Talk:Simeon North

Another one
I ran across another Simeon North (1802–1884) who was president of Hamilton College, and I think the son of this one. Needs more research of course. W Nowicki (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC) __________________________

Disputed statements, and suggestions for improvement
There are several unascribed factual errors in this article. The first, and most important, is that North did not invent the lathe. John H. Hall did, in his shop in Portsmouth Maine, between 1810 and 1814. His 1812 patent for a breech-loading rifle containing interchangeable parts specified the use of such machinery, and described where such machines should be implemented in the overall manufacturing process. From that any intelligent person could envision the device that must be used to achieve the goal. North learned most of his knowledge about actual production machinery, and the techniques for producing interchangeable parts, either directly from Hall or possibly from his patent papers.

By 1816, Hall had been using prototype milling and cutting machines at his Portsmouth workshop for about four years. In 1814, he turned down a contract to produce his rifle for the government because he did not yet have sufficiently-stabile production capabilities. He also received a contract for production of his rifles in 1816, by which time he had the designs for his tooling and production machines already established. Thus, there seems to be regional bias in the statement that North created the first such machine in 1816.

North's trip to Harper's Ferry to visit with Captain Hall is curiously stated. First off, Captain Hall was not then, nor was he ever, the Superintendent of the Federal Armory there. He superintended the operation of his privately-owned Hall's Rifle Works on Virginius Island in the Shenandoah River, never that of the Armory. In fact, Hall sometimes had vicious quarrels with the actual government Superintendent over the requirement to proceed with development of his manufacturing process in a careful and methodical manner. The Superintendent was under the curious and (deliberately?) persistent misunderstanding that Hall's Rifle Works was owned in total by the government, that Hall was a Federal employee, and thus came under his direct control. It took years to resolve that issue.

As clearly stated in letters written by Hall to his wife Statira (collection on file at the Charles Town WV Museum), North came to Harper's Ferry for the specific purpose of touring Hall's manufactory and learning how Hall achieved his level of sophisticated, precision interchangeability. North's own process involved creating rough parts which then were hand-worked for precision. Hall's process produced finished, interchangeable parts directly from the machines.

Hall was constrained to reveal his methods to North because the government was determined to have the Hall patent firearms produced from more than one source. While they did achieve a working relationship, for Hall, at least, it was a very strained one. Hall insisted on exacting standards, testing, and go/no-go gauges that North was not yet quite ready to accept as necessary. It was only after several years of effort toward the common goal of multiple-facility production that the pair settled on a common understanding, mostly based on Hall's machines, methods, and standards. This article does mention that North was reluctant to extend the practice of manufacturing interchangeable parts beyond his own experience. That was due to his recognition that it would require significant, and costly, development of standards and production tools far beyond anything then available. Thus, he retreated when the going got tough. On the other hand, Hall proved himself over and over to have the fundamental drive to develop the means to overcome such obstacles. It was Hall who led North through the learning process. Thus, North's success in production of Hall-designed rifles, and interchangeable-parts products of his own design, should be attributed to Hall's sometimes-blunt stubbornness on these matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.5.87.23 (talk) 20:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for weighing in. It sounds like you know more in-depth info about these two men (North and Hall) than any of us who has yet edited the article. I think you meant to type "milling machine" (not "lathe") near the top of your comment ("[...] did not invent the lathe"). Having skimmed your comments, I believe that you could have something good to offer the article if you would be kind enough to revise it and to cite the books or journal articles where you read the info that you mentioned. As for regional bias, regarding any questions of whether either Springfield or Harpers Ferry was more advanced than the other in the period of circa 1800 to 1860, I wouldn't too quickly ascribe the article's current bias to regionalism—it could just be due to the limited knowledge of the men themselves among the article's contributors thus far. Also, one thing important about this topic (regional rivalry during this era) that in my opinion people sometimes don't know or appreciate is that the military (as opposed to society in general) was a special microcosm all its own, whose members (officers especially) "got around" (from state to state) a lot more than most other Americans of the era. The two armories most likely were staffed by a shifting variety of officers from both North and South; I would bet that what was known by the U.S. Army or U.S. Navy in Massachusetts was typically also simultaneously known by those organizations in Virginia as well. I find it hard to believe that there wasn't enough turnover of officer assignments that there would be all that many secrets between the two armories. I know someone will haul out some anecdotal counterexamples to refute that idea, but I think the extent of isolation was more limited and temporary than many people might imagine. Anyway, that part is just my own musing. And now, I'm overdue to go eat dinner ... — ¾-10 00:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)