these immigrants were hired into coal mines as cheap labor and often asstrikebreakers. But they could be found in a wide strata of occupations wherever a strongback and a willingness to sell your labor for a low wage was required. As coal minesstarted to shut down in the beginning of the twentieth century many of these Slavic minersmoved to other urban industrial areas.

Other migrant groups never reached the numbers attained by the Irish, Swedish,Italian, and Slavic peoples. English, French, German, Swiss, Russians, Greeks and evenChinese did not flock to industrial America. But although their numbers were small theywere clearly evident in the town structure. Many of these immigrants were merchants andcame to make their fortune in America, not sell their labor without a share in the profits.For example, while many Chinese worked in the western U.S. as cheap laborers, othersbecame businessmen and spread throughout the national urban infrastructure by runninglaundries (McGlinn 1995).

Internal migration in America brought many Blacks north from the economicallydepressed south. Due to immigration restrictions by the 1920's the latest wave ofimmigrants from Italy and eastern Europe dwindled and capitalists needed a new source ofcheap labor that they could use to counter the now somewhat assimilated and oftenunionized work force. Many corporations switched to using racial divisions to preventworker solidarity. But not all corporations had to use this tactic. Blacks were almostcompletely excluded from northern railroad jobs with the exception ofPullman porters


42/159

31(Licht 1983). Because the railroad labor force was already fragmented into sixteenseparate craft unions, the railroad did not need Blacks to defeat striking workers; they justhad to keep the craft unions divided, which they did successfully.

Before the Great Migration ofBlacks to northern urban America there was anumber ofBlacks who were already established both prior to the Civil War as free Blacksand those that migrated north after being freed . Black women found employment asdomestic servants while men found niches in the urban economy as barbers and

shoemakers (Eggert 1993). All across Pennsylvania Black barbers owned their own shopsand were part of the petite bourgeoisie. Local residents" relied almost exclusively onAfrican American men for shaves and haircuts until the early twentieth century" (Grover1994, p. 132). But by 1920 many of these barbers had left smaller urban centers. Thiscould have been caused by better opportunities in bigger cities but it may have been aresult of racial bigotry. The Ku Klux Klan was very active in Pennsylvania at this time andthis may be a possible explanation of the departure of Black families from towns likeRenovo.

2.4 .2 AGE AND GENDER

Companies did not just rely on status, ethnic, religious, and racial divisions to keepwages low. The deskilling of labor allowed companies to hire younger employees becausethe required tasks required little training. So age played an important role in railroad andother industries as well. "A majority of railway workers occupied unskilled and


43/159

32semiskilled positions as trackmen, station hands, yard laborers, and brakemen. Carriersdeliberately hired young men at low wages to staff these jobs" (Licht 1983, p. 217).Companies often recruited these men from rural farms and helped to increase the rate ofurban migration. Skilled positions were usually occupied by older men although somewho were discriminated against could be found in lesser positions. Railways also favoredmarried men over single men because married men were more stable and reliableemployees and less likely to go on strike because they had families to support . Threepercent of railway workers were age 65 or older (Licht 1983). These were workers whocould pass down some of their experience to the new, younger work force.

Gender was another factor that capital exploited. The use of women for clericalexpansion has already been discussed. Smaller capitalist enterprises started factories inurban areas where there was a surplus of available female labor. These endeavors oftenincluded silk mills and shirt factories. During the 1920's in Clinton County, Pennsylvania,some 900 women were employed in these types of activities (pelt 1928). Many womenbecame domestic servants in order to earn a wage. But perhaps the most important rolewomen played was in reproducing the labor force. Children formed the majority group ingrowing urban centers. Many of these children sought work at a young age.

Keeping house for their working-class husbands was also a significant role thatwomen performed. Those wives that worked had the double burden ofwork and housekeeping (Manning 1930). Due to the high mortality rates for men, many women werehead of households and owned all the family property. These women often turned theirhomes into boarding houses to make money for their families.


44/159

332.5 CLASS STRUGGLE

These components of industrial society all played a role in the class conflict thatwas to present industrial capitalists with some very serious threats to their view of how thenation should be run. But American workers never engaged in a serious class struggle ascompared to workers ' efforts in Europe. Socialism never developed here as Marx

envisioned (Vanneman and Cannon 1987). There were four main reasons why workersolidarity was never successful in America: the deskilling of the work place allowed forunskilled immigrants to act as strikebreakers creating ethnic tension; workers formedseparate craft unions instead of common unions that could present one bargaining unit tothe company; the petite bourgeoisie intervened to protect their own interests; and Capital,in extreme instances, called on the direct intervention of the federal and state governmentfor military force to crush striking workers.

But despite these handicaps against the workers, strikes were common in America.A good source of information on strikes is Ronald Filippeli's Encyclopedia ofLaborConflict in the United States. The workers were usually bitterly opposed by theindustrialists in charge and seldom achieved their goals. When strikers were opposing thegreat Pittsburgh steel magnate Henry Clay Frick in the late nineteenth century, he "vowedto fight unions to the bitter end, stating he would never, never give in" (Clark 1991, p.23) . Here was class conflict! While Andrew Carnegie might have written publicly that hesupported worker struggles to obtain better wages and conditions, when his own


45/159

employees struck at his steel plant in Homestead, he fought against them tooth and nail(Bridges 1903).4

34

Railroads strikes were also dealt with roughly. These strikes directly affected shoptowns like Renovo. The railroad strikes of 1877 were an end-result of the financial panicof 1873. As the national economy soured, railroads lowered wages, reduced hours, andimplemented layoffs that lowered their costs so they could reduce freight rates (Eggert1993). By 1877 the railroad workers had had enough and went out on strike, freezing the

national transportation network. In larger cities like Pittsburgh some strikers, and manyyoung hoodlums, rioted in the streets. Federal troops were called in and after some of thestrikers were killed, the mob attacked the train shops and burnt them to the ground(Bimba 1968). Smaller urban centers like Renovo had no violence primarily because ofthe isolation from labor agitators and because of the intervention of the local petitebourgeoisie. In the end, workers could not hold out against the forces of capital, themiddle class, and the federal government so the strike ultimately failed. This is not to saythat the railroad workers did not have some small successes, it is just that their failureswere so devastating.

During World War I railroads made many concessions to workers to avoid strikes.These included the eight-hour day, higher wages, and permission to unionize. After thewar, companies tried to renege on these agreements (Bimba 1968). Since there weresixteen different agreements with the varying craft unions, railroad management decided totarget only unskilled and semiskilled unions for serious wage reductions . "Craft unionism

4. Carnegie did not publicly support railroad strikes.


46/159

35

divided the workers of the railroads and played directly into the hands of the ruling class"(Bimba 1968, p. 307). While the 1922 railroad shop strike involved some 500,000workers, only seven out of sixteen unions were actually on strike. In single-industry,railroad-shop towns like Renovo this would drive a rift into the community that wouldwrench the town apart. This strike was eventually defeated by the divisions of craftunions, the use of strikebreakers, and with the help of the government which declaredmartial law and called out the National Guard. But despite these pressures almost

250,000 workers refused to be intimidated and stayed out on strike. As a result they losttheir railroad jobs forever (Bimba 1968). These workers had to leave the shop towns andlook elsewhere for employment. This would dramatically change the demographics insmaller urban places. But not all small urban centers were railroad towns.

2.6 URBAN INDUSTRIAL SPACE

There were many types of single-industry towns in Pennsylvania and the nation.One of the primary determinants in shaping these urban centers was the level ofpaternalistic interest that the capitalist showed towards workers, especially in regards totheir housing needs. Through control of housing, industrialists could allocate spaceoutside the control area of the workplace, further exacerbating class distinctions. In townswhere companies also controlled the retail market, members of the petite bourgeoisie were


47/159

excluded. Without this intermediary between capital and worker, class distinctions wereharsher. But industrial towns displayed varying levels ofpaternalism.

36

Mill towns in New England were one of the earliest industrial communities createdby capitalist enterprise. The first mill towns were located adjacent to waterfalls wherewater power could be easily harnessed to operate the mill machinery (Hartford 1990).The textile mill at Lowell, Massachusetts, provides one of the earliest American examplesof corporate paternalism. Here capitalists convinced middle-class farmers to send their

young daughters to work in the mill . The women were kept in segregated boardinghouses adjacent to the mill (Prude 1983). The company claimed to enhance the moralsand education of these women while exploiting their cheap labor potential. These singleindustry towns soon became attractive to other companies who built competing factoriesand diluted single corporate control of the town (Gamer 1984).

The harshest examples of paternalism can be found in various small miningcommunities that became to be known as 'company towns'. Here the corporation ruledwith an iron hand. All housing was built by the company and rented to the worker. Thecompany controlled all retail stores in the town effectively preventing the creation of amiddle class of shopkeepers. The worker had little say in how the town was run. Whenminers went on strike they were evicted from company housing altogether . This lack ofcontrol over housing sharpened class differences. About fifty percent of coal miners inPennsylvania lived in coal patches. Company towns were not found everywhere. In areaswhere there were existing settlements before coal mining began, these harsh conditions didnot develop (Eller 1982).


48/159

37Some industrialists, responding to the call for better living conditions for industrial

workers and their own need to placate the workers, developed model industrial townswhere the workers would have a more harmonious living situation. These innovativecapitalists had their industrial towns planned with schools, parks, and good sanitation(Mosher 1989). In the model community ofPullman, Illinois, George Pullman retainedabsolute control over his town. He owned everything. No private small businesses wereallowed, all housing was rented to the worker, and he would only let the Presbyterian

Church build a church in town (Walzer 1986). Pullman also tried to enforce social normsthat he set and controlled the sale of liquor. His town was an improvement over existingindustrial towns because of the better housing conditions but the lack ofworkerparticipation in the community would later be heralded as undemocratic.

Due to an economic downturn, Pullman reduced his workers wages but would notreduce the rent he was charging them for their housing. This was class conflict brought toa head and the result was a nationwide railroad strike in 1896 against Pullman and insupport of his workers. Other industrialists took notice ofPullman's failed attempt toprovide a harmonious environment and modified their plans for model industrialcommunities accordingly.

Another example of the connection between capital and labor through paternalisticurban settings is that of steel mogul George McMurtry, who wanted a new town so thathe could escape his labor problems in Apollo, Pennsylvania. He wanted a model town tohelp defeat future strikes and also to make money serving as a real-estate developer(Mosher 1989). This model town, Vandergrift, had one main difference from other


49/159

38planned industrial communities; workers were encouraged to buy their own homes andprivate business was allowed. While Vandergrift may not have been perfect, it did providebetter living conditions for the worker. The softening of class distinctions provided byworker-owned housing and private business meant that labor unrest was kept at arrummum.

These examples of paternalistic companies were not the norm. Most companiesdid not put much effort into providing the workers anything but a job. Most of the new

industrial towns were established on the basis of accessibility of transportation networksand local availability of raw materials. These towns depended on the railroad for most oftheir transportation needs. Often railroad companies would help new industries like steelmills locate their industry on their line because it meant more traffic for them (Magda1985). They would often give the best land to a new industry and then make a lot ofmoney by platting a new town adjacent to the factory selling the lots to workers and smallbusinessmen. Often these lots were not on very desirable land since the best land hadgone to the factory. In addition to selling land adjacent to the railroads for new industry,the railroads built new construction and repair facilities for their own use and againprofited by selling nearby land to create a town. This is how Renovo was created out ofthe Appalachian wilderness.

In these new industrial settings the forces of society had a chance to shape thepattern ofurban settlement without the direct control of the dominant capitalist industry.Within the initial town plan established by the corporate land company, workers and smallbusinessmen could exercise free will. The lack of direct and total capitalist intervention in


50/159

39the housing markets of these towns allowed for residential segregation based on ethnicity,occupational status, and religion. Private landlords replaced the company house forrenting workers. The case study ofRenovo that follows will shed some light on how thesocial processes of these industrial towns shaped the spatial pattern of urban life.


51/159

40Chapter 3

PROPERTY AND LAND USE IN RENOVO

In 1862 Edward Miller, President of the Philadelphia and Erie Land Company(hereafter P&E Land Company), purchased the site ofRenovo from William Baird, a localfarmer (Rosenberger 1975). The land c o m p a n ~ transferred all the property north of therailroad track to the Philadelphia and Erie Railroad to use for various railroad shops. Thiswas the land at the highest elevation from the river and comprised about 50 acres.Additionally, the railroad received about 15 acres south of the tracks which included ahuge plot for the construction of a hotel and passenger station. This left about 90 acres

for the town ofRenovo. Baird held one acre ofprime land for his own use which waslocated southwest of the intersections of Huron Avenue and Fourth Street (figure 3.1).Here industrial and private capital combined to determine the form that Renovo wouldtake.

The P&E Land Company subdivided the remaining land into street blocks to formthe new town ofRenovo. Three main avenues -- Erie, Huron, and Ontario -- ran parallel

5. The land company was a separate corporation from the P&E Railroad and not necessarily a subsidiary.Rosenberger, whose volume on the P&E Railroad is the only authoritative work, suggests that a study of thiscompany "might indicate that it had much to do with the growth of towns in North Central and NorthwesternPennsylvania (1975, pg . 641).6. The suburb of South Renovo was not laid out until about 1883 .


52/159

Philadelphia and Erie Railroad ShopsR : r : : : = ~ ~ r r ~ ~ h ; g : * l l i i m g ; ; l 1 & I W I 1 r u _ _ D n i _ _ D : : : - * ~ i~ I I I Iil i l l l } I I ~ ; ; ~ l l g I; ~ ~ ; ~

H u r o ~ 1 ~ 111111 I1II I I ~ i i i l ~ p 1 [ 2 r : : : : : r / /, . n t a r I O ' A ~ ~ ~ _ !DID Elm IiIlll!llID mllHi J ' ~ ! i i " " ' > li... . .......... : ~ . : . : : : : .. .... :: .... ::: ..::::i.: .... . ; : : : ~ : : : : : . : : : : : : : : . : : : ~ : i ! .... ~ 9 T H R E N O V O

en cn CD:r - . .... .. ... . ~........"" ,. ,. ~ . - ~

o Property Lot OutlinesIV . RaIlscov;,/" ..,./' Rlverscov

SUSqUe '" "; ', ~ -..


53/159

to each other and to the West Branch of the Susquehanna River. These mainavenues were bisected by 17 numbered streets starting at the west end of town. Due tothe transfer of property to the railroad for the hotel and station, First and Second Streetnever materialized.

42

The town was further divided into lots measuring 25 feet wide by 125 feet deep(Rosenberger 1975). Blocks that bordered the river varied in the number of saleable lots.The P&E Land Company sold these lots at prices ranging from $100 to $1500 dependingon the location. Lots along the river banks that were subject to periodic flooding werecheap while lots bordering the busy tracks were much more expensive.

Tax assessment records for Renovo, available in the Clinton County Courthouse,indicate the distribution of property among the citizens of this newly established town.Without doubt, the P&E Railroad and the P&E Land Company were the dominantlandowners initially. As will be shown later, this dominance would decline over the next25 years as more and more lots were sold. But first, I will analyze the composition ofworker-owned lots and houses.

3.1 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP

The most noticeable statistic from the 1866 tax assessmene records is that theclear majority of taxpayers did not own a single lot. Out ofa total of258 heads ofhousehold, 151 had no property at all. Thirty-eight people had one lot and a house. Many

6. The early assessment records did not provide occupational infonnation.


54/159

43

people had lots but had not yet had time to construct a permanent dwelling: 29 people hadone lot, 20 people had two lots, and a few people had more than two lots . This trendwould continue with a growing number of citizens starting to acquire more than two lots.But most of the men and women ofRenovo were renters whose rental income surelyfueled the property acquisition of their more wealthy neighbors and the coffers of the threecorporate interests in Renovo; the P&E Railroad, the P&E Land Company, and thePennsylvania Railroad.

By 1870 the town was rapidly expanding. According to the 1870 U.S. Census,772 employed men and women now earned a wage in Renovo but there were only 166property owners. This meant that the vast majority of people were still renting. Taxassessment records from this year supplement the census data and provide a record of thecomposition of property owners. About 82 of the property owners had one lot with onehouse. The next biggest category was two lots with one house with 39 owners. Aroundseven double houses had been constructed on lots by this time . Analysis of later SanbornFire Insurance Maps show an ever increasing number of double-houses, row-houses, andalley houses; all were attempts to increase the density of housing in Renovo.

In 1870 there was an increasing number oflarge property owners, excluding thecorporate interests. For example, Patrick Shelly, a foreman laborer, owned seven lots andthree houses. Anthony Dwyer, a local druggist, owned 12 lots and two double houses.The creation of a separate class of private landlords was in process.

From the 1870 Census data it is possible to determine the distribution of propertyowners according to their occupation. Some interesting patterns did become apparent .


55/159

44

All farmers and lumbermen owned property, as did most of the merchants. In terms oftotal numbers, laborers and carpenters owned the most number of properties while interms of percentages, moulders ranked higher. Female-dominated occupations such asservant, milliner, and drape maker had no property at all. This type of determinant will bediscussed in more detail in Chapter Five.

By 1880 the distribution of property owners continued along the previous trends.Workers with no house or lot continued to dominate. Of the 1154 persons listed in thecensus as head of household only 358 owned any property. The majority oflandownershad between one and two lots with one to two houses thereupon. Thirty-six propertyowners had more than two houses each. These people were small in number but werebeginning to control a large share of property.

And the large property owners continued to grow. There were at least twice asmany big landowners in 1880 as had been the case in 1870 . W.A. Baldwin had 19 lotswhile J as. and Kress Williamson had 22 lots. Dwyer was still a multiple owner. A newparticipant in the real estate game was the Renovo Building and Loan Association.Apparently this organization was established before 1876 when they owned 12 lots and 10houses. By 1880 they only had three lots and one house and do not appear on laterassessment records. This is likely because they were a terminating building society or thatthey had become so established and capitalized that potential home-owners could buy theirlots directly, rather than through this financial intermediary. But the largest landowners inRenovo were the corporate interests.

All three large corporate interests were significant players in the rental market. They


56/159

45provided boarding houses for workers but were not in exclusive control of this market. Itis unclear at this point what percentage of rental space was controlled by corporations orprivate interests. What is clear is that the corporate interests divested the bulk of theirrental property by 1890 which left the private landlords in control of the rental market.

First, the P&E Land Company will be examined . Figure 3.2 indicates the extent oftheir property holdings from 1867 until 1890. As one might expect, it shows a steadydecrease in the number of lots this company controlled. The land company also had somehouses, which are assumed to be rental properties, but these were either sold ortransferred to one of the railroad companies after 1870. After 1890 they were no longersignificant players in Renovo.

Clearly the P&E Land Company played a significant role in the allocation ofspace within the community since they were responsible for the town layout. While therewas most certainly a connection between the land company and the railroad, the extent ofthis

Date post:	14-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	sbruce2
View:	224 times
Download:	0 times

Space and Society in a Railroad Town: The Making of Renovo, Pennsylvania, 1863-1925.

Documents