Up from the Bottom in Franklin's Philadelphia (Gary B. Nash)
Up from the Bottom in Franklin's Philadelphia — Study Notes
Context and purpose
A social and economic history of Philadelphia in the early- to pre-Revolutionary era, focusing on mobility, opportunity, and the fate of those at the bottom of the urban ladder.
Central concern: did eighteenth-century Philadelphia offer meaningful opportunity to rise off the bottom, or was ascent increasingly blocked by structural change, war shocks, and growing inequality?
The piece uses biographical sketches, inventories, tax lists, price data, and mobility tables to build a long-run view of urban life, wealth distribution, poverty, wages, and policy responses.
A micro-historical opening: the Richardson and Ghiselin lineage
Francis Richardson (elder) (d. 1688) leaves England as a Quaker seeking religious toleration and a decent competency; quickly becomes co-owner of coasting vessels, land purchaser, slave owner, and a participant in Philadelphia’s early economy.
Francis Richardson Jnr. (1681-1729) inherits and expands the family fortune via silver/goldsmithing, landholding connections through marriage to Elizabeth Growden, and mercantile ventures; by 1760s retires on a Chester County estate.
Cesar Ghiselin (French Huguenot) arrives with religious persecution and similar commercial ascent; eventually goes from silversmith to barber; fortunes collapse by 1760s–1767; eventually dies in poverty after a sharp decline in real property and wealth.
By 1760s-1770s, both families illustrate a broader pattern: three generations can move from artisanal/petty-merchant status toward affluence, then falter; social ascent is not automatic, even in a thriving colonial capital.
Method note: these micro-histories are used to illustrate broader themes about mobility, opportunity, and the limits imposed by structural change.
Key interpretive cautions about mobility and aspiration
Do not apply modern (20th-century) mobility ideals uncritically to pre-industrial societies.
In eighteenth-century Philadelphia, “opportunity” meant access to capital, land, and labor to secure a decent standard of living rather than a guaranteed ascent to elite status.
The pre-Revolutionary era featured a shift in attitudes: resettlement in America altered expectations about material well-being; immigrants and their descendants often pursued a “decent competency” rather than top-tier fortune.
Crèvecoeur’s notion of an “altering of scale” captures the new orientation toward wealth creation in an environment with abundant opportunity, but it was not universal or uniformly accessible (especially for indentured, enslaved, or marginalized groups).
Philadelphia’s growth (and its economic cycles) reshaped what counted as success: the city’s leading merchants and artisans saw upward mobility during earlier decades, but prosperity increasingly concentrated in a monied elite after mid-18th century.
Population growth and the urban economy (Table I and related discussion)
Philadelphia’s population and urban size exploded through the 18th century, turning a small seaport (about 2,300 in 1700) into a major commercial hub (roughly 30,000 by 1775).
The city roughly doubles in population every two decades, boosting the scale and speed of economic change.
City growth underpinned by immigration (Scotch-Irish, German) and ongoing commercial expansion in tobacco, shipbuilding, land speculation, and urban services.
The presence of a large laboring class coexists with a rising elite of merchants and landowners; the urban labor force includes artisans, mariners, carpenters, bricklayers, and others who experienced wage/price dynamics shaped by wars, trade cycles, and policy.
Wealth distribution and inequality in the pre-Revolutionary city (Tables II–III; accompanying discussion)
Table II: Distribution of Taxable Wealth, 1693–1775
The city experienced a marked shift of wealth toward the top tier; Schutz coefficient (a measure of inequality) rose from about 0.43 (1693) to roughly 0.66 (1774), indicating rising concentration of wealth.
Percentile shares show a shrinking bottom tier (0–30th percentile) and expanding shares for the upper deciles over time, with the top 5–10% holding a large and growing proportion of wealth by the late colonial period.
The underlying data reflect transfers of wealth to a small number of elites and a growing wealth gap across decades.
Table III: Distribution of Inventoried Personal Wealth, 1684–1775
Inventories document the movement of assets (slaves, household possessions, cash, bonds, mortgages, stock in trade, etc.) and show a long-run concentration of wealth among the top estates.
Across the period, the top end of wealth holders (high estates) increased their relative share, while low- and middle-wealth groups declined in relative share or remained small.
Interpretive takeaway from Tables II–III
The late colonial period saw an extraordinary concentration of wealth among a relatively small elite, accompanied by a large and persistent class of poorer urban residents.
For many artisans and laborers, wealth accumulation (home ownership, land, and movable goods) was possible but increasingly precarious; the top tier amassed estates that often included city houses and country seats, sometimes via strategic marriage and landholding patterns.
The scale of poverty, urban poor, and the provisioning system (Table IV and narrative)
Table IV (Poor Relief, 1709–1775) tracks population, tax-based wealth, and expenditures on relief.
The city’s population grew from about 2,500 in 1709 to roughly 22,300–23,000 by the 1770s, while the poor burden rose from around 158 poor in 1709 to several thousand across later decades.
Public relief expenditures rose in tandem with the expanding number of poor, reflecting the city’s efforts to address urban distress.
The broader narrative around poverty shows a shift from a familial out-relief model toward institutional poor relief (almshouses, workhouses, hospitals, and public committees) beginning in the 1750s–1760s.
The Committee to Alleviate the Miseries of the Poor and the Almshouse/Workhouse administrators played a central role in distributing wood, food, clothing, and shelter, especially during cold winters and price shocks.
Mobility of the persistently poor: persistence and movement (Tables V–VI)
Table V: Persistency of Poor Philadelphians
1751–2 sample: 144 poor; 19% persisted; adjusted persistence ~21.8% (mortality adjustment).
1756–8 sample: 124 poor; 19% persisted; adjusted 21.8%.
1762–3 sample: 309 poor; 54% persisted; adjusted 21.6%.
1767–8 sample: 306 poor; 70% persisted; adjusted 26.3%.
Conclusion: Over time, a majority of those identified as poor in earlier years still appeared on later poor lists, indicating substantial persistence of poverty and limited mobility off the bottom.
Table VI: Upward Mobility among Persisters (1772 Tax List)
1751–2 cohort: Bottom 30% to Bottom 30% ~10–11%; to 31–60% ~3–8%; 61–90% ~0–1%; Top 91–100% ~1–4% (percentages given in brackets for share within the persisting-poor sample).
1756–8 cohort: Bottom 30% to Bottom 30% ~12%; 31–60% ~5%; 61–90% ~1%; 91–100% ~1%.
1762–3 cohort: Bottom 30% to Bottom 30% ~40–43% (74–80% within the sample other columns indicate movement into higher bands); 31–60% ~6–7%; 61–90% ~3–4%; 91–100% ~2–3%.
1767–8 cohort: Bottom 30% to Bottom 30% ~45–49% (64–70% within the sample); 31–60% ~10–15%; 61–90% ~3–6%; 91–100% ~5%.
Overall interpretation of Tables V–VI
Among those identified as poor in mid-18th century Philadelphia, upward mobility exists but is limited; a large fraction remain in the lower strata across a range of cohorts.
The data underscore a trend of increasing persistence of poverty and decreasing probability of moving into small-property ownership among the bottom strata, especially after mid-century.
Economic cycles, wages, prices, and the cost of living (Tables and narrative)
Rapid urban growth was accompanied by economic volatility tied to imperial wars, trade cycles, and shifting labor demand.
War and post-war cycles (1713 Queen Anne’s War; Seven Years’ War; non-importation and credit cycles in the late 1760s–1770s) produced alternating periods of employment and unemployment, with a general tendency toward more frequent downturns after the mid-century.
Wages for mariners and building trades show sluggish to modest increases relative to inflation, leading to a squeeze on living standards for the urban poor.
Building trades
Carpenters: traditional day wages rose from about 4s–5s 6d per day in the early 18th century to about 6s–7s per day later in the colonial period, reflecting skilled status and organizational capacity.
Bricklayers and stonemasons: wages per thousand, per perch, or per job; generally rising with price levels but often lagging inflation.
Mariners and sea trades
Wages in the 1730s: £2–£2 15s per month; mate/captain-type roles £3–£3 10s; captains up to about £5 6s per month by late period.
Privateering during wars temporarily pushed wages higher, but returns varied and did not sustain long-term gains after hostilities.
Overall wage-price relationship (wages vs. household budgets)
The cost of living rose sharply during inflationary periods (bread, beef, sugar, and rum all rose with wartime demand).
Food and fuel (especially bread and firewood) dominate the budget of the urban laborer; price spikes reduced real purchasing power even where nominal wages rose modestly.
In the 1760s–1770s, price inflation (bread up from ~6d to 1s? per loaf depending on period; wood prices rising to 25–40s per cord in the 1760s) eroded living standards for laboring families.
Firewood prices and housing costs
Wood prices rise from roughly 8–13d per cord in the early 18th century to 18–40s per cord in the 1760s–1770s; this had outsized impact on the urban poor, who decked out up to ~7–20% of household budgets for firewood in winter months.
Public relief and private charity (wood distributions) were essential during severe winters (e.g., winter of 1759–60).
Residential rents for poorer districts (Southwark) remained lower than in more prosperous wards, but rents rose in later decades as demand intensified and property values shifted to wealthier owners.
Taxes and fiscal burdens on laborers
Provincial and local taxes increased markedly in the 1750s–1770s (pump tax introduced 1751; watch and paving taxes; a heavy 18d provincial tax; minimum assessments lowered to accommodate the poor—e.g., down to ~£6 by 1773; the overall tax burden rose even as revenue pressures rose).
The tax burden fell most heavily on the laboring classes, despite relief measures, contributing to their sense of insecurity and anger at elites.
The urban political economy and the rise of artisan-radical politics (late 1760s–1770s)
From 1760s onward, laborers, artisans, and the middle class formed a more assertive political bloc in Philadelphia.
The mass politics of the city gave rise to a radical Philadelphia artisanry movement that helped push through significant constitutional changes during the Revolution era.
The political rhetoric of the period linked economic distress to political reform: curbing wealth accumulation by the few, opening up opportunity for the many, and challenging elite dominance over political processes.
Representative voices (e.g., pamphlets and public lead writing) argued that merchants accumulated fortunes at the expense of the broader populace, and that a more democratic structure was needed to check wealth concentration.
Methodological notes and larger implications
The study integrates multiple sources: tax lists, inventories, overseers of the poor, hospital records, court papers, and contemporary correspondence.
Mobility assessment is complicated by record linkage challenges, name variants, and mortality adjustments; Table 5 explicitly adjusts persistence for mortality to estimate true persistence.
The analysis emphasizes that opportunity and social mobility are not static across time; external shocks (wars, trade cycles, immigration, and policy changes) reshaped the likelihood of upward movement off the bottom.
The author cautions against interpreting Philadelphia’s experience as a universal pattern; instead, it illustrates how pre-industrial urbanization produced a dynamic but unequal ladder of opportunity.
Core takeaways
Early generations could achieve affluence through a combination of family enterprise, strategic marriage, landholding, and urban growth, but this ascent was not guaranteed and often fragile.
By the mid- to late-18th century, opportunity for those at the bottom declined in relative terms, even as the city’s economy expanded; wealth became increasingly concentrated in a metropolitan elite.
The rise of a sizable, economically vulnerable poor class, compounded by price shocks and rising rents, helped feed a more politicized working class that would be central to revolutionary politics in Philadelphia.
The economic life of eighteenth-century Philadelphia illustrates a broader pattern: expansion and integration into an Atlantic economy produced growth and opportunities for some, but also deeper gaps between the few and the many, especially for laborers and artisans at the bottom.
Connections to broader themes and real-world relevance
The study connects micro-level family histories to macro processes: urbanization, wealth concentration, labor markets, and the political mobilization of the working class.
It highlights how social mobility in a pre-industrial city was contingent on macro conditions (wars, cycles) and micro factors (family networks, skill, location, and market demand).
The Philadelphia story helps illuminate the roots of democratization movements and the emergence of a more politically engaged urban working class in colonial America.
Formulas, numbers, and key data (LaTeX-formatted)
Wealth inequality trend (Schutz coefficient):
Population benchmarks (Table I, select points):
Sample sizes and persistence (Table V):
1751–2: sample 144, persistency 19% (adjusted ~21.8%).
1762–3: sample 309, persistency 54% (adjusted ~21.6%).
1767–8: sample 306, persistency 70% (adjusted ~26.3%).
Upward mobility among persisters (Table VI, percent moving out of bottom subgroups):
1751–2: Bottom 30% → Bottom 30%: 10–11%; Bottom 30% → 31–60%: 3–8%; Bottom 30% → 61–90%: 0–1%; Bottom 30% → 91–100%: 1–4%.
1756–8: Bottom 30% → Bottom 30%: 12%; Bottom 30% → 31–60%: 5%; Bottom 30% → 61–90%: 1%; Bottom 30% → 91–100%: 1%.
1762–3: Bottom 30% → Bottom 30%: 40–43% (74–80% within the sample move into higher bands); Bottom 30% → 31–60%: 6–7%; Bottom 30% → 61–90%: 3–4%; Bottom 30% → 91–100%: 2–3%.
1767–8: Bottom 30% → Bottom 30%: 45–49% (64–70% within the sample move into higher bands); Bottom 30% → 31–60%: 10–15%; Bottom 30% → 61–90%: 3–6%; Bottom 30% → 91–100%: 5%.
Note on sources and further reading
The notes draw on Martha G. Fales, Joseph Richardson and Family (various works), Cesar Ghiselin studies, and a wide range of Philadelphia archival sources (tax lists, inventories, hospital and poor relief records, city and county minutes, etc.).
For a fuller discussion of mobility, poverty, and urban politics in colonial Philadelphia, see Nash, Poverty and Poor Relief in Pre-Revolutionary Philadelphia, and related works cited in the article.
Brief synthesis for exam prep
Philadelphia’s eighteenth-century mobility was real but uneven: early generations could convert artisanal labor, land, and networks into affluence, yet persistent structural pressures—wars, inflation, population growth, and tax burdens—moved the city toward greater wealth concentration and a more precarious bottom tier.
The city’s experience helps explain how urban unrest and radical politics emerged in the period leading to the American Revolution, linking economic distress with demands for political reform and broader participation in governance.