Essay Contribution by Edin Beslagic
November 30, 2006

Timekeeping on the Eastern Shore of Maryland From 1800-1870 : Original Research

The Eastern Shore of Maryland has a rich legacy of the American antebellum era. Because of it, modern scholars are allowed to examine numerous written records about the lives of its residents. One interesting aspect of history that should be examined is the role of time keeping devices in everyday lives of Somerset County citizens from 1800-1870. Around 1816, American industrialization embraced mass production and subsequently replaced skilled clock makers with unskilled laborers. This, in turn, increased availability and extended affordability of timekeeping devices to where it overcame its market needs in America. As these clocks became more affordable, did people of the Eastern Shore buy them? Can we infer what some of their functions were? Probate inventories of the Somerset County contain many references to time keeping devices such as watches and clocks but are not very descriptive.

To illustrate these description limitations, in examining eighty inventory references to timekeeping devices, only seventeen different labels exist and they can be categorized into a very few divisions. The primary category division identifies whether the device is a clock (assumed to be stationary) or a watch (assumed to be mobile); the secondary categorical division describes the material used to construct the device, such as wood, brass, silver or gold. Occasionally, other useful details are added to the description – such as that an object was a mantle clock or that it had a case. These descriptions, while limited, can be used to identify some of the clocks that were manufactured from 1775 to 1870 but some skepticism must be exercised in an appraiser’s ability to properly identify an object.

Probate inventories were usually compiled by couple or several neighbors of the deceased, as appointed by a judge or other figure of authority. This system ensured some consistency in inventories across estates; however, these people were not experts on appraisal by their random nature. For example, an inventory entry might plainly state “1 wooden clock”. It is anyone’s guess as to whether the appraiser was referring to the wooden case surrounding the clock, or a new type of American clock of the 19th century, best known by its 30 hour operation cycle, that was predominantly constructed of cheap wooden pieces. Additionally, the estimated value of these clocks is questionable because there is a level of discrepancy between estate totals and values of timekeeping devices. Total worth of an estate can not truly indicate how expensive a clock or watch may be.

The overall estimated wealth of the deceased was not necessarily a predictor of their personal possessions, and vice-versa. In one instance, in 1851 a certain William Mulbunne passed away with a $12.00 watch in his possession while a fellow decedent William Williams passed away the same year with a $1.50 silver watch in his ownership. The callous conclusion that Mr. Williams had a cheaper watch, because he was less wealthy than Mr. Mulbunne, would be incorrect because the watch belonging to Mr. Williams was roughly 0.07% of his overall wealth whereas the watch of Mr. Mulbunne was 9.20% of his legal worth. The estate of Mr. Williams was appraised at $2,225.02 while estate of Mr. Mulbunne was appraised at only $130.47. These estate totals-to-watch worth ratios indicate that Mr. Williams was considerably wealthier than Mr. Mulbunne. To confuse the issue further, appraisers gave Mr. Mulbunne a higher value for his timepiece but only cryptically labeled it “1 watch”; in case of Mr. Williams, they added the adjective “silver”, suggesting that it was somewhat valuable, but estimated it at a much lower worth. It is unknown whether age of these two watches was a major factor for the difference in their estimated values. These two inventory entries illustrate discrepancies between appraisers and limitations of inventory descriptions.

On a greater scale surpassing individual estate inventories, another dangerous assumption lies in analyzing summaries without putting them in a relevant context. In a given set of thirty samples from the Eastern Shore, average inventory totals from 1800-1801 came out to $1,072.39 per person, $1,516.89 per person in 1850-1851 and yet only $691.239 per person from 1879-1880. This trend suggests some sort of an economic hardship at the end of the study period but does not explain it outright. The American Civil War broke out in 1861 and it can be assumed that it put a strain on the economy. At its ending four years later, the thirteenth amendment to the American Constitution was passed, abolishing slavery, and thus affected contents of contemporary inventories. This change skewed quantitative data and thus the reduction in inventory totals cannot be attributed to a single cause. Research data reveals that distribution of wealth was very unequal in Maryland prior to the Civil War, especially in rural communities that employed the use of slavery; therefore it is difficult to establish if wealth of an individual affected whether or not they owned a clock.

From examining 130 probate inventories, it can be said that clock ownership sharply increased from 1800 to 1870 in Somerset County, and that it had a nice solid start at the beginning of this period. It can be interpolated that from 1800-1802 at least 0.3 clocks existed per every estate – almost one for every three households. By 1830s, that average was one clock for every two households and by 1860s, number of clocks may have exceeded number of households. Prices of these clocks and watches decreased significantly starting around 1830s and took a sharper turn downward around 1840s. Average costs of clocks and watches remained steady from 1800 to 1840: a typical device could cost approximately $10.00 from 1800-1810, $11.00 from 1820-1830, and $13 from 1830-1840. However, after that decade the average appraised value drops down to approximately $8.00 from 1840-1850, and then to $3.00 from 1850-1860.

This trend can be verified by examining the relative cost of timekeeping devices, defined as the ratio of the appraised value of clocks and the total sum of an estate in probate inventories. In 1800, clocks and watches were on average 1.50 % of a person’s entire estate value; by 1830s, that average fell below 1% and approached an asymptote below 0.5%. In a 70 year period, average prices, as well as relative cost, of clocks dropped to an affordable level.

According to Michael O’Malley, a scholar of horology of the colonial era, most of New England actually had clockmakers (and thus clocks) by 1700. His research estimated that at that time one wealthy white adult out of fifty owned a clock and one out of thirty-two owned a watch. A hundred years later, Somerset county inventories favorably reflected larger numbers than that. Out of fifteen random inventories covering 1800-1802, four contained “a silver watch.” Their estimates range from $4.11 to $16.00 and there are no clearly indicated lifestyle differences between those who owned watches and those who did not. Average totals did not vary between owners and non-owners; non-owners averaged at $1,090.88 per person while owners averaged at $1,021.57 per person. The consumers of early New England watches were commercial entrepreneurs and service providers such as innkeepers but the reasons behind clock purchases are largely not documented. O’Malley stated that according to his research, watches and clocks were rare in 1826 in New England. This claim is directly contradicted by analysis of Somerset County probate inventories; why were there more clocks in this part of America?

Some evidence shows that clocks were used to regulate work hours of slave laborers during this time period. As early as 1830, plantation owners wrote detailed journals describing their agricultural operations down to the hour in neighboring Virginia. They initially used the clock to determine crop cycle timing; here, the clock was a measurement device as the crops always grew at their own pace. On the other hand, the clock was a regulation and not a measurement device as it pertained to slave laborers. Plantation overseers were given instructions to use the clock to not only control work but also enforce work breaks for laborers. This was a way to both raise efficiency of production and partly to decrease worker dissatisfaction. One former slave, Bill Collins, described how he felt about “large plantation bell which rang every morning at four o’clock” by interpreting the sound as “the bell called and said, get up I’m coming to get you.” Another person, John Barker, gave his account with a bit more direct menacing: “Maybe dey puts you on a task dis mawnin’ and dat dere task got to be finished by seben o’clock dis evenin’ and’ if it ain’t, dey whip you.” Since the Eastern Shore had a similar type of economy, did existence of slavery and plantations create a necessity for ownership of clocks and watches during this study period?

These increased clock ownership numbers do not fit with rest of New England from the same time period. While no conclusive evidence proves that early clock presence was affected by a necessity of enforcing labor on plantations, perhaps it is easier to negate other possibilities. According to scholars, the only other reason behind a significant clock presence this early on in history is urbanization, population growth and manufacturing employment. The Eastern Shore of Maryland did not experience an early industrialization phase, unlike what O’Malley described occurring in the north-east. In fact, Salisbury (which was at that time part of Somerset County) had direct connections to an expanding “North-East Industrial Corridor,” but not before 1860s, when railroads expanded from Delmar to Princess Anne. If a significant level of industrialization wasn’t present in Somerset County, and clock making was still limited in availability at this time, a remote possibility remains that plantations did actually create some market space for clock makers.

A lifestyle change also occurred during this time period. Definition of a day was gradually redefined mechanically from its solar observations. This change is mirrored in a book about a Harpers Ferry armory where workers witnessed a shift – clocks started to control unskilled workers, rather than simply measure time for their benefit. O’Malley described an evolution of life in Colonial America based on time observations as a progression from a natural, agricultural, cycle to a mechanical-industrial one. Closely paralleling his observations, Merritt Roe Smith wrote about the evolution of lives of workers at Harpers Ferry Armory in this time period. At Harper’s Ferry, time measurement and clocks closely shadowed industrialization. Starting from 1829 and well into 1840s, as mass manufacturing (and unskilled workers) replaced skilled craftsmen, the workforce became more dispensable. In order to improve productive efficiency, manufacturers instituted use of a factory clock and strict policies forcing workers to conform to their schedule. Figuratively speaking, the clock started controlling time rather than measuring it. Workers could be dismissed for having unexcused absences. Prior to this time, they observed the natural clock – the sunrise and sunset; now, they were forced to change. Somerset County exhibited a lack of interest in time measurement around 1836, suggesting that its residents lived similar “provincial” lives at the beginning of the 19th century as described by Smith.

There is no evidence that conclusively proved when Somerset County changed from ephemeral timing to an industrial-mechanized one but researchers did discover some interesting trends happening in the entire Chesapeake Bay at the beginning of the 19th century. England still traded heavily with this part of the world and their merchants described that households of plantation owners were surprisingly up to date when it came to fashion and luxuries originating from Britain. People of all economic backgrounds strived to give off impressions of luxury and gentility (desire to be fashionable). En mass, they bought fancy amenities such as tableware, wigs and table linen and also – watches and clocks. According to Lois Carr, The “social definition of what was a luxury had evidently changed.” English manufacturing brought costs of amenities to affordable ranges and along with it were time measurement devices. This longing for luxury also created a market for clock makers. While clocks and watches rode this wave of improved manufacturing, distribution and marketing, they did not do so exclusively.

Parts of industrialization created an increase in market demand for clocks. Eli Terry, an American pioneer of clock making, started a serious undertaking of mass production in 1800 and by 1836 he flooded the market with cheap clocks for the masses. The clock industry became a leader in manufacturing innovations such as production and use of interchangeable parts, and marketing of a mass-produced luxury consumer good. His unique approach to clock making contrasted the existing occupation of a colonial clock craftsman; instead of waiting for an order to be placed for construction of a clock, he would preemptively produce them – assuming that the market would expand. Terry had some inside information regarding clock markets; his previous business partner, the Porters, ordered 4,000 clocks from him. If they were willing to invest the capital to have this many clocks produced, they must have had a place to sell them. His assumption proved to be correct and by 1836 most of America could purchase brand new “pillar and scroll” clocks for $10.00 while cheap copies of the clock made by other manufacturers sold for as low as $1.50.

Prior to Terry’s manufacturing and marketing advances, clock makers awaited orders from customers before committing to construction of an apparatus. These orders were rare and costly as well as far and few in between. Terry relied on an established network of roaming peddlers who could proactively sell clocks. His methods were so radically different from the norm that during his early days of factory development many local townsfolk thought that he would die before he could finish constructing all the clocks he started working on. Others thought that he could never sell them if he did manage to somehow complete them. By the time Eli Terry’s factory came to operation, he had increased manufacturing productivity nearly 27 times.

At beginning of the 19th century, a clock maker with two apprentices could produce ten clocks per year. By 1820s, a dozen of Terry’s employees could build as many as 1,100 clocks per year. That year, various manufacturers were able to produce 15,000 un-commissioned wooden clocks. Prices of clocks dropped from approximately $40.00 to $10.00 with his manufacturing contribution. The existence of these mass-manufactured clocks implies that manufacturing was a driving force behind the increase of clocks on the market and therefore the reason why more people bought them. In other words, consumer demand was created by a greater availability of the product and not the other way around. Numbers from the Somerset County probate records support the fact that cheap manufacturing made clocks more available. Average appraised worth of a clock came to approximately $1.78 in 1869 and 1870. The middle study period, around 1836, is slightly different.

For example, between 1836 and 1837, ten random inventories show merely three clocks in ownership of decedents and the average value of inventory totals closely resembled those from beginning of the century – $1,029.79, indicating no major economic change took place. Average value of clocks and watches from the 1833-1840 inventories was approximately the same as from 1800-1822, showing lack of a major change. Paralleling Somerset County, the pre-industrial workers at Harpers Ferry did not have a strict adherence to the clock; they worked as time allowed and were given freedom to set their work ethic as long as their results were achieved. Material evidence from Somerset county residents accurately reflects this provincial lifestyle: cheap manufactured clocks were widely available prior to 1836; in fact, 1836 was a peak year for clocks sold by Eli Terry – 80,000 units sold for less than ten dollars. Why, then, were more clocks not present in Somerset county inventories at this time?

A quick conclusion, supported by some material evidence (or lack thereof), can answer that question. Somerset County was not yet industrialized (or exposed to mechanization) in order to popularize timing devices. It would be another 29 years before well-funded railroads would bring large amounts of business traffic to the area. This answers why Somerset County markets were not flooded by cheap clocks, despite their availability. By 1850, clocks and watches became more commonly found in inventories. By examining 26 sampled inventories from 1850 to 1854, roughly 57% of decedents owned some kind of a watch or clock. The average appraised value of these clocks was approximately $1.70 per device while the average inventory total was $1,704.81. Material evidence does show a clear increase in clock ownership and the lowering of their costs as time approached 1870 but does not explain it.

Clocks produced from 1800 – 1860 were large and decorative. At the beginning of the 19th century it was not uncommon for customers to purchase the clock mechanisms separate from their cases. At times, it took up to a decade before a customer could procure a decent clock case. The clocks, as described in Somerset probate inventories, can be identified by antique collectors. A common clock, simply labeled as “a mantle clock,” that was described from 1800-1820 was most likely a “30 hour wooden tall clock”. These devices were called 30 hour clocks because that was the duration of their ability to tell time before they would have to be reset by the customer; this contrasted with brass clocks, which could last for almost a week without human intervention. Mr. Murphy, who wrote about the American clock industry, described these clocks:

“..clockmaker usually supplied only the works, the customer being required to have a cabinetmaker provide a case. When cased, such clocks stood well over six feet, averaged one and three-quarters feet in breadth and about nine inches in depth, and weighed over one hundred pounds.”

Their very physical nature prevented them from being easily transported and therefore impeded their ability to be sold more easily to wider markets. In all likelihood, this is the type of clock predominantly mentioned in the Somerset county inventories because they were cheap to buy and their appraised value reflected that accurately.

A few clocks stand out from the probate records by their estimated worth: three estates contained brass clocks ranging from $40.00 to $50.00. These brass clocks were only found in 1834, 1840 and 1841 records and must have been rare on top of expensive. In terms of wealth, the estates that they belonged to also stood out of the ordinary. Two of the estates were appraised at over $10,000, nearly ten times higher compared to the rest of the sampled inventories. These brass clocks must have been the higher quality models that operated for as long as eight days without need for adjustment or winding.

One other rare device found in the Somerset County inventories was a gold watch, appraised at $25.00 in 1831 that was owned by a seemingly wealthy Susanna Wates. There is no easy way to guess what it may have looked like or what the owner thought of its functionality, but the material from which its casing was constructed spoke for itself. In comparison to gold, another watch from 1822 was labeled as a “Pinchbeck watch.” Pinchbeck is an eponym for a process of mixing alloys that appear like a fake gold color and texture, essentially explaining why that watch was appraised for $2.00, far less than its contemporaries.

The most common mantle clocks from the Somerset County probate records were likely Eli Terry’s “pillar and scroll” cased wooden clocks. They were much smaller than their tall clock predecessors, less than half as tall and weighing far less. The best description can be found in antique clock books:

“Eli Terry pillar-and-scroll cased thirty-hour wooden movement clock, c. 1816-1817. Case is 29 ½ inches high over all and 17 ¼ inches wide. This clock by Terry has centered pendulum (earlier models had off-centered pendulums) and the dial carries a second hand where the exposed escape wheel appears on earlier models made six months before this one. The glass over-dial is convex in order to clear the center staff.”

These clocks could be as little as 20 inches tall and demonstrated a level of cutting edge technology. For the first time in two centuries of clock making the size of the clockwork was reduced to a manageable and transportable size.

In retrospect, Somerset County was a lively place at the beginning of the 19th century. Its inhabitants were living comfortably enough to make a transition from the realm of purchasing items out of necessity to the modern world of luxury and comfort. As manufactured goods continued flowing into its markets and became more affordable, people invested into aesthetical items as well as ones that would help identify themselves with gentility. Just like silverware, clothes and fine linens, clocks and watches helped elevate one’s place in society. Inventory contents do show a rising trend in clock ownership as time approached 1870 and the trend does resemble the effects of the American manufacturing system.

People of the Eastern Shore of Maryland certainly bought more clocks and watches as their prices were lowered; however, it cannot be said with absolute certainty that the availability of the product directly created the market need for these clocks. Maryland did allow slavery and thus it can be also inferred that prior to development of an industrialized Maryland, slave owners did use clocks for running their plantations. While some citizens used clocks for functionality, others used them for décor. A testament to that is the variety of clocks and watches found in inventories: their materials varied from gold to silver to brass to an alloy that resembled gold. Richer people seem to have bought more expensive clocks, indirectly showing their place in society to others. This research helped answer a few rudimentary questions regarding material culture of Clocks and Watches, but it could be improved by further research of decedents. For the ones that left living wills, did they leave particular clocks or treasured watches to their loved ones and how was it typically decided which family member would get it? Answering that question would help explain the meaning of clocks from the antebellum time period of the Eastern Shore of Maryland.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Somerset County Inventories (microfilm) SPI 5. Edward H. Nabb Research Center for Delmarva History and Culture, Salisbury University, Salisbury, Maryland.

Somerset County Inventories (microfilm) SPI 6. Edward H. Nabb Research Center for Delmarva History and Culture, Salisbury University, Salisbury, Maryland.

Somerset County Inventories (microfilm) SPI 7. Edward H. Nabb Research Center for Delmarva History and Culture, Salisbury University, Salisbury, Maryland.

Somerset County Inventories (microfilm) SPI 9. Edward H. Nabb Research Center for Delmarva History and Culture, Salisbury University, Salisbury, Maryland.

Somerset County Inventories (microfilm) SPI 10. Edward H. Nabb Research Center for Delmarva History and Culture, Salisbury University, Salisbury, Maryland.

Somerset County Inventories (microfilm) SPI 13. Edward H. Nabb Research Center for Delmarva History and Culture, Salisbury University, Salisbury, Maryland.

Somerset County Inventories (microfilm) SPI 16. Edward H. Nabb Research Center for Delmarva History and Culture, Salisbury University, Salisbury, Maryland.

Somerset County Inventories (microfilm) SPI 18. Edward H. Nabb Research Center for Delmarva History and Culture, Salisbury University, Salisbury, Maryland.

Secondary Sources

Cooper, Richard W. Profile of a Colonial Community on Maryland’s Eastern Shore. Baltimore: Gateway Press, Inc., 1986.

Drepperd, Carl W. American Clocks & Clockmakers. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Company, Inc, 1947.

Green Carr, Lois et al. “The Standard of Living in the Colonial Chesapeake.” The William and Mary Quarterly (1988): 135-159.

Main, Gloria L. “Inequality in Early America: The Evidence from Probate Records of Massachusetts and Maryland.” Journal of Interdisciplinary History (1977): 559-581.

Main, Gloria L. “Probate Records as a Source for Early American History.” The William and Mary Quarterly (1975): 89-99.

Murphy, John Joseph. “Entrepreneurship in the Establishment of the American Clock Industry.” The Journal of Economic History (1966): 169-186.

O’Malley, Michael. Keeping Watch: A History of American Time. New York: Penguin Books, 1991.

Smith, Mark M. “Old South Time in Comparative Perspective.” The American Historical Review (1996): 1432-1469.

Smith, Merritt Roe. Harpers Ferry Armor and the New Technology. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1977.