HIST 363
Unit 4 Assessment
Primary Source Analysis I: Textile Mechanization
Answer Key
In this exercise, you will first answer some questions about the primary sources you
read for Unit 4.2.1, from Fordham University’s Modern History Sourcebook: “Leeds
Woolen Workers Petition” and the “Letter from Leeds Cloth Merchants.” Then you will
use your understanding of these primary sources to critically analyze two secondary
source readings: Doug Peacock’s “Spinning Machinery” and the National Archives’ (UK)
“Luddites.” This exercise will help your practice an essential aspect of the historian’s
craft: using primary sources to reflect upon and add to what other people wrote about
the past.
Below are answers to the questions from “Unit 4 Assessment: Primary Source Analysis
I: Resistance to Mechanization.” Your answers do not have to match the following
exactly, as they should be in your own words; however, please do make sure that the
main idea of your answer is correct. If you did not get the correct answer, please check
the appropriate readings to understand your mistake.
1. According to the workers, each machine causes twelve men to lose their jobs. They
say one machine can do the work of twenty men, but eight men are needed to work the
machine; thus 20 - 8 = 12. The workers also say that four thousand men and their four
thousand family apprentices are out of work, for a total of eight thousand people.
2. The workers also claim that the quality of cloth suffers. Specifically, they argue that
the cloth is left threadbare.
3. The workers argue that the ultimate consequence of the use of machines will be a
depopulation of the land, with even the wealthy people who own land, the “landed
interest,” succumbing to the onslaught of mechanization.
4. The Leeds Cloth Merchants claim that machinery alone can lower the prices of their
products. They say that this is necessary because they are facing competition from
foreign nations, which have the advantages of lower costs of labor and lower taxes.
5. The first way the merchants use cotton to support their argument is that the cotton
trade has become valuable and successful because of the use of machines. Second,
they argue that cotton must be imported, whereas wool could be produced domestically,
therefore making the wool trade even more valuable.
6. The merchants claim that their machines reduce labor by nearly one third, whereas
the woolen workers claimed that the machines put twelve men of twenty out of work, or
sixty percent of workers.
The Saylor Foundation 1
7. The spinsters most likely were concerned about the use of machines. The Leeds
Woolen workers directly voiced their concern, but even the cloth merchants
acknowledged that the introduction of the spinning frame caused great alarm at first.
Therefore, it is most likely that the spinsters felt threatened by these machines.
8. In addition to increasing production, both primary source documents indicate that
lowering labor costs is a major result of mechanization. Therefore, another major
reason why some people wanted to mechanize the industry was not just to profit by
producing more thread but to profit by producing it more cheaply because the
manufacturers would employ fewer workers.
9. First, the example of the Luddites shows that wages were indeed reduced, as this
was a major cause of protests in Nottinghamshire. Second, the Luddites showed that
even twenty years after the merchants claimed the machines would be accepted by the
general populace, many people still resented their use. The best example of the
general resentment of machines is the difficulty the British had in arresting the Luddites,
who were protected by their communities.
10. The “Leeds Wool Workers Petition” is problematic for the Luddites because it is a
peaceful document signed in 1786, a quarter-century before the Luddite movement
began. Thus, the Luddites cannot simply be attributed to violent opposition to the
introduction of machinery, because when machinery was introduced previously, the
workers protested peacefully via a petition. Therefore, there must be more complex
factors at work.
The Saylor Foundation 2