Iron and Ideology
Salisbury Cannons and Domestic Production During the American Revolution
Lighting a Flame
On a summer night in 1777, the state guards appointed to protect Furnace Village patiently listened as their commander iterated his orders. As usual, the men would travel from Furnace Barn to Colonel Porter’s corner, before patrolling from the Bridge House to the Upper Dam. The guards then headed out into the night. There were no clouds in the sky, but a smoky haze obscured the moon and stars above. Despite the time, the guards heard men shouting and moving about. Yet the glowing light bursting from the manufactory was the most striking scene of all. Indeed, it was as if the workers of Salisbury Furnace utilized the sun itself to cast their cannons.
Throughout the American Revolution, the furnace in Salisbury, Connecticut produced about 75% of the Patriots' domestic cannons. Financed by Governor Jonathan Trumbull’s Committee of Safety, the furnace operated twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. Through these colossal efforts, men created approximately 850 cannons capable of firing nine, twelve, and eighteen-pound shots.
The Patriots desperately needed artillery. After all, cannons were a very important part of the eighteenth-century battlefield. Before the Revolution, colonists could rely on Great Britain for weaponry. But as the Continentals fought their mother country, they had no choice but to rely on themselves and their allies. Yet France did not officially ally with the Patriots until 1778, and Spain joined one year later. Even then, it was a difficult task for Patriots to convince their allies to supply their forces .
Moving beyond the battlefield, domestic cannon production also served a vital ideological purpose. Since approximately 1750, colonists voiced their protests through rejecting British goods. Instead of contributing to the island nation's wealth through taxes, many elected to create these same taxed goods at home. Most of these wares were simple. Colonists traded cotton and silk for homespun cloth, tea for herbal drinks, and fine China for basic pottery. But cannonry extended such production beyond the household. Indeed, the manufacturing of domestic artillery ideologically portrayed Americans' independence from their powerful mother country.
Funds for Iron and Tea
The American Revolution was not colonial iron industrialists' first conflict with Great Britain. In 1750, Parliament passed the Iron Act. This law forbade colonists from establishing iron-refining manufactories like slitting mills, rolling mills, plating forges, and steel-making furnaces. It aimed to encourage colonists to export raw goods instead. Bar iron, pig iron, and iron ore could be shipped to Great Britain, manufactured into usable wares, and sold back to the colonies. In turn, this would bolster the mother country's economy.
Many colonists protested this act—especially wealthy merchants involved in the iron industry. Petitions from across the colonies flooded over the Atlantic. Primarily, they highlighted the practical problems of unnecessarily circulating iron around the ocean. Yet petitioners also protested in ideological terms, as well. One of these documents argued that the act infringed on colonists' liberties—language employed with greater frequency closer to the Revolution. As the petition stated,
To forbid his Majesty's Subjects the making any Sort of Iron Wares, when its for their own Necessary Use, and not for Exportation, seems to bear hard on the common Rights and Liberties of Mankind; especially, when the Ore is what their own Soil yields, and what is found but in small Quantities comparatively in the Mother Kingdom.
Petition to Parliament Reason against a general prohibition of the Iron Manufacture in Plantations, c. 1750, University of Groningen.
The majority of ironmasters and merchants further demonstrated their disdain by ignoring the act. They continued to create and circulate iron goods throughout America to a shocking degree. In 1750, merchants exported only five tons of colonial iron to Great Britain. Meanwhile, the parent country imported 4,844 tons from Sweden that same year. By 1756, the situation saw little improvement: American imports flatlined at 270 tons per year. It appeared that colonists already started making the connection between domestic production and politics.
In subsequent decades, Parliament passed more laws about colonists' personal property. Many Americans kept responding through protests. As time went on, this resulted in colonists associating politics with property.
As historian T. H. Breen argues, American Patriots were some of the first to use boycotts as a form of protest. These efforts initially took form as non-importation agreements. After Parliament’s passage of the Stamp Act in 1765, many merchants agreed to stop importing the offending stamped paper. Parliament quickly rescinded the tax, effectively dissolving these emergent efforts. However, in 1767 Parliament passed another series of taxation policies: the Townshend Acts. Nicknamed "the Intolerable Acts" by agitated colonists, these laws taxed a variety of everyday goods: lead, glass, paper, paint, and tea. Angry colonists across America responded by pushing more merchants toward nonimportation. These laws (save for the tea tax) were not repealed until 1770, giving colonists approximately three years to organize and strengthen their efforts. Yet once the acts were repealed, nonimportation dissolved once again.
The strongest boycotting efforts were yet to come. In 1773, Parliament passed the Tea Act. This law bolstered the East India Company’s ability to compete against other merchants by waiving the company’s export duties. Colonies detested the law because it reinforced the Townshend Act’s tax on tea imports. Since the East India Company was a government-sanctioned monopoly, colonists also feared Parliament’s ability and willingness to put other merchants at a disadvantage.
Learning from their past experiences, radical colonists aggressively pushed merchants toward nonimportation. Yet they soon learned that this strategy did not solve all of their problems. Intimidated by local pressure and threats of violence, many merchants pledged against British goods out of fear. In reality, they continued to sell these luxuries to stay ahead in the competitive consumer market. In response, rebellious colonists pushed toward nonconsumption. This strategy put pressure on individuals to avoid luxury goods even when merchants offered them for sale. These colonists argued that those who wanted British goods should produce them at home or purchase their American alternatives. As a result, goods like homespun cloth became a sign of defiance against Great Britain.
In this video, fashion historian Audrey Stuck-Girard elaborates on the role of homespun fabric in the American Revolution.
Many rebellious colonists radically punished dissenters through ostracization and even violence. Customs officers, disobedient merchants, and citizens spotted with taboo British goods were tarred, feathered, and paraded around town. Mobs hung effigies and marched their targets up to gallows, threatening to kill them.
In 1774, Bostonians performed one of the ultimate acts of radicalism by dumping 340 chests of East India tea into the Boston Harbor. Parliament responded by passing laws that rebelling colonists nicknamed the "Coercive Acts." These laws attempted to manage Massachusetts, which Parliament deemed as out of control. Through these laws, Great Britain shut down Boston Port and took away elected government positions. Instead, the crown appointed Massachusetts's officials. This tight-fisted response caused many colonists who previously believed Parliament would amend their ways to now call for revolution.
In this print, jailed Bostonians are at England's mercy. Troops, cannons, and ships guard the Bostonians, forcing them to buy British merchants' goods.
The Smelting of Salisbury Iron
As protests played out on a national scale, industrialists managed the first furnace of Salisbury, Connecticut. This manufactory, often referred to as “Salisbury Furnace” or “Lakeville Furnace,” soon became a pivotal part of the Revolution.
However, cannons were the furthest thing from the minds of Samuel Forbes, Elisha Forbes, Ethan Allen, and Paul Hazeltine as they met in 1761 to discuss the construction of a furnace. Instead, they thought of the market: what was the price of pig iron? Where could they get charcoal, limestone, and iron ore? Where could they secure waterpower? Who would work at the furnace? Who would buy their products?
Ethan Allen, co-founder of Salisbury Furnace.
Samuel Forbes, the "Iron Prince." He was ironmaster and co-owner of Salisbury Furnace.
Each man came with their own set of expertise. Paul Hazeltine represented his father, Uxbridge merchant John Hazeltine. He owned acres of forest and property next to a small pond. Brothers Samuel and Elisha Forbes already owned and led several forges, gaining local fame for their crafty problem-solving and reliable workmanship. Ethan Allen, a known local troublemaker and farmer, lacked the expertise and finances of the Hazeltines and the Forbeses. It may have been his charisma and leadership capability that won the men over. After all, Allen later captured Fort Ticonderoga with the Green Mountain Boys in 1775. At any rate, the men agreed to finance Salisbury’s first blast furnace.
This map depicts Furnace Village (now called Lakeville) as it looked in the eighteenth century. Salisbury Furnace sat to the East of Furnace pond. Cannons were tested on Furnace Lot (now called Community Field.)
Despite the furnace’s success in producing and selling iron products, Samuel and Elisha Forbes began to back out of the enterprise. With their forges and other manufactories in Canaan, they simply did not have the time to co-manage the Salisbury Furnace.
Samuel Forbes's home in Canaan, Connecticut. The original home has been modified since Forbes owned it.
In 1763, the brothers began selling their shares. In wake of their gradual departure, John Hazeltine sold all of his to Charles and George Caldwell of Hartford, Connecticut. Samuel Forbes sold his remaining stock to the Caldwell brothers, as well. Ethan Allen eventually followed suit by selling his shares to them. Unlike his former partners, Allen did not leave the Caldwell brothers on amicable terms. After the sale, he and George had an argument. Allen escalated matters by taking off his shirt and attacking Caldwell, resulting in a ten shilling fine from Salisbury’s Justice of the Peace.
The property sold to Charles and George Caldwell included:
A certain tract or parcel of land in said Salisbury near the house of Doctor Joshua Porter, formerly called the Iron Works lott containing by estimation about 48 acres of land … Ye furnace now standing on said land with the running gear and utensils belonging to said furnace … All the buildings and cole houses belonging to said furnace … An Iron Works standing on said land with ye utensils belonging to said Iron Works … The dam, pond and stream adjoining to said furnace and Iron Works … All the iron oar in Salisbury that belongs to the owners of said furnace … Certain large acreage in woodlands for making charcoal.
Kenneth T. Howell and Einar W. Carlson, Men of Iron: Forbes & Adam (Lakeville: Pocketknife Press, 1980), 45.
Due to the economic depression or the Caldwells’ poor management skills, the brothers ended up in considerable debt. They owed 5,000 pounds worth of pig iron to Richard Smith, a merchant from Boston. When Smith came to Salisbury and realized that they were unable to pay him the required iron, he offered to take their heavily mortgaged furnace instead. The brothers agreed to sell most of their shares to Smith, leaving him in charge of the furnace. By 1770, he was the full owner of the operation.
Smith's Situation
As tensions between Great Britain and her colonies intensified, Richard Smith’s neighbors in Salisbury grew skeptical of the merchant's political allegiance. They analyzed his interactions and conduct, searching for signs of disloyalty to the Patriot cause. Though Smith never overtly confirmed his neighbor’s suspicions, he left for England only two months after the battles of Lexington and Concord. Smith later claimed that he simply left for a business trip that lasted for the duration of the war, but public opinion did not favor him in 1775.
Governor Jonathan Trumbull of Connecticut took note of Smith’s absence. Building upon other leading revolutionaries' push for domestic production, the politician firmly believed that local manufacturing was crucial to secure victory. After forming the Committee of Safety in 1775, Trumbull spearheaded efforts to collect and provide food, clothing, and munitions to soldiers. As a result, many nicknamed Connecticut “The Provisions State.” That same year, Trumbull thought of a new domestic good to manufacture: artillery.
Governor Jonathan Trumbull. This portrait was painted by his son, John Trumbull.
Trumbull and his allies quickly noted Salisbury Furnace’s potential to create worthy cannons. They sent a committee to scout out the furnace, noting its fine condition and available resources. Better yet, the majority of local people supported domestic production as a means of defending the Patriot cause. On August 24, 1774, town officers agreed to boycott British goods when they wrote:
That it is therefore the duty of every man who values commercial and political commissions with Great Britain as the least blessing to [unite] in all lawful means to effect their total abolition.
Geoffrey Rossano, ed., Salisbury Town Meeting Minutes: 1741-1784 (Salisbury: The Salisbury Association, 1988), 96.
That same day, they also agreed to send their own crops to Boston:
Our poor brothers of Boston now suffering for us shall share with us blessings of our plentiful harvest, that for this purpose subscriptions be taken in by Hezekiah Fitch, Esq. Capt. Elisha Sheldon, Messrs. Luke Camp and Lot Norton, and Capt. Samuel Lane.
Rossano, Salisbury Town Meeting Minutes: 1741-1784, 96.
Trumbull asked Samuel Forbes to return to Salisbury Furnace as ironmaster. The industrialist thought about it, likely considering how additional taxation and other Parliamentary policies had marched his finances increasingly close to the cliff. Following the footsteps of previous protestors, Forbes agreed to manufacture Continental artillery.
Iron Takes Its Shape
In 1776, the Salisbury Furnace casted its first cannons. Laborers dumped marble and iron ore into the top of the furnace as charcoal and air circulation intensified the flames below. Molten iron poured out of a long tube and into sand troughs. Once hardened, workers carried the solid tubes of iron to the neighboring boring mill. Here, a water-powered machine hollowed out the cannons. Laborers brought the finalized products to a nearby field, fitting them with gunpowder and shot. With a resounding boom, they tested the cannons by firing them into the hill beyond. Samuel Forbes then worked with overseer Joshua Porter and Governor Jonathan Trumbull to distribute the cannons.
Workers tested cannons in Community Field before sending them off to war.
To test their munitions, laborers fired cannonballs like these into the hillside.
This cannon was created at Salisbury Furnace.
In this video, historians of Colonial Williamsburg explain how to fire a Revolutionary-Era cannon. They also explain their use in warfare.
The Americans’ ability to produce their own munitions sent a powerful message to Great Britain. Building upon previous boycotts, it illustrated Patriots' capability of independence. They did not need Great Britain to protect them and would no longer stand for perceived tyranny.
Yet, the ideological qualities of cannon-manufacturing did not end with the finished products. Men used local ingredients in their work, deepening the message of independence. By using domestic ore, charcoal, marble, and water, Patriots portrayed their economic and martial abilities to liberate themselves from foreign powers. After all, they were perfectly capable of self-producing vital armaments and did not have to rely on British imports. Patriots had all of the necessary raw materials and manufacturing power they needed to become independent.
Iron ore made or broke artillery. Poor-quality ore caused cannons to misfire or even explode. High-quality ore kept them stable as they fired shot after shot. Since 1762, Salisbury Furnace sourced their ore from Ore Hill, which was just over two miles away. First discovered in 1731 by industrialist Thomas Lamb, men soon realized that the ore was of rare strength. In 1825, Samuel Robinson compiled a catalog of all known minerals known in the United States. He stated the following about Ore Hill:
[Ore Hill] has been open about 70 years, and the ore is still very abundant, and is said to yield some of the best iron in the United States.
Samuel Robinson, A Catalogue of American Minerals, with their Localities (Boston: Cummings, Hillard, & Co., 1825), 107.
Between the furnace's quality ore and Samuel Forbes’s technical skill, Salisbury cannons proved extremely reliable. There are no surviving records indicating that any of these cannons misfired or exploded in battle. Thus, Patriots indicated that artillery production was not mere bravado. Their cannons were effective tools of battle that indicated Americans' capability to produce goods and defend themselves.
This map showcases the iron mines of Northwest Connecticut, Southwest Massachusetts, and New York.
Ore was not enough to smelt iron. Limestone or marble served as flux to lower the substance's melting point. The combination of flux, ore, and heat prompted a chemical change that separated iron from its impurities. These contaminants floated to the top of the stack while hot, molten iron poured out of the bottom. In Northwest Connecticut, miners gathered Stockbridge marble from massive quarries. Quarrymen spent their days working in the nearby town of Canaan, where marble ran deep. Workers continue to extract the product to this day.
This map shows the location of marble in Northwest Connecticut. Though most of Salisbury contains marble, the Salisbury Furnace received their shipments from neighboring Canaan.
Laborers used charcoal in conjunction with a massive bellows to heat up the furnace. Once the temperature reached 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit, ore began to melt. The dense woodlands of northwest Connecticut held plenty of trees to create charcoal in structures called charcoal pits. People who created these, called ‘colliers’, felled and stacked logs before packing them with mud and leaves. Once fired, the pit worked as an oven, causing the wood to smolder instead of burn. This advertisement posted in Salisbury on April 3, 1778 provided some insight into colliers' responsibilities:
Wanted immediately for carrying on said furnace a number of workmen for cutting of wood, and making coals. All who are inclined to serve the State, and will apply to the managers, they will receive generous wages and be exempted from military duty, draughts and fines … N. B. Those who cut wood must find themselves boarding, axe, and blanket.
Howell and Carlson, Men of Iron, 48.
Though the furnace's property included acreage for creating charcoal, Jonathan Trumbull and the Committee of Safety felt it necessary to increase production. On February 2, 1776, the committee determined that:
Col. Jedh Elderkin is hereby appointed a committee to repair forthwith to Salisbury, and give proper orders and directions for providing every necessary material for setting forward and promoting said business, and getting everything into the best readiness to carry on the same. And he is directed to improve or cause to be improved for coal the wood, on 50 acres of the land near said furnace, belonging to Mrs. Hamlin and Mrs. Whittelsey, heirs of the Hono. Col. Newton, decd, or so much thereof as shall be necessary, in manner and according to the terms and liberty given by the Rev Mr. Whittlesey under his hand.
The Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut: From May, 1775, to June, 1776 (Hartford: Press of the Case, Lockwood & Brainard Company, 1890), 244.
Colliers used baskets like these to move charcoal to oxen-driven carts. Teamsters subsequently drove the full wagon to the furnace.
Salisbury Furnace diverted water from Factory Pond to power the manufactory's bellows. The pond was the outflow site of the much larger Lake Wononskopomoc, the deepest natural lake in Connecticut. In 1762, laborers first built a dam to control the waterflow used to power the bellows' waterwheel.
Overall, the use of local waterpower, iron ore, marble, and charcoal resulted in cannons that emphasized independence. Laborers manufactured them completely independently of the European market, since all of the necessary resources were located nearby. Using their own raw materials, Patriots created the instruments necessary to break away from their parent country.
Multipurpose Munitions
Salisbury Furnace did not operate as a simple vanity project. Powerful and reliable, cannons like those produced at Salisbury could cripple ships, forts, and soldiers alike. As such, Patriot leaders constantly asked Jonathan Trumbull for additional munitions. On February 11, 1777, Trumbull replied to Phillip Schuyler’s request for additional artillery:
We are sorry we cannot supply you with any more cannon. We have already granted all the cannon that can be spared from our foundery [sic] at Salisbury.
Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society 7, no. 2 (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1902), 22.
Privateers, the navy, state forces, and other Patriot operatives asked Trumbull and the Committee of Safety for artillery, as well. Continental Congressman Roger Sherman wrote to Jonathan Trumbull on April 23, 1777, stating:
Making cannon is an object that deserves attention, as several of the frigates are detained only for want of guns. Those made at Salisbury are allowed to be of the best kind, and tho’ they are higher by the ton than those made here, yet I have heard it observed they are not dearer on the whole, being much lighter.
Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society 7, no. 2, 45.
On January 16, 1778, the Committee of Public Safety reported that:
It was represented by Gen. Samuel H. Parsons to the Governor and Council, that a small privateer was then fitting out by the general’s order, to drive small tenders and boats from the western coast, which could not be completed unless he could obtain the loan of one of the 8 pounders at New Haven, owned by the State, and prayed for the loan of said cannon; which was granted by the Governor and Council, by Gen. Parsons’ giving his receipt therefor.
A Historical Collection From Official Records, Files, &c., of the Part Sustained By Connecticut, During The War of the Revolution (Hartford: E. Gleason, 1842), 516.
In 1977, historian Adam Ward Rome determined that Salisbury cannons were used in at least three battles: the Battle of Trenton, the Battle of Princeton, and the Battle of Groton Heights. They were most likely used in the Battle of Saratoga, as well. Several forts and ships also used artillery from Salisbury.
The incorporation of entirely domestic cannons into trade, politics, and the military illustrated Continentals' capability to run the new nation without British interference. As illustrated through cannons' manufacture and use, Americans were competent at self-government.
Final Shots Fired
On September 3, 1783, Continentals and British alike silenced their guns. They folded up their uniforms, sheathed their sabers, and stored their cannons. As per the Treaty of Paris, Patriots officially became Americans.
Upon war's end, most men returned home. Among those travelers was Richard Smith, the official owner of Salisbury Furnace. In his petition for citizenship in 1783, the merchant relayed his adventures. Smith stated that he originally planned to leave for England in 1774 to purchase ships. He was delayed by “private Business” until July of 1775, approximately two months after the battles of Lexington and Concord. Opportunity then called him to Petersburg, Russia in 1776. Smith then returned to England to care for an ill family member before eventually returning to Connecticut in 1783. In addition to his application, Smith promised a loan of $1,000 to the state of Connecticut.
Smith was granted both citizenship and the return of his ironworks that same year. Soon after, the merchant sold his furnace and moved back to England, where he remained for the rest of his life.
Jonathan Trumbull carried on as the governor of Connecticut until 1784. He stepped out of politics that year, claiming that the Revolution and his growing unpopularity left him too exhausted to pursue another term. Among his most fervent supporters, he remained beloved until his death.
Samuel Forbes continued the American legacy of domestic production for the rest of his life. His business ventures only grew as he added forges, furnaces, grist mills, rolling and slitting mills, general stores, and other enterprises to his list of properties.
As time went on, industry continued to blossom. Around the town of Salisbury and throughout the United States, men and women continued building new manufactories to build domestic economy and industry. Americans continued to reject British goods through embargos leading up to the War of 1812. The domestic production of artillery became a means of asserting independence during the American Revolution, and this message remained vibrant into the nineteenth century.
After Salisbury Furnace closed down in 1832, Alexander Hamilton Holley and George Merwin founded the Holley and Merwin Manufacturing Company. They constructed this factory in 1844, which primarily made pocket knives. Locals later nicknamed the property "Pocketknife Square."
Pocketknife Square has a sign and monument dedicated to the Salisbury Furnace.
In this documentary, local historian Ed Kirby discusses the Salisbury Iron District's development. The region remained an industrial hub until the mid-twentieth century.
Bibliography
Primary Sources
An Act to Encourage the Importation of Pig and Bar Iron from His Majesty’s Colonies in America. 1750, 3rd sess. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=pst.000022133328&view=1up&seq=20.
A Historical Collection From Official Records, Files, &c., of the Part Sustained By Connecticut, During The War of the Revolution. Hartford: E. Gleason, 1842. https://archive.org/details/historicalcollec00inhinm/page/n11/mode/2up Internet Archive.
Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society 5, no. 10. Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1885. https://archive.org/details/trumbullpapers00trumrich.
Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society 7, no. 2. Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1902. https://archive.org/details/collectionsmass00conggoog/page/n6/mode/2up.
Petition to Parliament Reason Against a General Prohibition of the Iron Manufacture in Plantations. Groningen, Netherlands: University of Groningen, 2012. http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1701-1750/petition-to-parliament-reason-against-a-general-prohibition-of-the-iron-manufacture-in-plantations.php.
Robinson, Samuel. A Catalogue of American Minerals, with their Localities; Including All which are Known to Exist in the United States and British Provinces, and having the Towns, Counties, and Districts in Each State and Province Arranged Alphabetically. Boston: Cummings, Hillard, & Co., 1825. https://archive.org/details/acatalogueameri00robigoog/page/n12/mode/2up.
Rossano, Geoffrey, ed. Salisbury Town Meeting Minutes, 1741-1784. Salisbury: The Salisbury Association, 1988.
Some Reflections on the Trade Between Great Britain and Sweden. London: J. Robinson, 1756. http://www.americanhistory.amdigital.co.uk.ezpro.cc.gettysburg.edu:2048/Documents/Images/GLC00401/0.
The Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut: From May, 1775, to June, 1776. Hartford: Press of the Case, Lockwood & Brainard Company, 1890. https://archive.org/details/publicrecordsofc015conn/page/n5/mode/2up.
The Public Records of the State of Connecticut: For the Years 1783 and 1784. Hartford: the State of Connecticut, 1943. https://archive.org/details/publicrecordsofs05hoad/page/n7/mode/2up.
Secondary Sources
Bining, Arthur Cecil. British Regulation of the Colonial Iron Industry. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press, 1933. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv4t80f9.
Boston Tea Party Ships and Museum. "Boston Tea Party Damage." Accessed November 30, 2022. https://www.bostonteapartyship.com/boston-tea-party-damage#:~:text=340%20chests%20of%20British%20East,night%20of%20December%2016%2C%201773.
Breen, T. H. The Marketplace of the Revolution: How Consumer Politics Shaped American Independence. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=xSGXHYw3vdYC&pg=GBS.PR4.
The Connecticut Historical Society Museum & Library. "Rudd and Holley Family Papers." Last modified 2013. https://chs.org/finding_aides/finding_aids/Rudd_Holley.html.
Fales, Edward D. Jr. Arsenal of the Revolution, edited by Kathryn Boughton. Salisbury, CT: The Salisbury Association, 1997.
Gordon, Robert and Michael Raber. Industrial Heritage in Northwest Connecticut: A Guide to History and Archaeology. New Haven: The Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2000.
Howell, Kenneth T. and Einar W. Carlson. Men of Iron: Forbes & Adam. Lakeville: Pocketknife Press, 1980.
Jones, Ronald D. John and Ethan: A Revolutionary Friendship. Salisbury, CT: The Salisbury Association, 2007.
Kirby, Ed. The Making of the Iron Industrial Age: An Historical Chronology: The Iron Men and Women of the Sharon Industrial Age, the Salisbury Iron District and Their Connections to the Transcontinental Railroad. Sharon, CT: Sharon Historical Society, 2019.
Library of Congress. "Timeline." Documents from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774 to 1789. Accessed November 30, 2022. https://www.loc.gov/collections/continental-congress-and-constitutional-convention-from-1774-to-1789/articles-and-essays/timeline/.
Peskin, Lawrence A. Manufacturing Revolution: The Intellectual Origins of Early American Industry. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 2003. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/jmu/reader.action?docID=4398428&ppg=5.
Pettee, Julia. The Rev. Jonathan Lee and the 18th Century Township of Salisbury Connecticut. Salisbury, CT: The Salisbury Association, 1957.
Rome, Adam Ward. Connecticut’s Cannon: The Salisbury Furnace in the American Revolution. Hartford: The American Revolution Bicentennial Commission of Connecticut, 1977. https://archive.org/details/connecticutscann0000rome.
Smith, Craig Bruce. “A Matter of Honor and a Test of Virtue: Riots, Boycotts, and Resistance during the Coming of the Revolution.” In American Honor: The Creation of the Nation’s Ideals during the Revolutionary Era. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2018. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5149/9781469638850_smith.
White, David O. Museum of Connecticut History. "Jonathan Trumbull." Last modified July, 2002. https://museumofcthistory.org/2015/08/jonathan-trumbull/.
The American Battlefield Trust. "Princeton." Accessed November 30, 2022. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/revolutionary-war/battles/princeton.
The Lake Wononscopomuc Association. "State of the Lake 2015: Aquatic Ecosystem Research." Accessed November 30, 2022. http://lakewononscopomuc.com/the-lake/state-of-the-lake-2015/#:~:text=INTRODUCTION,ac%20of%20sparse%20residential%20development.
