Introduction
Buying an appliance is always a big decision. While buyers in the 21st century pick from a range of options, having to decide if an appliance should be “smart” or not. Historians such as Cowan and Gallman have looked at one particular appliance, the stove, as a means of tracing other economic and social conditions. The stove is a useful vehicle for examining how household technologies were often made possible due to innovations in other industries. Stoves are particularly old technologies with histories across a wide variety of cultures. Brick ovens particularly have a long history for bread baking.[1] While it would be pretty much unthinkable to have a kitchen without a stove now, America in the 1800s saw a shift from hearth fires toward stoves. Stoves became preferred over hearth fires or fireplaces as they offered an enhanced cooking experience, better heat distribution and better use of fuel. Stoves’ efficiency improved due to the availability of coal, the increased understanding of working with iron and the networks of industry that delivered these to the household. The industrialization of the post-bellum American economy marked by an increased rate of production of iron alongside an increased rate of shipping via the railroads. Versions of the metal or iron stove had existed since the mid-1700s with even Benjamin Franklin having tried unsuccessfully to produce a stove; his version smoked badly.
Research Methodology and Comparison
Stoves are in the category that Gallman references as “consumer durables”. In fact the stove would itself be a consumer both of fuel while providing a means of preparing food to be consumed. Stoves were also serving double-duty as both a source of warmth as well as food preparation. The increasingly efficient stoves in the post-bellum era were made possible by the confluence of several factors. While it is difficult to locate precise statistical data for fuel costs in the post-bellum economy, there are means of understanding the shift in fuel from firewood to coal. Coal was cheaper to procure than firewood. Coal required less labor to split as firewood for the stove required specific lengths.[2] Even though the stove would burn that wood more efficiently than a fireplace, the work of cutting measured pieces was more intense. It is worth pointing out that in the historical data, the amount of BTUS of consumption was measured comparing fuel wood and anthracite coal. 1850 is the first year that compares both where coal produced 110 BUTs nationally and firewood produced 2,138. By 1900 coal rose to 1,457 with firewood leading 2,015. Firewood saw its use peak in 1870 while coal saw a fairly steady increase into the 1950s.[3]
Particularly in urban areas, firewood became scarce and as such, a contested, and expensive commodity. Stoves which provided a more efficient means of heating a house would save money on the amount of firewood and as coal prices decreased below the cost of firewood, households would be able to save money using coal to be able to save on other needed elements. Wood was not counted as a commodity but in 1900 a ton of coal cost $3.92.[4] Thus, for the stove to be both fully beneficial and adopted other networks needed to be in place in order to support stove adoption. Coal wagons provided door -to-door deliveries which “…signified the shift from chopping and burning wood to the reliance on distant mines to supply heat.”[5] While marketing played a role, certainly, “…advertising and marketing did not always drive the growth of energy consumption.”[6]
What Cowan and lecturers in the late 1800s observe was that the ability of the stove to regulate heat enabled the production of different types of food. It is much easier to bake a pie in an oven or on a stove than over an open flame. The food produced or cooked were shaped by the types of technology available. In some cases when buying a stove the purchasers would also need pots and pans that would be included.[7] Statistical data for stove production does not begin to be tracked until 1942 but the purchase of heating and cooking apparatuses were recorded beginning in 1869. There is a lack of context as to specifics but a heating/cooking apparatus in 1869 was recorded as costing $26.40. In 1900 the cost rose to $61.90.
There were certainly naysayers regarding the stove. Even in the late 19th century nostalgia and arguments for fireplaces over stoves were present. Stoves could be considered both unhealthy and unaesthetic. Iron stoves were accused of being the “…cause of the development of a determinate but very variable amount of carbonic oxide, a very poisonous gas.”[8] Fireplaces were in the late 1880s already being discussed with tones of nostalgia. Writers described the fireplace possessing a “…ruddy glow…and cheery aspect” in contrast with the “hideous iron stove…the depressing, comfortless stove…[which] heat strikes about mid-air, keeping the head warm and the feet cold.”[9] While extolling the various decorations and benefits of the fireplace however, this same article neglects to discuss how and where firewood could be procured to produce the necessary heat and ruddy glow. The nostalgia for this aspect ignores certain factors of economy and fuel as nostalgia is wont to do.
Conclusion
Ruth Schwartz Cowan , in her foundational work More Work for Mother: The Ironies of Household Technology from the Open Hearth to the Microwave, describes the growth and adoption of household technologies in the 20th century American household. This post helps to lay the groundwork using a brief example, the stove, as other scholars have similarly done. The rise of household appliances were meant to save labor and time. What Cowan and other scholars have argued is that rise of these appliances shifted the vast bulk of the household labor onto the wife and mother. In addition to their use these appliances required maintenance and care. I am interested in discussing and exploring how companies like Westinghouse and General Electric marketed these projects and conducted market research, building upon the foundation Cowan lays in her book More Work for Mother.
Bibliography
Cowan, Ruth Schwartz. More Work for Mother: The Ironies of Household Technology from the Open Hearth to the Microwave.
New York: NY. Basic Books, 2008.
Gallman, Robert E., and Rhode, Paul W. Capital in the Nineteenth Century. Chicago: IL. University of Chicago Press, 2020.Nye,
David E. “Consumption of Energy”. in The Oxford Handbook of the History ofConsumption, edited by Frank Trentmann. Oxford: Oxford Publishing, 2012.
“The Open Fireplace in All Ages.” The Art Amateur 4, no. 2 (January 1881): 34-37.
“The Philosophy Of The Oven.” Scientific American 20, no. 4 (January 1869): 58-59.
“Unhealthfulness of Iron Stoves.” Scientific American 22, no. 14 (April 2, 1870): 219.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970, Bicentennial Edition. vols 1-2. Washington, DC, 1975.
[1] Philosophy of the Oven
[2] Gallman, Rhode and Goldin 281
[3] The BTUs are measured in the trillions. Historical Statistics of the United States, 587-588.
[4] Historical Statistics of the United States, 208.
[5] Nye 5
[6] Nye 12.
[7] Cowan 61.
[8] Unhealthfulness of Iron Stoves
[9] The open fireplace in all ages
Jeremy McGinniss 