Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

lottabigbluewater OP t1_j5zi6us wrote

Wasn't that more in the late 1700s to mid 1800s? At least that's what I saw online earlier.

1

Commercial_Case_7475 t1_j5zo89k wrote

Well yes in many respects it began with the proliferation of the circular saw in the early 1800s, and the invention of coal-powered engines, but the effects of the revolution were cumulative and came to a head post civil war in the US. A LOT of this has to do with the completion of railroads in Vermont, which was the biggest factor in enabling the state to "participate" in the industrial revolution on a large scale.

6

lottabigbluewater OP t1_j60frec wrote

Ok, thanks for the explanation!

3

canadacorriendo785 t1_j60jr37 wrote

Vermont was generally late to industrialization and never industrialized to the same extent of really any other Northeastern state, even Maine or New Hampshire. Its further from major ports (the Connecticut River isn't easily navigable past Greenfield, Mass and goods going to the St. Lawrence would have to pass an international boundary) and the logistics of freight rail in the mountains for the most part didn't make financial sense until the quarries in Rutland and Barre became highly valued export commodities.

One thing people are leaving out beyond immigration is that similar to Massachusetts 50 years earlier, there was a big migration of people from rural towns in Vermont into larger industrial centers during this period looking for better paying jobs as well as education and other services you couldn't get in farming towns. If you look at the census data, the populations in the small towns in Vermont fell basically across the board in the late 19th century while the bigger towns like Rutland or Barre grew dramatically.

5