1. The past two decades of historical studies of literacy have made it clear that the meanings of literacy are always negotiated among actors and audience, and that literacy skills range broadly from simple decoding, to literal comprehension, to critical reading and aesthetic appreciation. See Kaestle, Carl, “The History of Literacy and the History of Readers,” in Review of Research in Education, ed. Gordon, Edmund S., vol. 12 (Washington, D.C., 1985).Google Scholar

2. Olson, David R., “Review of Toward a Literate Society” Proceedings of the National Academy of Education (Stanford, 1975), 2: 160; Street, Brian V., Literacy in Theory and Practice (Cambridge, 1984), 28. See, also, Tichi, Cecilia, Shifting Gears: Technology, Literature, Culture in Modernist America (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1987), 16.Google Scholar

3. On the importance of spatial thinking to technology, see Hindle, Brooke, Emulation and Invention (New York, 1981); Ferguson, Eugene S., “The Mind's Eye: Nonverbal Thought in Technology,” Science 197 (Aug.–Sep. 1977): 827–36; Ferguson, Eugene S., “Elegant Inventions: The Artistic Component of Technology,” Technology and Culture (19 July 1978): 450–60; and Owen, Charles L., “Technology, Literacy, and Graphic Systems,” in Toward a New Understanding of Literacy, ed. Wrolstad, Merald E. and Fisher, Denis F. (New York, 1986).Google Scholar

4. Wallace, Anthony F. C., Rockdale: The Growth of an American Village in the Early Industrial Revolution (New York, 1978), 238.Google Scholar

5. Kouwenhoven, John A., “American Studies: Words or Things?” in Material Culture Studies in America, ed. Schlereth, Thomas J. (Nashville, Tenn., 1982), 84; Caws, Peter, “Praxis and Techne,” in The History and Philosophy of Technology, ed. Bugliarello, George and Doner, Dean B. (Urbana, 1979), 227. See, also, Doblin, (1981) as cited in Owen, , “Technology, Literacy, and Graphic Systems,” 167.Google Scholar

6. Jeremy, David J., “Innovation in American Textile Technology during the Early Nineteenth Century,” Technology and Culture 14 (Jan. 1973): 41, 46, 74. Jeremy has focused on the nature of technology as a determinant of the direction of innovation. See, also, Habakkuk, H. J., American and British Technology in the Nineteenth Century: The Search for Labour-Saving Inventions (Cambridge, 1962), for a detailed analysis of the scarcity of labor problem, including the on-going debate among economic historians over which causes were more fundamental to reshaping English technology by Americans in the twenty years following the War of 1812 (pp. 24–26, 31, 37).Google Scholar

7. Jeremy, , “Innovation in American Textile Technology,” 54, 57. See, also, Jeremy, David J., Transatlantic Industrial Revolution: The Diffusion of Textile Technologies between Britain and America, 1790–1830s (Cambridge, 1981), 180, 195, 253.Google Scholar

8. Smith, Merritt Roe, Harpers Ferry Armory and the New Technology: The Challenge of Change (Ithaca, N.Y., 1977), 107–10; Rosenberg, Nathan, Perspectives on Technology (Cambridge, 1976), 16, 19–20. On the history of the term and concept, see Rosenberg, Nathan, The American System of Manufactures: The Report of the Committee on the Machinery of the United States, 1855, and the Special Reports of George Wallis and Joseph Whitworth, 1854 (Edinburgh, 1969); and Hounshell, David A., “From the American System to Mass Production: The Development of Manufacturing Technology in the United States, 1850–1920” (Ph.D. diss., University of Delaware, 1978). An excellent bibliography is available in Mayr, Otto and Post, Robert C., eds., Yankee Enterprise: The Rise of the American System of Manufactures (Washington, D.C., 1981). The degree of interchangeability is discussed in detail by Fitch, Charles H., “Report on the Manufacture of Interchangeable Mechanism, I. The Manufacture of Fire Arms,” Report on the Manufactures of the United States at the Tenth Census (1880), vol. 2 (Washington, 1883). Traditionally, the development of interchangeable parts has been ascribed to workmen in the United States armories at Springfield, Massachusetts, and Ferry, Harper's, Virginia. More recently, however, Donald Hoke has focused attention on the importance of watch, axe, and sewing machine manufactures to interchangeability. See Hoke, Donald R., Ingenious Yankees: The Rise of the American System of Manufactures in the Private Sector (New York, 1990).Google Scholar

9. Uselding, Paul, “Measuring Techniques and Manufacturing,” in Yankee Enterprise, ed. Mayr, and Post, , 105.Google Scholar

10. For a comprehensive treatment of the later managerial revolution in American manufacturing, transportation, and communication, see Chandler, Alfred D., The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business (Cambridge, Mass., 1977). For definitional problems of the “American system,” see Ferguson, Eugene S., “History and Historiography” in Yankee Enterprise, ed. Mayr, and Post, . The social basis of the “American system” is treated in John E. Sawyer's seminal essay, “The Social Basis of the American System of Manufacturing,” journal of Economic History 14 (no. 4, 1954): 361–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11. Rosenberg, , Perspectives on Technology, 12.Google Scholar

12. Ibid., 15–18. See, also, Rosenberg, Nathan, “Why in America?” in Yankee Enterprise, ed. Mayr, and Post, , 57–59.Google Scholar

13. Kasson, John, Civilizing the Machine: Technology and Republican Values in America, 1776–1900 (New York, 1976), 41. See also Pursell, Carroll, “The American Ideal of Democratic Technology,” in The Technological Imagination, ed. De Lauretis, Teresa, Huyssen, Andreas, and Woodward, Kathleen (Madison, Wis., 1980).Google Scholar

14. Marx, Leo, The Machine in the Garden: Technology and the Pastoral Ideal in America (Oxford, 1964), 181, 185. The phrase used by Marx is the “official American ideology of industrialism” (p. 181).Google Scholar

15. York, Neil L., Mechanical Metamorphosis: Technological Change in Revolutionary America (Westport, Conn., 1985), 158.Google Scholar

16. Johnson, Walter R., “Essays on Education,” Journal of the Franklin Institute 2, n.s. (July 1828): 56–57. See, also, Sinclair, Bruce, Philadelphia's Mechanics: A History of the Franklin Institute, 1824–1865 (Baltimore, 1974), 108.Google Scholar

17. The definition of the term “mechanics” in the nineteenth century was a broad one. A list of delegates to the State Convention of Mechanics held in Utica, New York, in 1834 recorded the following occupations: tailor, cooper, silver plater, cordwainer, iron founder, plane maker, chair and cabinet maker, hatter, saddler, blacksmith, machinist, watchmaker, tanner, tin plate worker, stone cutter, carriage maker, brass founder, brush maker, printer and publisher, piano forte maker, locksmith, marble cutter, and carpenter. Proceedings of the State Convention of Mechanics, Utica, Aug. 21–22, 1834 (Utica, 1834), 12. Membership lists for other mechanics' associations and societies, such as the Massachusetts' Charitable Mechanic Association (Boston), indicate a similarly broad usage of the term. My use of the term is broad also, but is mainly targeted on machinists and those who had the opportunity to bring about innovation and invention in machine design and manufacturing.Google Scholar

18. Farmer and Mechanic 4 (20 Apr. 1836): 85.Google Scholar

19. Craig, John, An Address Delivered at a Meeting of the Citizens of Cincinnati Convened for the Purpose of Forming a Mechanics' Institute (Cincinnati, 1829), 1 and passim.Google Scholar

20. New York State Mechanic 1 (29 Jan. 1842): 74; see Kaestle, Carl F., Pillars of the Republic: Common Schools and American Society, 1780–1860 (New York, 1983).Google Scholar

21. “Citizen Knowledge,” Scientific American 8 (7 May 1853): 269.Google Scholar

22. Mr.Fraley, , “Address,” Journal of the Franklin Institute, 9, 3d ser. (1845): 37.Google Scholar

23. Homer, James, “An Address Delivered before the Massachusetts' Charitable Mechanic Association, 6 Oct. 1836” (Boston, 1836), 16.Google Scholar

24. “To Our Mechanics—‘Come Let Us Reason Together’,” Scientific American 6 (17 May 1851): 277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25. Ibid., 277; “Intelligent Mechanics,” Scientific American 8 (25 Dec. 1852): 117.Google Scholar

26. “Arithmetic and Geometry as Studies for Children,” American Journal of Education 1, n.s. (Jan. 1830): 16.Google Scholar

27. Western School Journal (1842): 27; Common School Assistant (1836): 59; Common School Assistant (1838): 50, 59.Google Scholar

28. “What Should Mechanical Workmen be Taught?” Scientific American 1, n.s. (20 Aug. 1859): 119.Google Scholar

29. Evans, Oliver, The Young Mill-Wright's and Miller's Guide (Philadelphia, 1807), 23, 29. The work was originally published in 1795.Google Scholar

30. Banks, John, On the Power of Machines (Kendal, 1803), 29–33.Google Scholar

31. Kelt, Thomas, The Mechanic's Textbook and Engineer's Practical Guide (Boston, 1854), 314–22, 369–72.Google Scholar

32. Scientific American 3 (26 Feb. 1848): 181.Google Scholar

33. “Scientific Books,” Scientific American 13, n.s. (26 Dec. 1857): 126.Google Scholar

34. “The Literature of Science,” Scientific American 13, n.s. (7 Nov. 1857): 69. See, also, Sinclair, , Philadelphia's Philosopher Mechanics, 196–97; and Sinclair, Bruce, “Thomas P. Jones and the Evolution of Technical Education,” in Technology in America, ed. Purcell, Carroll W. Jr. (Cambridge, 1981).Google Scholar

35. “Bibliographic Notices,” Journal of the Franklin Institute 11 (June 1833): 364.Google Scholar

36. “Review,” journal of the Franklin Institute 4 (Sep. 1827): 212–13. One suspects that the problem was not simply one of recognition, but, more seriously, one of understanding the relationship of algebra to pure geometric shapes. In a wonderful chapter, entitled “Thinking with Pure Shape,” Rudolph Arnheim describes the barbaric methods we use to explain algebra to students. Algebra, like arithmetic, he notes, “has a thoroughly perceptual basis. When applied as a mere formula, algebra, just as arithmetic, can block the understanding of geometry.” Arnheim, Rudolph, Visual Thinking (Berkeley, Calif., 1969), 208–25.Google Scholar

37. The Editor, “The Artisan—No. 2,” Journal of the Franklin Institute 3 (Feb. 1827): 41–42.Google Scholar

38. Johnson, Walter R., “Addresses, Introductory to Course of Lectures, on Mechanics and Natural Philosophy,” 19 Nov. 1828 (Boston, 1829), 7, 9, 11.Google Scholar

39. For the series on “Natural Philosophy” and “Natural History,” see Common School Assistant 2 (Dec. 1837): 95–96; 3 (Jan. 1838); 1 (May 1836): 40; 1 (July 1836): 52; see, also, “The Human Body,” 4 (Mar. 1839): 23–24. For the use of apparatus, see American Journal of Education 4 (1829): 62–64; 3 (Aug. 1833): 368–72; Common School Journal 10 (15 Aug. 1848): 241–43 and 3 (1 Mar. 1841): 77; and American Annals of Education and Instruction 3 (Mar. 1833): 97–112.Google Scholar

40. American Rail Road Journal 6 (15 July 1837): 435–37; 6 (26 Aug. 1837): 535–37.Google Scholar

41. New York State Mechanic 1 (9 July 1842): 49–50; 1 (16 July 1842): 61–62; 1 (30 July 1842): 77–78.Google Scholar

42. Scientific American 7 (25 July 1852): 354; 7 (31 July 1852): 368; 7 (14 Aug. 1852): 384; 9 (16 June 1849): 307; 13, n.s. (20 Mar. 1858): 224; 13, n.s. (28 Mar. 1858): 232; 6, n.s. (18 Jan. 1862): 36; 6, n.s. (10 May 1862): 293; 14, n.s. (27 Nov. 1858): 96; 14, n.s. (4 Dec. 1858): 99; 14, n.s. (11 Dec. 1858): 112; 14, n.s. (18 Dec. 1858): 120; 14, n.s. (25 Dec. 1858): 132; 14, n.s. (1 Jan. 1859): 140.Google Scholar

43. “Mr. Johnson's Introductory Address at the Franklin Institute, Philadelphia,” American journal of Education (1829), 25, 28.Google Scholar

44. Potter, Alonzo, The Principles of Science Applied to the Domestic and Mechanic Arts (Boston, 1841), 320–21.Google Scholar

45. Daniels, George H., Science in American Society: A Social History (New York, 1971), 157; Rae, John B., “The ‘Know-How’ Tradition: Technology in American History,” Technology and Culture 1 (Spring 1960): 142.Google Scholar

46. Minutes of the Meeting of 2 Aug. 1852, Metropolitan Mechanics' Institute, Smithsonian Institution Archives, Record Unit 7064, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar

47. Henry, Joseph, “Closing Address before the Metropolitan Mechanics' Institute,” 19 Mar. 1853 (Washington, 1853), 3, 6.Google Scholar

48. Wallace, , Rockdale, 189, 238.Google Scholar

49. Ivins, William Mills Jr., Art and Geometry: A Study in Space Intuitions (New York, 1964), 4. Much of Ivins's work focuses on the shortcomings of Greek art, but his many distinctions are generally useful.Google Scholar

50. For an exception to this, see Blunt, Charles, An Essay on Mechanical Drawing (London, 1811).Google Scholar

51. The Common School Journal 1 (15 Jan. 1839): 18–21.Google Scholar

52. Common School Assistant 3 (May 1838): 34; see also, ibid., 3 (Aug. 1836): 59, and 4 (July 1839): 49–50.Google Scholar

53. Common School Journal 6 (15 Apr. 1844): 133; see also, “Drawing,” ibid. 6 (15 June 1844): 198–200, for the techniques of teaching drawing.Google Scholar

54. “On the Importance of Drawing to Mechanics,” Journal of the Franklin Institute 2 (Sep. 1826): 190.Google Scholar

55. Ibid. For the development of Philadelphia's Central High School and the integration of the liberal, moral, and practical, see Labaree, David F., The Making of an American High School: The Credentials Market and the Central High School of Philadelphia, 1838–1939 (New Haven, Conn., 1988), 10–35.Google Scholar

56. “On the Rise and Progress of the Franklin Institute,” The Franklin Journal and American Mechanics' Magazine 1 (Mar. 1826): 131.Google Scholar

57. Johnson, Walter R., “On the Utility of Visible Illustrations,” American Annals of Education and Instruction 3 (Mar. 1833): 101, 103, 111.Google Scholar

58. Greenough's American Polytechnic Journal 3 (Jan.–June 1854): 77.Google Scholar

59. Ibid., 2 (July–Dec. 1853): 240.Google Scholar

60. Edgeworth, J. R., “Description of a Cheap, Simple, and Portable Instrument, for Determining the Positions of Objects in Taking a Picture from the Life,” Emporium of Arts and Sciences 2 (Feb. 1813): 259–61.Google Scholar

61. Edgeworth, Maria and Edgeworth, R. L., Essays on Practical Education (London, 1815), 1: 30–31. My comments on the chapter on “Toys” are based on the 1815 edition; comments on mechanics are based on the 1835 edition.Google Scholar

62. For statutory requirements, see United States Statutes at Large 1 (1793): 318–22; 5 (1836): 117–25; 12 (1861): 246–49. Further useful references on the U.S. Patent Office are Bugbee, Bruce W., Genesis of American Patent and Copyright Law (Washington, D.C., 1967); Post, Robert C., “‘Liberalizers’ versus ‘Scientific Men’ in the Antebellum Patent Office,” Technology and Culture 17 (Jan. 1976): 24–54; Baer, Christopher, Little Machines: Patent Models in the Nineteenth Century (Greensville, Del., 1979); Preston, Daniel, “The Administration and Reform of the U.S. Patent Office, 1790–1836,” Journal of the Early Republic 5 (Fall 1985): 331–53. Good examples of the use of models by inventors and experimenters may be found in John Banks, A Treatise on Mills, in Four Parts (London, 1795); Bache, Greville and Bache, Dorothy, Oliver Evans: A Chronicle of Early American Engineering (Philadelphia, 1935); and Fitch, John, The Autobiography of John Fitch, ed. Prager, Frank D. (Philadelphia, 1976). Valuable primary sources include the many petitions of inventors in the Patent Extension Files of the United States Archives and the running commentary and controversy in Scientific American.Google Scholar

63. Fitch, , Autobiography, 170.Google Scholar

64. “Demonstrations by Means of Models,” Journal of the Franklin Institute 14, 3d ser. (1848): 44.Google Scholar

65. “Review of J. R. Young, The Elements of Mechanics,” Journal of the Franklin Institute 24 (July 1834): 19.Google Scholar

66. Brunton, Robert, A Compendium of Mechanics or Text Book for Engineers, Millwrights, Machine Makers, Founders, Smiths, etc… (New York, 1830): 206–7Google Scholar

67. Ibid., 228.Google Scholar