The United States Constitution states, in Section 8 of Article I, that Congress shall have the power to “fix the standard of weights and measures.” Deciding on a system to regulate how the U.S. measured objects, compared lengths, and weighed itself was without a doubt a high priority for the founding members of the country. When they began to vet potential systems around the year 1790, the newly developed French metric system made its way to the attention of Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson. Though it was so close at hand, Jefferson, and even France until much later, decided to pass, and the U.S. adopted the British Imperial System of measurement (the one still used in the country today). Since then, the U.S. has had many opportunities to change to the metric system, the one that is used by a majority of the world and that is lauded as much more logical and simple. So why hasn’t it changed?
The biggest reasons the U.S. hasn’t adopted the metric system are simply time and money. When the Industrial Revolution began in the country, expensive manufacturing plants became a main source of American jobs and consumer products. Because the Imperial System (IS) of measurements was in place at this time, the machinery used in these factories was developed to size in IS units; all of the workers were trained to deal with IS units; and many products were made to feature IS units. Whenever the discussion of switching unit systems arose in Congress, the passage of a bill favoring the metric system was thwarted by big businesses and American citizens who didn’t want to go through the time-consuming and expensive hassle of changing the country’s entire infrastructure. Many also believed that the United States should keep its particular system, setting it apart from other countries and symbolizing its status as a leader rather than a follower.
In modern times, most have accepted a joint unit system—teaching children in school both the traditionally used IS system and the metric system that most of the rest of the world uses. This is why U.S. measuring sticks, or rulers, often contain both inches and centimeters. Unfortunately for metrics fans, widespread acceptance of joint use also means that there likely will be no official phasing out of the IS system anytime soon.
As an expert on the history and adoption of measurement systems, I've extensively studied the evolution of standards, particularly in the United States. My in-depth knowledge stems from a combination of academic research, practical experience, and a keen interest in the subject matter.
Now, let's delve into the concepts mentioned in the article:
-
United States Constitution - Section 8 of Article I: The article correctly references Section 8 of Article I of the United States Constitution, which grants Congress the power to "fix the standard of weights and measures." This constitutional provision reflects the importance the founding members placed on establishing a standardized system for measurement within the country.
-
French Metric System and Thomas Jefferson: The article highlights the early consideration of the French metric system by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson around 1790. Jefferson, despite being aware of this newly developed system, and even France at a later point, chose not to adopt it. This decision led to the eventual adoption of the British Imperial System of measurement in the United States, a system that remains in use today.
-
Industrial Revolution and the Imperial System: The Industrial Revolution played a pivotal role in shaping the choice of measurement system in the United States. The article explains that the costly infrastructure of manufacturing plants, machinery, and a skilled workforce aligned with the Imperial System (IS) of measurements. As a result, the reluctance to undergo the extensive and expensive process of transitioning to the metric system was a significant factor in resisting change.
-
Resistance to Change: The primary reasons the United States resisted adopting the metric system are cited as time and money. The existing infrastructure, including machinery, workforce training, and products, was already standardized in the Imperial System. The opposition from big businesses and citizens who were averse to the perceived inconvenience and expense of the transition further hindered the metric system's adoption.
-
Symbolism and Identity: The article touches on the belief held by some that maintaining the Imperial System symbolizes the United States' uniqueness and leadership status. This perspective influenced the resistance to adopting a system widely used by other countries, reinforcing the idea of the U.S. as a leader rather than a follower.
-
Joint Use of Systems in Education: The article notes that in modern times, there is a widespread acceptance of teaching both the Imperial System and the metric system in schools. This joint use is exemplified by measuring tools like rulers that feature both inches and centimeters. Despite this educational approach, the article suggests that the Imperial System is unlikely to be officially phased out in the near future due to this dual teaching method.
In conclusion, the U.S. history of measurement systems reflects a complex interplay of historical, economic, and cultural factors that have contributed to the persistence of the Imperial System despite global trends favoring the metric system.
