Rearing Wolves to Our Own Destruction: Slavery in Richmond Virginia, 1782–1865 by Midori Takagi Read Free Book Online Page B

pragmatic approach was necessary because the initial phases of work were arduous and required a huge number of workers. Before digging could begin, the canal path had to be cleared of trees and logs, and all rocky areas had to be blasted with explosive powder. Hundreds of workers were needed to perform tasks such as excavating the canal and digging its many drains and puddle ditches. After each portion of the canal was excavated, the men had to level the canal floor with ''carts drawn by horses, oxen or mules." Then, stone walls were built along the edges and banks of the canal to prevent erosion. 36 Finally, locks, dams, and bridges had to be built.
With no machines and only a few animals to help, the work was strenuous and unrelenting. Laborers, both free and slave, worked long hours in all weather conditions. Although there is little documentation indicating how labor was organized, it is likely that most workers labored in traditional gangs under the close supervision of canal officials, overseers, and managers. Slave and free black and white canal workers apparently were used interchangeably, except in highly skilled positions such as quarrymen, stonemasons, carpenters, and blacksmiths, which were generally filled by free laborers. 37 These skilled positions, however, were relatively scarce, with the vast majority of jobs being unskilled manual labor.

 

Page 33
The influx of free canal workers from Ireland and Scotland in the late 1830s should have amply met the company's needs, given that the work did not require great skills and slave labor was expensive. But their experience with immigrant laborers confirmed the belief of James River and Kanawha Company officials that slaves were crucial to the completion of the canal.
By the late 1830s the company's efforts to secure a stable workforce by recruiting white immigrant laborers had proved unsuccessful. To the chagrin of JRKC officials, immigrant workers refused to accept the poor working conditions and wages. On two occasions in 1837 they struck, demanding higher pay. In 1838, when workers were informed their wages would be delayed because of the national economic crisis (the panic of 1837), "not less than one half of the whole white force, and a much larger proportion of the masons . . . left the line." 38 Company officials also were disturbed by white immigrants' hostility toward slave workers. The project's chief engineer said in a written report that he lacked patience for the immigrant laborers, "who war against our institutions, and refuse to work with our slaves." 39
In its annual report the company announced its intention to increase "the proportion of black labour on the work [due to] the inaptitude of the still preponderating mass of foreign labourers." 40 And by late 1838 the company successfully secured more slave laborers and changed the proportions of the workforce to "two third blacks and one third whites," which was, according to the board of directors, ''more manageable and stable." 41
The advantages of using slave instead of free workers (for reasons other than cost) were noted by other industries as well. George Cooke, the agent at Busby's mine (a Richmond coal mine), frustrated with the white employees, wrote to the company's president complaining, "You have no idea. . . . I am plagued by the worthless white men who pretend to labor about here." 42 As a solution, Cooke recommended replacing white workers with slaves. The Richmond Dock Company apparently reached a similar conclusion about its mixed workforce and replaced all wage laborers with slaves. In 1819 the company employed thirty-six white, three free black workers, and twenty-five slave hands. The following year, however, company officials reported a workforce made up of sixty-four slaves only. 43
Industrial interest in hiring a predominantly slave workforce obviously did not extend to women workers largely because of the factors mentioned earlier, including notions of female differences. As