Student Paper
Pendleton Woolen Mills: A Northwest Success
History 469
Washington State University Vancouver
By Rick Thum II
The textile and clothing industry has risen from humble beginnings to become a great American industry; however, in recent years it has been undermined and fallen on hard times. For the past few decades apparel makers in this country have been doing poorly. Clothing companies have laid off 15% of their workers between 1994 and 1997 and are going out of business faster than any other manufacturer.(1) However, this is not a recent trend. In 1947 there were 828 textile mills in America employing 167,000; in 1962 there were only 528 mills employing 60-65,000.(2) According to a 1997 article in Fortune Magazine, if the present trend continues the industry could shrink to half its size by 2002.(3) Indeed current evidence would seem to support that conclusion. In one sweatshirt factory in Martinsville, Virginia between September 1999 and March of 2000, 3000 workers lost their jobs.(4)
Despite this tumultuous situation, however, there are some textile mills that continue to be successful. One such mill is the Pendleton Woolen Mills Corporation, whose main factory is located in Washougal, Washington, just east of Camas. Pendleton Woolen Mills has remained successful in light of the failure of similar mills, making it the last family-owned textile Mill in the U.S.(5)
This paper, rather than to explore the question of the downfall of the textile industry in America, will explore why Pendleton Woolen Mills has survived these trying times and continues to do so well. In other words, what is it about Pendleton that makes it different from other woolen mills? To accomplish this, we will explore in depth the history of the Pendleton Mills in light of the various factors that have led to its success. In doing so, we will look at the differences and similarities it has to other woolen mills and textile producers in America.
When exploring the success of the Pendleton Woolen Mills Corporation, a number of factors can be seen as attributing to its success. These would include the location of the mill, the size of the mill, its methods of production, the various markets that the mill has exploited and explored, as well as how it uses its markets. Although all of these factors have been essential to the success of Pendleton Mills, many of them are also possessed by mills that have failed. One variable though, stands out as a determining factor that becomes essential for the success of Pendleton Mills. That factor is management. It is the management of the Pendleton Mills that has made all the other factors functional.
Location is the first thing that comes up when someone is choosing to start a mill so it is only prudent that it is the first factor that we will explore here. Historically, once the textile manufacturing process changed from home-based production to one taking place entirely within a factory, the location of said factory became crucial.(6) First, one has to be close to a source of wool, either near a rail line or near the pastures themselves.(7) Second, one must choose a location near a power supply. In the days before electricity, this meant being near a river so as to harness the power of the rushing water, but later this would be less crucial.(8) Finally, one must have a way to get one’s products to market. Pendleton Woolen Mills possessed all of these.
The original Pendleton Woolen Mill started as the Pendleton Wool Scouring and Packing Company in 1893.(9) It was located in eastern Oregon where there was a large quantity of sheep. In fact, there were many sheep throughout all of southeast Washington, northeast Oregon, and central Oregon.(10) In addition, Pendleton was close to a major railhead.(11) It was for these reasons that this location was chosen and it was a good choice because the city of Pendleton had become a major shipping center for the whole region by 1893. Because half the weight of wool is eliminated through the scouring process, it is considerably cheaper to ship scoured wool than raw wool, making this an ideal location for the plant.(12)
However, within a couple years of opening there was an increase in the freight tariff on scoured wool causing people to ship their wool raw instead of having it scoured first because of the cost.(13) Consequently, the scouring plant began to fail due to lack of business. The owners at that time enlarged the plant and converted it into a woolen mill which made blankets and robes for the Indians of the region in the hopes of having greater success.(14) But this also failed. The owners were wool buyers and not wool manufacturers, so they did not know how to manage a mill.(15) When in 1909 the Pendleton Woolen Mill was purchased by Clarence and Roy Bishop it became a success and the namesake for the Pendleton Woolen Mills of today.(16) Consequently we can easily conclude that location alone, although necessary, is not enough in itself to make a successful mill. Other mills with similar ideal locations would also suffer failures. The Yale Woolen Mill of Yale, Michigan, one of the largest in its time, and located ideally on a river where easy transport provided raw materials and shipment ease, would fail in 1963.(17)
The Washougal Mill, too, would initially fail. The Washougal Mill was originally called the Union Woolen Mill and owned by J.F. Bailey. Built in 1910 by the people of Washougal, Washington, the mill offered a prime location on the Columbia River as well as a workforce who were eager to work there.(18) The Columbia River is located close to the wool market as well as rail transportation.(19) Despite its almost perfect location, however, it would go bankrupt two years after opening due to lack of orders.(20) Pendleton with its astute management would take this same mill in 1912 and turn it into the company’s largest and most successful mill.(21) As we can see, although location is essential for success, a good location can never lead to success without good management.
The second most important variable after location is markets. Markets are a factor that can make or break a mill. Pendleton’s first market after being taken over by the Bishop brothers was with blankets. They sent English textile designer Joe Rounsley to live several years with the Indians. Weaving the complex designs of Indian blankets takes a long time, up to a year for a single piece, and the Navajos were hurting financially. It was more profitable for them to sell their weaving to whites and buy Pendleton blankets for themselves.(22) They would wear the Pendleton blankets as robes and shawls, but make their own blankets for the Anglo market. Pendleton made these blankets so well that they are often mistaken for authentic Navajo blankets even today. They were made well enough that the Indians would use them to negotiate tribal business deals, as loan collateral, for burials, ceremonies, and gifts, in addition to wearing them.(23) Pendleton was not the only manufacturer in the country to cater to Indians. In 1896, there were five major trade blanket manufacturers in the U.S.; however, Pendleton is the only one that remains.(24) Even today in their Washougal Mill you can still see piles of these authentic pure wool blankets being woven, finished, and stacked ready for delivery to Indian tribes from Canada to the American Southwest.(25) (See Figure 1 for a picture of one of these blankets). Essentially Pendleton knew their target audience and their market.
But Pendleton was not content to stick with simply one product and well they should not have been. Without product diversification, many mills have failed. The Yale Woolen Mill�s prime location helped with its initial success, but this was not enough to allow the mill to remain so.(26) At first, the products of the Yale Woolen Mill were diverse, but then in the 1920’s to the 1940’s they began to standardize and started making only automobile upholstery.(27) This was quite lucrative in the beginning, but with the rise of synthetics, due to their novelty and ease of care, they began to overshadow traditional fibers like wool.(28) This became especially apparent after World War II when these synthetic fibers began being used in the automobile industry for upholstery because they were cheaper. The company tried to shift to making apparel, but unsuccessfully.(29) Diversification had come too late; their focus on a single product was their downfall.
Pendleton would not suffer this fate. Pendleton would diversify its markets almost from the very beginning. In 1912, only three years after opening the Pendleton mill, Clarence Bishop (see figure #2) would lease the old Union Woolen Mill in Washougal and rename it the Washougal Mill.(30) The Bishops had been looking for a location that would bring Pendleton products closer to market. Washougal was close to Portland and a water supply, so it would be ideal.(31) They began by enlarging the mill ending up with a three-story building 60 by 120 feet.(32) The Washougal Mill broadened Pendleton’s capacity for fabric variety.(33) It made woolen cassimere and other suitings including top coatings earning a reputation in both men’s and women’s clothing.(34)
During WW1, the Washougal Mill was converted to produce almost nothing but blankets for the troops.(35) However, the owners were not satisfied simply with making blankets for a war which would no doubt end, and so Clarence Bishop made plans to begin making apparel. For that purpose, Clarence started a mill in Vancouver, Washington as an adjunct to the Washougal Mill. This would be instrumental in garment manufacturing. After WW1, the product line at Washougal was expanded to include virgin wool flannels, shawls, and robes.(36) Today Pendleton’s line includes everything from blankets, to men’s and women’s apparel for all seasons made out of a variety of fabrics, as well as a line of fabric products for the home. Pendleton learned early that diversification was the way to stay afloat in an unsure market.
One could argue, however, that it is Pendleton’s size that has allowed it to be successful. After all, by 1918 Pendleton had four mills, the one in Pendleton itself, the one in Washougal, the garment operation in Vancouver, and a mill in Brownsville.(37) Indeed, the company continued to grow and expand after this as well. In 1924, the company moved its garment operations from Vancouver to Portland as well as its corporate office which had been in Portland already since 1922.(38) In 1925 a Portland wool scouring plant was built on Columbia Boulevard.(39) Also in 1925, Pendleton took a part interest in the Eureka woolen mills in California.(40) In 1930 the corporate office was moved to an even bigger building in Portland.(41) In 1953, the Washougal Mill was merged completely with Pendleton Woolen Mills with new buildings being built for other departments.(42) In 1956 Pendleton opened a men’s apparel factory in Sellwood, Oregon.(43) That same year they purchased another mill in Milwaukie, Oregon. In 1965 and again in 1970, they continued the expansion of the Washougal Mill.(44) They would also purchase mills and factories in New Hampshire, Nebraska, and Iowa.(45) What this chronology of continued growth tells us is that Pendleton was an increasingly large woolen mill empire. It is logical that a larger corporation would have the economic resources to weather the storms that come more easily. However, one must take into account that Pendleton started the same size as everybody else. It was through the astuteness of their management that they were able to succeed and grow.
This quality of leadership was present early on. By 1863, Thomas Kay, who was an immigrant from Yorkshire, England, had already learned textile skills from the East Coast textile mills. It was in this year that he came across Panama on a burro to get to Oregon and into the woolen trade here.(46) Thomas Kay helped organize Oregon’s second woolen mill in Brownsville. He oversaw the weaving operation there and soon became superintendent of the company.(47) In 1889 Thomas Kay opened his own mill in Salem, Oregon called Thos. Kay Woolen Mills.(48) Thomas Kay’s eldest daughter Fannie learned the mill business and assisted her father. She would marry retail merchant C.P. Bishop. This would combine the manufacturing expertise of Thomas and Fannie with the merchandising capabilities of CP Bishop. CP Bishop opened his retail store in Salem in 1890 only a year after Thomas Kay opened his woolen mill there. Fanny would help out there too.(49) The retail store was named Bishop’s Clothing and Woolen Mills Store and sold men’s and boy�s wear. It sold and marketed much of Thomas Kay’s products.(50) CP Bishop would have three sons – Clarence, Roy, and Chauncey. (See Figure #3) CP and Fannie sent their sons to a Philadelphia textile institute to ensure that they would have superior skills.(51) The success of the company is based on this connection between the sales background of CP Bishop and the textile manufacturing background of Thomas Kay. This would prove to be an invaluable resource to the next generation of Bishop’s – Clarence, Roy, and Chauncey52.
In the beginning, Clarence and Roy would run the textile end of the company while Chauncey took care of the retail end. However, in 1918 Roy decided to open his own textile mill, the Oregon Worsted Company, which he would run himself.(53) With Chauncey’s unexpected death in 1927, it left the company with only one Bishop in management. Clarence would continue steadfastly, remaining manager for 60 years.(54)
Clarence would compensate for the loss of his brothers by hiring top-notch managers to help him run his ever-burgeoning mill empire. In 1932 Clarence hired Ernest M. Brooke, an Englishman with experience in English and American mills. He was brought to Washougal as superintendent designer and became an invaluable asset to the company. He brought the “twist” fabric to Washougal, a rugged material with good appearance and long wear. This would create national and regional recognition of Washougal’s products such as fancy men’s and women’s fabrics.(55) When in 1945 Brooke came into bad health, Clarence looked for a new manager and hired James Atichison, another top-notch manager. Atichison had been operating a 30-set mill in Indiana for U.S. Rubber Co. He accepted the position as superintendent at the Washougal Mill “and brought a new touch of professionalism to Washougal products.”(56) Clarence would also continue to hire from within the family when possible. When Chauncey’s second son Charles K. Bishop finished his education in 1939, he was sent to Washougal where he became Vice-President of Pendleton Woolen Mills.(57)
It was not only the men that would play a key role in the success of the company but the women as well. As was mentioned earlier, Fannie Kay helped out at both her father’s mill and her husband’s clothing store. In 1922, a new woman would rise to prominence, Harriet Broughton. It was in this year that she married Clarence. Little is spoken of her specific work, but Harriet is credited with an innate sense of balance, being a good manager, and “�contribut[ing] an intangible plus to the progress of Pendleton.”(58)
Clarence was able to assemble a management team that would help him to be successful. They would complement each other’s abilities creating a superior team.(59) An example of that occurs in 1932. At that time, due to the depression, business had become somewhat stagnant. Clarence had decided to close the company’s Portland office with its garment factory, warehouse, and shipping center. He believed this would reduce the company’s expenses and inventory, and provide the working capital to keep the rest of the company going. He planned to move the remaining part of the business to Washougal. Joseph Van Reet, however, who was the Portland garment factory superintendent, had a plan and urged Clarence to have a clearance sale at drastically reduced prices in March 1933. Clarence agreed, and reportedly the public went crazy buying men’s suits and top coats for a fraction of the price. It was a success and brought in much needed capital into the company. It also restored public confidence and orders started pouring in again.(60)
There are many other fine examples of the acute business sense of the management at Pendleton. On March 23, 1924, a night watchman discovered a smoking bale of wool in a dry room at the Washougal Mill. When he tried to smother the fire, the bale exploded. A major fire ensued. This fire caused $100, 000 in damage and destroyed the preparation and finishing departments. It gutted the entire interior of the main factory building although the water towers were saved. Fortunately, the damage was covered by insurance and Clarence Bishop remained undaunted. At this time he took an ambitious step; instead of building back the original plant, he made plans to build a new, expanded factory. He persuaded the Spokane and Eastern Trust Companies to float a $100,000 bond. This plus the insurance money allowed him to build a new mill with such modern equipment as ring spindle frames and automatic looms. It was the first mill on the Pacific Coast to operate with this equipment. The Washougal Mill was closed for a total of 8 months, opening again in 1924.(61) While originally these first buildings had been made of wood and haphazardly placed, the new buildings were made of part-metal construction and built facing north-south for the best light advantage.(62)
Perhaps the best credit to the Pendleton management is that they have always known their markets. Originally, this market involved the famous Pendleton Indian blankets. However, as already mentioned, that would change. The company saw that local loggers, farmers, and outdoorsmen had trouble finding warm, rugged shirts for use, and Clarence was not happy with the drab colors which were typical of the time. So he came up with the idea of using colorful flannels, which the Washougal Mill could weave skillfully, thus creating a line of sturdy wool flannel shirts for men.(63) They began production of these in 1924, and by 1929 Pendleton was offering a full line of men’s wool sportswear.(64)
A women’s line was added when it was discovered that women were wearing their husband’s shirts and buying them for themselves.(65) In 1949 a jacket called the “49’er” made from colorful Washougal plaids and patterns would fill this role.(66) The 49’er jacket gained instant popularity because it was a perfect match for the emerging suburban lifestyles of post-war America.(67) It was a sellout between 1949 and 1957.(68) Frank King was the first head of Pendleton’s new women’s department. Clarence Bishop had asked him to start up a new women’s division in 1949. It was his idea for the 49’er jacket which got the women’s wear department off to a great start making $35 million in its first four years.(69)
Pendleton would continue to be concerned about its markets and they would hire Emma Rogness in 1955, their first staff economist, to ensure that they were remaining in touch with people’s needs. They were the first in the entire Northwest to do this. Her duties were to answer letters from around the country of which hundreds were received annually, working with high schools, colleges, extension and 4-H educational groups which frequently called on Pendleton for assistance. She would also help in getting the best possible information on fabric care to the consumer through experimenting and labeling in addition to helping create educational brochures. (70)
Technology is another factor which some might attribute to the success of Pendleton. As I have already mentioned, after the fire at the Washougal Mill in 1924 Clarence had some of the most advanced technology at the time put into that mill. Indeed, the Bishop’s have always been careful to use the most efficient equipment possible. However, Pendleton has been able to achieve a high level of efficiency by combining technology of the past with the present. Today while walking through the Washougal Mill you can see state of the art dye machinery in a room next to wool washing machines that as far as anyone can remember have been there since the very first construction of the mill. The reason that is given for why they are still used is that they work just fine, why replace them. Modern washing equipment is not going to do the job any better. Some of the spinning equipment, as well, hearkens back to the 1930’s when according to some people they just have not come up with a better machine that can do the job.(71) The Bishop’s have been wise enough only to spend money on new equipment when there was some real benefit to be had.
Even though Pendleton Mills has a superior technological strategy, technology itself cannot be considered a reason for their success. The Bishops took over the Pendleton Woolen Mill, and although they did some remodeling, they still used the same blanket-making equipment.(72) They were successful with equipment that others were not. A better example comes from J.F. Bailey, a Portland physician and head of a business syndicate. He bought a woolen mill in Union, a city in Eastern Oregon. The mill had been idle for several years and the citizens wanted it restarted in 1908.(73) In 1910 the mill opened, but under Bailey it still was not profitable and went broke. Bailey had another mill built in Washougal and moved the equipment from the Union Mill to Washougal.(74) It also failed, but after being bought by Pendleton it became a success. In fact, the Washougal Mill is now the largest and most profitable mill in the corporation. Bailey failed twice with the same equipment at two separate locations. Pendleton used the same equipment and turned the Bailey’s Washougal mill into a success. Obviously, the equipment did not make that big of a difference.
Perhaps more important than technology, however, was efficiency. In recent years, in order to remain competitive, in an increasingly hostile market, Pendleton has had to increase its efficiency. Between 1991-1995, more than $30 million in state of the art manufacturing equipment and systems have been added to the Washougal Mill, including a computerized dyeing system. The dye house in Washougal is among the most advanced in the industry, cutting the plants electricity use by 30% and its water use by 80%.(75) Current changes are designed to streamline manufacturing operations and reduce costs to deal with intense foreign competition in fabric and apparel.(76) Even the wool fragments that fall on the floor are carefully swept up and sold to rag manufacturers.(77) But highly efficient and often times better equipment is nothing without management. In Pendleton’s original mill before it was owned by the Bishop’s, new equipment arrived in late 1897 to increase efficiency, but the mill still failed ten years later.(78)
Perhaps Pendleton’s biggest reason for success when it comes to manufacturing technique is not about technique at all, but rather what they call the “Sheep-to-Shawl” approach. They often refer to themselves as a vertically integrated company and today they even speak with pride about this approach as ideal.(79) The sheep-to-shawl approach or vertical integration is buying raw fleece and doing all the scouring, dyeing, carding, spinning, weaving and finishing in house.(80) That means that Pendleton owns facilities that encompass all aspects of its operations and completes all the processes of manufacture itself.(81) The advantages to this approach are that every step in the process can be maintained for quality and value, and close attention can be paid to detail and high efficiency(82). The company has increased in technology over the years but they still use this “sheep-to-shawl” method.(83) The company takes great pride in this method of manufacture, even creating a brochure that talks about this method and shows samples at each stage in the process.(84) Today Pendleton blankets are still woven at the Pendleton plant, even though much of it is computerized now. The finishing and packing for these blankets are still done by hand at the Washougal mill and can be readily seen from the mill tour.(85)
Advertising is another thing that must be considered when trying to flesh out the reasons for a company’s success. Today companies are made or broken by successful or faulty advertising techniques. However, Pendleton is an exception to this rule. Pendleton did not really start advertising until 1939, when it placed modest ads in Life, Esquire, Outdoor Life, Field and Stream, and Sports Afield.(86) Advertising alone, however, is not going to save a mill with faulty management. The Union Mill had done advertising, but it still failed.(87) Pendleton Mills under its original owners also used advertising. They would advertise in local newspapers with such slogans as “What to buy for Christmas? What could be more appropriate than a Pendleton Indian robe or a fine-textured blanket.”(88) In 1902 a concerted effort was put out to do some more effective advertising because previous attempts had only received lukewarm responses. So Indian postcards were produced with Indians wearing Pendleton robes. A booklet was even produced showing uses for the robes and blankets. Despite all this extensive advertising the original Pendleton mill still failed.(89)
According to John Bishop, Vice President of Mill Sales, the company’s advantage is not advertising, but what they call the Pendleton brand.(90) The Bishops had an advantage when they took over the mill in Pendleton because, although they had to do everything from scratch, the previous owners had done some serious work establishing the Pendleton brand. Blankets were already being sold to Indians and they had been marketed to college students. Many people were already using these blankets for throw rugs in their houses. Pendleton’s name was already associated with quality wool products. The blue and gold label placed on every Pendleton product would assure people that they were indeed getting this high quality.(91) The Pendleton brand became the company trade mark which they still promise to uphold. In a current issue of their catalog they promise to:
From the 1980’s onward would prove to be a tough time for Pendleton. However, the Pendleton management would pull through and prove that they had the skills necessary to remain successful. The textile market had become increasingly competitive and the Pendleton management had to make some tough decisions in order to ensure the viability of the company. Some of these decisions have been simply to increase the product diversity of the company. For instance, they tried a children’s wear line in 1987.(97) They added the Home Division in 1998, as a response to what Ralph Lauren is doing.(98) The home division sells Buckaroo Bedding, furniture, jewelry and baby blankets. (99)
However, as the competition of big name competitors such as Liz Claiborne, Jones of New York, and Evan Picone, have become more intense, Pendleton’s management has made some decisions which violate their all wool, made in the USA image. (100)As late as 1977 in an article in the Oregonian, C. Morton Bishop is quoted as saying, “Wool is our basic material and the only one for the company.”(101) At this time neither cotton nor synthetics entered into the Pendleton economy, only pure wool.(102) In the 1990’s this would change. Pendleton’s shirts, instead of being made of heavy indestructible wool, would now sometimes be made with lighter-weight materials.(103) The company has also begun using silk, crepe, rayons, polyesters, and other fabrics to meet current demand for seasonless easy care clothes.(104) The management of the company was able to make the decisions necessary to ensure the company’s future, even when those decisions ran contrary to previous decisions made by the company. Although they would continue to offer many items that were 100% wool, they chose to offer some items that would now be made with blended fabrics.
As the 1990’s continued, Pendleton would have to face the effects of both the GATT and NAFTA. Pendleton had been proud of its made in the USA image, but reluctantly in 1992 they began experimenting by sending some of its work overseas. Pendleton had done this much later than many of their competitors.(105) After 1994, when NAFTA took effect, having work done in other countries would prove even more crucial to a textile company’s well being. NAFTA allowed companies to ship fabric produced and cut in U.S. to Mexico for assembly into clothing and then bring it back at a fraction of what it costs to make the whole thing in the U.S. For most garment manufacturers it was a choice of having your clothing assembled in other countries or being undercut by your competitors who had decided to do so. Jos. A. Bank Clothing was being under priced by $40.00 on each $270.00 suit it made. The company had no choice but to move
its operations to Mexico and Costa-Rica, laying off several hundred employees.(106) Pendleton was simply making the best decision it could. No one could compete with apparel being made in Mexico.
This change in policy has had the effect of reversing much of the physical growth of the company. Minimum wage in industrial areas of Mexico was $3.06/ a day in Dec 1995. Employees at Pendleton’s Sellwood clothing factory averaged $9.00 /hour in wages. With the company paying for benefits the hourly cost was $12.00/ hour.(107) By the end of 1999 Pendleton had chosen to close down the Columbia Boulevard Plant, its fabric mill in Milwaukie, an apparel plant in Fremont, Nebraska, and the Sellwood clothing factory.(108)
This downsizing of the company should not be seen as a sign that the company is starting to fail. In fact, this decision to close many of its American clothing factories was a very wise decision. By choosing to have their fabric woven and cut in the U.S., but assembled into clothes in Mexico and overseas, Pendleton has been able to remain economically viable without compromising their commitment to high quality woolen clothing.(109)
The success of Pendleton historically and today has depended chiefly on their continuously adroit leadership. They have the capacity to make tough decisions in times of crisis and know when and how to take risks. Although numerous other factors can be seen as being essential for success, such as location, technology, and markets, all of these variables are dependent upon the one key factor of good management. It is management that decides on location; it is management that decides what technology to use and how to advertise. It is management that determines the markets and makes the decisions on how best to exploit those markets. The Bishop family and their management team have been able to find success where others have found only failure. This fact alone would seem to indicate that there was something special about Pendleton’s management. It is this special quality that has created and maintained the success of Pendleton Woolen Mills, Inc.
1. Kim Clark, “Apparel Makers Move South,” Fortune, 24 November 1997: 62. ProQuest Direct: All Databases [database online]. Bell and Howell Information and Learning, accessed 2 February 2000.
2. Carol Andrea Wiegand, “A History of the Yale Woolen Mill, Yale Michigan 1881-1963” (Masters Thesis, Michigan State University, 1982), 91-2.
3. Clark, “Apparel Makers Move South.”
4. Lee Cowen, CBS Evening News, 18 February 2000.
5. Washougal Mill Tour, Washougal, Washington, 9 March 2000.
6. For more information on the rise of the American woolen industry from home manufacturing to a completely manufacturing based system see Arthur Harrison Cole, The American Wool Manufacture, 2 vols. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926).
7. Cole, 1:vii.
8. John R. Mullin, “Development of the Assabet Mills in Nineteenth Century Maynard,” Historical Journal of Massachusetts 20, no. 1 (1992): 67.
9. The Post Bicentennial (Camas: Post Publications, 1976), 75.
10. Nancy Love, “The Pendleton Story: Selling Blankets to the Indians,” Wall Street Journal, Eastern Ed., 17 January 1984: 1. ProQuest Direct: All Databases [database online]. Bell and Howell Information and Learning, accessed 2 February 2000.
11. Pendleton was located on the continental railroad line and was consequently the major railway shipping center for the rest of Oregon and to the East; Pendleton Woolen Mills, “The Wool Story�From Fleece to Fashion,” 7th ed., (Portland: Pendleton Woolen Mills, 1991), 31; Pendleton Woolen Mills, “Welcome to Pendleton – U.S. A.,<http://www.pendleton-usa.com>, 14 February 2000;
12. Scouring is a process of removing the grease and dirt from the wool. Pendleton Woolen Mills, “Wool Fiber in the Making,” (Portland: Pendleton woolen Mills, 1993); Ibid.
13. Pendleton Woolen Mills, “The Wool Story,” 31; Pendleton Woolen Mills, “Welcome to Pendleton – U.S.A.”
14. Pendleton Woolen Mills, “Welcome to Pendleton – U.S. A.”
15. Pendleton Woolen Mills, “The Wool Story,” 31.
16. Love; Tamera Smith Allred, “Pendleton Strives to Weave Strong Reputation,” Vancouver (Wash.) Columbian, 12 February 1995, sec. 1A.
17. Wiegand, 91, 109, 110.
18. Post Bicentennial, 75.
19. Mildred Greening Piontek, ed., Washougal, Washington: “Gateway to the Columbia Gorge” (Washougal: by the author, 1996), 130.
20. Post Bicentennial, 75.
21.Ibid., 75, 121; Piontek, 130.
22. Phyllis Berman, “A Family Saga,” Forbes. 155, no. 11 (22 May 1995): 164. ProQuest Direct: All Databases [database online]. Bell and Howell Information and Learning, accessed 2 February 2000.
23. Love; Allred
24. Bonnie Henderson, “Blankets that Warmed and Won the West,” Sunset, November 1995: 22. ProQuest Direct: All Databases [database online]. Bell and Howell Information and Learning, accessed 2 February 2000; Allred.
25. Washougal Mill Tour; Throughout this paper “today” refers to April of 2000.
26. One might wonder what I mean by success. The Yale woolen mill operated for many years before closing in 1963. That may seem quite successful and indeed it should be seen as a valiant track record. But my conditions for success extend from the past into the present day. My definition of a successful mill is one that is still operating in some capacity. Consequently the Yale woolen mill was not successful; Weigand, 91.
27. Wiegand, 111.
28. Ibid., 91.
29. Ibid., 112.
30. The mill is finally purchased and incorporated in 1915; Piontek, 15, 125; Post Bicentennial, 75.
31. Post Bicentennial, 75.
32. Ibid.
33. Pendleton Woolen Mills, “Welcome to Pendleton – U.S. A.”
34. Pendleton Woolen Mills, “The Wool Story,” 32-3.
35. Post Bicentennial, 75.
36. Ibid.
37. The mill in Brownsville is seldom mentioned in the texts about the Pendleton empire. It was originally the mill that Thomas Kay managed when he first came to the Northwest. Pendleton Woolen Mills, “Welcome to Pendleton – USA.” However, as to how it became associated with the Pendleton mills seems somewhat of a mystery.
38. Pendleton Woolen Mills, “The Wool Story,” 33; Alfred Lomax, Later woolen Mills in Oregon: A History of the Woolen Mills which Followed the Pioneer Mills (Portland: Binfords & Mort Publishers, 1974), 281.
39. Julia Anderson, “Pendleton to Close One Site, Move One to Washougal,” Vancouver (Wash.) Columbian, 21 July 1999, sec. C1.
40. Lomax, 284.
41. Pendleton Woolen Mills, “The Wool Story,” 33.
42. Before that the Washougal mill was owned in corporation, but had its own stock. However when complete ownership was transferred to Pendleton, its products could now be sold under the Pendleton name rather than Washougal mill itself; Post Bicentennial, 75, 121.
43. “Pendleton Closing Sellwood Factory; Moving Work to Mexico,” Vancouver (Wash.) Columbian, 16 August 1996, sec. A1; Anderson.
44. Post Bicentennial 75,121.
45. Pendleton Woolen Mills, “The Wool Story,” 34.
46. Allred; Pendleton Woolen Mills, “Welcome to Pendleton – U.S. A.”
47. Pendleton Woolen Mills, “Welcome to Pendleton – U.S. A.”
48. Pendleton Woolen Mills, “Welcome to Pendleton – U.S. A.”; Pendleton Woolen Mills, “The Wool Story,” 31.
49. Berman.
50. Pendleton Woolen Mills, “The Wool Story,” 31; Lomax, 275.
51. Berman.
52. Ibid.
53. The mill was originally called the Multnomah Mohair Mills. Roy changed the name when he purchased it; Pendleton Woolen Mills, “Welcome to Pendleton – U.S. A.”; Pendleton Woolen Mills, “The Wool Story,” 33.
54. Clarence died in 1969 at the age of 91. Berman.
55. Post Bicentennial 75.
56. Ibid.
57. Post Bicentennial, 121.
58. Pendleton Woolen Mills, “The Wool Story,” 33.
59. Clarence himself was quite astute and made many important decisions for the company. For instance, the Bishop family was divided on whether to purchase the mill in 1915, instead of simply leasing it, Clarence prevailed, though and the mill was purchased. A very successful decision. Post Bicentennial, 75.
60. Post Bicentennial, 75; Lomax, 288.
61. Post Bicentennial, 75.
62. Piontek, 125.
63. Allred.
64. Post Bicentennial, 121; Pendleton Woolen Mills, “Welcome to Pendleton – U.S. A.”
65. Allred.
66. Angela Allen, “More Than Wool $%136-Year-Old Pendleton Woolen Mills Approaches A New Century With New Fabrics, Products,” Vancouver (Wash.) Columbian, 27 October 1999, sec. E1.
67. Pendleton Woolen Mills, “Welcome to Pendleton – U.S. A.”
68. Post Bicentennial, 121.
69. Beth Fagan, “Pendleton Expertise Parlayed Into New Venture,” Oregonian, 4 May 1979, sec. B7.
70. Jane Allen, “Northwest Textile Firm Scores First With Addition of Staff Home Economist,” Oregonian, 16 February 1955, sec. 3, p. 1; Pendleton still produces one of these pamphlets today entitled “Wool�A Natural.”
71. Washougal Mill Tour.
72. Lomax, 274.
73. Post Bicentennial, 75.
74. He called this new mill, the Union Woolen Mill as well. When Pendleton took over the mill it was renamed the Washougal Woolen Mill.
75. Allred.
76. Anderson.
77. Washougal Mill Tour.
78. Lomax, 266, 271.
79. Pendleton Woolen Mills, “The Wool Story,” 34.
80. Henderson.
81. Pendleton Woolen Mills, “Welcome to Pendleton – U.S. A.”
82. Ibid.
83. Henderson.
84. Pendleton Woolen Mills, “Wool Fiber in the Making,” (Portland: Pendleton woolen Mills, 1993).
85. Love; Washougal Mill Tour.
86. Post Bicentennial, 121.
87. Ibid., 75.
88. Lomax, 264.
89. Ibid., 266-269.
90. John Bishop, interview by author, 13 March 2000, Portland, (Ore.), phone interview.
91. Lomax, 276.
92. Pendleton Woolen Mills, “Pendleton Home Catalog 1999/2000,” (Portland: Pendleton Woolen Mills, 1999), 2.
93. Washougal Mill Tour.
94. Allred.
95. Pendleton Woolen Mills, “Wool� A Natural,” (Portland: Pendleton Woolen Mills, n.d.)
96. Washougal Mill Tour.
97. Angela Allen.
98. Ibid.
99. Ibid.
100. Allred.
101. “Nothing But Wool Pulled Over the Eyes,” Oregonian, 13 March 1977, sec. B5.
102. Ibid.
103. Angela Allen
104. They do not manufacture these products themselves, but they do insure their quality and will not use them if they do not meet their high quality standards; Angela Allen; Washougal Mill Tour.
105. “Pendleton Closing Sellwood Factory.”
106. Clark.
107. “Pendleton Closing Sellwood Factory.”
108. Anderson; “Pendleton Closing Sellwood Factory.”
109. Washougal Mill Tour.
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Allen, Angela. “More Than Wool $%136-Year-Old Pendleton Woolen Mills Approaches A New Century With New Fabrics, Products” Vancouver (Wash.) Columbian, 27 October 1999, sec. E1.
Allen, Jane. “Northwest Textile Firm Scores First With Addition of Staff Home Economist” Oregonian, 16 February 1955, sec. 3, p. 1.
Allred, Tamera Smith. “Pendleton Strives to Weave Strong Reputation” Vancouver (Wash.)Columbian, 12 February 1995, sec. A1.
Anderson, Julia. “Pendleton to Close One Site, Move One to Washougal” Vancouver (Wash.)Columbian, 21 July 1999.
Bishop, B.H., to Editor of Oregonian, 6 December 1967, printed in Oregonian 6 December 1967, p. 36.
Bishop, John, vice president of mill sales. Interview by author, 13 March 2000, Portland, (Ore.), Phone interview.
Clark, Kim. “Apparel Makers Move South.” Fortune, 24 November 1997:62. ProQuest Direct: All Databases [online]. Bell and Howell Information and Learning. 2 February 2000.
Cowen, Lee. CBS Evening News, 18 February 2000.
“Mill Leader wins Honor” Oregonian, 9 August 1963, p. 25.
“Nothing But Wool Pulled Over the Eyes” Oregonian, 13 March 1977, sec. B5.
“Pendleton Closing Sellwood Factory; Moving Work to Mexico,” Vancouver (Wash.)Columbian, 16 August 1996, sec. A1.
Pendleton Woolen Mills. “Pendleton Home Catalog 1999/2000.” Portland: Pendleton Woolen Mills, 1999.
Washougal Mill Tour. Washougal, Washington, 9 March 2000.
Secondary Sources
Allen, Angela. “More Than Wool $%136-Year-Old Pendleton Woolen Mills Approaches A New Century With New Fabrics, Products” Vancouver (Wash.) Columbian, 27 October 1999, sec. E1.
Allred, Tamera Smith. “Pendleton Strives to Weave Strong Reputation” Vancouver (Wash.)Columbian, 12 February 1995, sec. A1.
________. “Pride Runs Through Mill Hand’s Work” Vancouver (Wash.) Columbian, 12 February 1995, sec. A1.
Anderson, Julia. “Pendleton to Close One Site, Move One to Washougal” Vancouver (Wash.)Columbian, 21 July 1999, sec. C1.
________. “Some Pendleton Workers Win Coverage Under 1974 Trade Act” Vancouver (Wash.) Columbian, 9 April 1999, sec. C1.
Berman, Phyllis. “A Family Saga.” Forbes. 155, no. 11 (22 May 1995): 164. ProQuest Direct: All Databases [online]. Bell and Howell Information and Learning. 2 February 2000.
Cole, Arthur Harrison. The American Wool Manufacture. 2 vols. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926.
Fagan, Beth. “Pendleton Expertise Parlayed Into New Venture” Oregonian, 4 May 1979, sec. B7.
Forsyth, Douglas. “An Analysis of Tariff Formation in Antebellum America.” Ph.D. diss., Washington State University, 1996.
Friman, H. Richard. “The Eisenhower Administration and the Demise of GATT: Dancing with Pandora.” The American Journal of Economics and Sociology 53, no. 3 (July 1994): 257-272.
Gilbert, Viviane. “Pendleton Mills Revives Cayuse Blanket Designs.” Seattle Times, 20 May 1998, sec. F5.
Henderson, Bonnie. “Blankets that Warmed and Won the West.” Sunset, November 1995: 22. ProQuest Direct: All Databases [online]. Bell and Howell Information and Learning. 2 February 2000.
Heywood, Michael. “History is Kind to Heywood’s Heywood” Vancouver (Wash.) Columbian, 29 October 1999, sec. A13.
Lomax, Alfred. “The Albany Woolen Mill.” Oregon Historical Quarterly 67, no. 1 (1966): 61-74.
________. Later woolen Mills in Oregon: A History of the Woolen Mills which Followed the Pioneer Mills. Portland: Binfords & Mort Publishers, 1974.
________. Pioneer Woolen Mills in Oregon: History of Wool and the Woolen Textile Industry in Oregon, 1811-1875. Portland: Binfords & Mort, Publishers, 1941.
________. “The Portland Woolen Mills, Inc.” Oregon Historical Quarterly 62, no . 2 (1961): 161-179.
Love, Nancy. “The Pendleton Story: Selling Blankets to the Indians.” Wall Street Journal, Eastern Ed., 17 January 1984: 1. ProQuest Direct: All Databases [online]. Bell and Howell Information and Learning. 2 February 2000.
Mullin, John R. “Development of the Assabet Mills in Nineteenth Century Maynard.” Historical Journal of Massachusetts 20, no. 1 (1992): 64-88.
“Pendleton Closing Sellwood Factory; Moving Work to Mexico,” Vancouver (Wash.)Columbian, 16 August 1996, sec. A1.
Pendleton Woolen Mills. “Welcome to Pendleton – U.S. A.” <http://www.pendleton-usa.com>. 14 February 2000.
________. “Wool� A Natural.” Portland: Pendleton Woolen Mills, n.d.
________. “Wool Fiber in the Making.” Portland: Pendleton woolen Mills, 1993.
________. “The Wool Story�From Fleece to Fashion,” 7th ed. Portland: Pendleton Woolen Mills, 1991.
“Pendleton’s Poth to Retire.” Home Textiles Today, 14 June 1999: 25. ProQuest Direct: All Databases [online]. Bell and Howell Information and Learning. 2 February 2000.
Piontek, Mildred Greening, ed. Washougal, Washington: “Gateway to the Columbia Gorge”. Washougal: M.G. Piontek, 1996.
The Post Bicentennial. Camas: Post publications, 1976.
Tonelson, Alan. “Beating Back Predatory Trade.” Foreign Affairs 73, no. 4 (1994): 123-135.
Ulrich, Pamela V. “The Comforts of Home: U.S. textile Firms and International Markets.” Essays in Economic and Business History: Selected Papers from the Economic and Business Historical Society 13: (1995): 247-259.
Washougal Mill Tour. Washougal, Washington, 9 March 2000.
Wiegand, Carol Andrea. “A History of the Yale Woolen Mill, Yale Michigan 1881-1963.” Masters Thesis, Michigan State University, 1982.
Zonderman, David A. “From Mill Village to Industrial City: Letters From Vermont Factory Operatives.” Labor History 27, no. 2 (1986): 265-285.
