No More Learning

Y. Journ. , May 31.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:36 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 220
THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
letters were received by Joseph Galloway and Charles Thom-
son from Doctor Franklin in England, urging Philadelphia
to persist in the agreement; and his advice had "wonder-
ful effects. " 1 The trend of events was distinctly turning in
favor of the opponents of change; and at the general meet-
ing of inhabitants on June 5, the signers of the agreement,
having first met by themselves, agreed, with only four dis-
senting votes, to make no alteration in it " at this time. " *
The inhabitants of New York engaged in a similar con-
troversy, although the outcome was different. The non-
importation pact was there based upon an agreement of the
merchants, confirmed and supported by a separate agree-
ment of the tradesmen and workingmen. The issue be-
tween the two groups was made clear in the opening sen-
tences of a broadside issued about the middle of May:
Li' Nothing can be more flagrantly wrong than the Assertion
of some of our Mercantile Dons that the Mechanics have
no Right to give their Sentiments about the Importation of
British Commodities. . . . What particular Class among
us has an exclusive Right to decide a Question of General
Concern? " <<J
At a meeting on May 18, prompted by the letter from
Philadelphia, the merchants decided, as we have seen, "to
wait a few Weeks longer in Hopes of hearing the Duty on
Tea would also be repealed" before taking any action. 4
This brought about a meeting of the inhabitants of all ranks,
who voted by a large majority to preserve the non-importa-
tion inviolate and to boycott all persons who should trans-
gress it. They also issued a pronunciamento against the
1 Pa. Mag. , vol. xiv, p. 45; Colden, Letter Books, vol. ii, p. 223.
* Pa. Gas. , June 7, 1770.
1 Broadside in N. Y. Pub. Libr. , signed "Brutus. "
4 N. Y. Journ. , May 24, Aug. 16, 1770.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:36 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? NON-IMPORTATION 22I
cargo of a Glasgow vessel then in the harbor, a matter al-
ready dealt with in regular manner by the Committee of
Merchants. 1 The Committee of Merchants accepted the
issue, resigned their seats because of the irregular proceed-
ings of the mass meeting, and had the satisfaction of being
re-elected at a public meeting of citizens. 2 On the strength
of this vindication, the Committee of Merchants, now con-
vinced that hope of a total repeal of the Townshend duties
was illusory, determined to abandon the agreement and con-
fine non-importation only to dutied articles; and for this
purpose they invited the merchants of the non-importing
commercial provinces to send delegates to a congress at
Norwalk on June 18, "to adopt one general solid System
for the Benefit of the Whole, that no one Colony may be
liable to the Censure or Reproaches of another . . . " *
The invitation found the other trading towns in anything
but a receptive mood. The Boston trade voted unanimously
to have nothing to do with it, chiefly for the reason that any
deviation from the present agreement would create an im-
pression in England prejudicial to a further redress of
grievances. 4 The merchants of Essex County, New Jersey,
asked pointedly: " Shall we meet to consult whether we have
Honour or Faith or public Virtue . . . If you had proposed
a Meeting for strengthening . . . the Resolutions of the
Colonies, we should have joined you. " B Hardly less de-
cisive were the answers of meetings at Newark and New
1 This meeting occurred on May 30. Ibid. , June 7, 1770.
1 The re-election occurred on June 1. N. Y. Gas. & Merc. , June 4,
1770; N. Y. Journ. , June 7.
'Circular letter of June 2; New London Gas. , June 15, 1770; also
N. Y. Journ. , June 28, Aug. 16.
4 The Boston meeting occurred on June 8. Bos. Eve. Post, June 11,
1770; also N. Y. Journ. , June 21.
6 Ibid. , July 5, 1770; also / N. J. Arch. , vol. xxvii, pp. 193-194.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:36 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 222
THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
Brunswick a few days later, although the people of the latter
place agreed to accept the conclusions of the Norwalk con-
gress. 1 Even the Philadelphia merchants, stiffened by the
action of the public meeting of June 5, advised against pr&-
cipitate measures, and refused to take part in the proposed
congress. 2 Only at Hartford and Providence did the mer-
chants actually appoint delegates; and the latter rescinded
their action when they learned of Boston's declination. *
The New Yorkers were thus forced to solve their problem
according to their own lights.
It was probably the unfavorable action of the Boston
merchants that determined the New York promoters of
importation to abandon the project of a congress and to
concentrate their efforts at once on the local situation.
Their plan was to ascertain the sentirnpnts of the inhabitants
by ajj|Quse-to-house poll. When " a number of selfish, mer-
cenary importers and a few mechanicks" proposed this
course to the Committee of Merchants, that body, while
withholding official assent, made it clear that they would not
discountenance the proceedings. 4 How deeply individual
members of the committee were interested in this scheme
was revealed on June 14 when the ultra-radical Isaac Sears
and the shopkeeper Peter Vander Voort resigned member-
ship on the ground that many of the committee were work-
ing to break through the agreement. 5 Beginning on June
1 N. Y. Gas. & Merc. , Aug. 6, 1770; N. Y. Journ. , June 28.
1 Letter of June 18; ibid. , Aug. 9, 1770.
1 New London Gas. , June 15, 1770; Prov. Gas. , June 16.
4 N. Y. Journ. , June 21, 1770. The words quoted are taken from
an account by "A Son of Liberty" in the same issue. Vide also N.
Y. Gas. & Post-Boy, July 2.
? AT. Y. Journ. , June 21, 1770. Jacob Watson and Edward Laight
were among those who worked openly for an alteration of the agree-
ment. Ibid. , July 12.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:36 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? NON-IMPORTA TION
223
12, the poll was taken by persons appointed in each ward,
each inhabitant being asked if he approved of confining non-
importation to tea and other dutied articles, provided Boston
and Philadelphia concurred; or if he preferred the continu-
ance of the present agreement. Now, as the promoters of
the poll knew of the unfaltering resolution of Boston, it is
clear, as the non-importers charged, that their motive was
to feel the pulse of the people with a view of determining
whether it would be safe to ask their support later when
it was learned that the other two towns had refused to co-
operate. The canvass showed that 1180 persons favored
re-opening trade in concert with Boston and Philadelphia,
about 300 were indifferent or unwilling to talk, and a minor-
ity, whose number was not stated, preferred the existing
system. Colden noted that "the principal Inhabitants"
voted for importation and that " few of any distinction de-
clared in opposition to it. " * The opposition protested that
the voters for importation were hardly one-fourth of the
city people entitled to vote, and that the country folks should
have been consulted.
On June 16, letters were despatched to Boston and Phila-
delphia with news of the New York vote. The merchants
in those places, however, saw no reason for revising their
former decisions. 2 On July 4 a broadside, scattered about
1 Letter Books, vol. ii, p. 223.
* N. Y. Journ. , July 5, 1770; Bos. Eve. Post, July 2. The Boston
Committee of Merchants reminded the New York Committee that,
as the preamble of the Townshend Act remained unrepealed, it was
clear that the tea duty was retained expressly for raising a revenue.
Furthermore, they asserted that the sentiment of Boston had been
ascertained in the surest way, "that is, not by appointing Gentlemen
to go thro' the several Wards, asking Persons singly, but by calling
a Meeting and there coming to a Conclusion after fair Debate and
reasoning upon the Point. " N. Y. Gas. & Merc. , July 30. From
the merchants at Hartford, where Silas Deane was a member of the
committee, came likewise a letter protesting against any alteration.
Conn. Journ. , July 27.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:36 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 224 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-177$
New York, inquired of the public whether, in face of this
uniform response, it would be just or politic or honorable for
New York to undertake a measure " independent of the Ap-
probation of those whose hearty Concurrence we have hither-
to solicited? " New York was reminded of having origin-
ated non-importation at the time of the Stamp Act; "and
shall New York be the first to disgrace an Expedient origin-
ally devised by itself . . . ? " *
But this appeal and others like it fell on deaf ears. The
latter days of June brought to New York authentic news that
an act of Parliament had been passed with the sole view of
relieving business stringency in that province. This was the
statute exempting New York temporarily from the opera-
tjon. ; nf tha fyonpnl prohibition of legal-tender currency.
to
legal-tender paper money. 2 This event removed any re-
maining misgivings that the merchants may have felt; the
body of the trade worked with precision and speed. The
group solidarity of the merchants was clearly revealed by
an article from New York in a Boston newspaper, contain-
ing the names of some of those who were working hardest
for a re-opening of trade.
Of the one hundred and twenty-
eight persons named in the article, eighty-five were classed
as merchants or importers; eighteen as dealers or shop-
keepers ; three as vendue-masters ; two as brewers. Of work-
ingmen (such as carpenters, blacksmiths, rope-makers, etc. ),
there were but twelve. * Fifteen of the one hundred and
twenty-eight were members of the Committee of Mer-
1 Signed "Fabius;" N. Y. Journ. , July 12, 1770.
1 10 George III, c. 35; Becker, N. Y. Parties, 1760-1776, pp. 69-71,
77-79, 88.
'"Bona Fide" in Bos. Gas. , July 23, 1770. To complete th<< list,
there were three lawyers, three royal officials, Hugh Gaine, editor of
the New York Gazette and Mercury, and James DeLancey, Esq. ,
member of the General Assembly.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:36 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? NON-IMPORTATION
225
chants (of which there were at that time twenty-two mem-
bers in all); and among the fifteen was Isaac Low, the
chairman. Colden is authority for the assertion that all
the members of the governor's council, with a single ex-
ception, and the city representatives in the Assembly were
zealous advocates of importation. 1 The merchants had an
excellent talking-point in the exaggerated charges of viola-
tions of non-importation at Boston; and especially convinc-
ing for their purpose proved a timely pamphlet from John
Mein's press, which purported to give an account of British
importations into Boston from January 1 to June 19 of
the current year. 2
The first step taken by the New York Committee of Mer-
chants, upon hearing from Boston, was to call a meeting of
citizens and read the replies that had come from Philadelphia
and Boston. 8 The crowd that assembled was not as small
as the promoters of the meeting had apparently intended,
for a large majority opposed the proposal for taking another
poll of the city. A motion was then made that the letters
read should be published, so that the people might better
judge of the expediency of departing from the agreement;
but the committee, through their chairman, declined to per-
mit publication. A few days later, on Saturday, July 7, a
number of merchants conferred privately with several
membejs of the r,f]rnmi"'>>'>, ^nd decided, notwithstanding
f tut ~tr_jhould be taken at
once. With the sanction of the committee, two persons, one
1 Letter Books, vol. ii, p. 229.
2 Reprinted in N. Y. Gas. & Merc. , Aug. 27, 1770. For a pointed
correspondence between the Boston and New York committees with
regard to this pamphlet, vide the N. Y. Journ. , Aug. 9, and Bos. Eve.
Post, Sept. 10.
8 For this meeting and the troubles during the poll, vide two letters
in Bos. Eve. Post, July 16, 1770; "A Citizen" in N. Y. Gas. & Merc. ,
July 23; accounts in N. Y. Col. Docs. , vol. viii, pp. 218-220.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:36 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 226 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
of each party, were therefore appointed to canvass each ward,
presenting to the citizens, without comment, this propo-
sition: as the people of Boston and Philadelphia are in
favor of maintaining their agreements unchanged, is it your
judgment " that we should also abide by our present Non-
Importation Agreement; or to import every Thing except
the Articles which are, or may hereafter be, subject to
Duty? "
At noon the same day, the radicals, led bv Isaac Sears
and Alexander Mc. Dnug-aH. met at the Citv Hall, declared
unanimously against SU limpoj^ion^and agreed to use all
lawful means to oppose it. [ Jn the evening a mob collected,
parading the streets with a flag inscribed with the legend,
"Liberty and no Importation but in Union with the other
Colonies," hissing and hooting at the doors of those who
favored importation. A crowd of the opposition gathered,
and under the leadership of Elias Desbrosses, magistrate
of the city and already slated for the next presidency of the
Chamber of Commerce, they came in collision with the riot-
ers in Wall Street, where stiff blows were exchanged with
cane and club and the non-importers finally dispersed.
Bv Monday evening, July Q- the canvass_was^comnleted;
an^ fV. * ^nrp rf^^d in a victory for thp rr1p1vhanrs- A
protest signed by many inhabitants later declared that " only
794 Persons in this populous City, including all Ranks and
both Sexes," signed for importation, notwithstanding " the
Co-operation of Interest, Necessity and Influence. " J It
was further claimed that the great number of those entitled
to vote had abstained because they considered the proceeding
irregular. 2 Nevertheless, the merchants accepted the poll as
1N. Y. Journ. , July 26, Aug. 2, 1770.
*Ibid. , July 12, 1770. Another method employed to discredit the
poll is illustrated by the recantation of Charles Prosser for signing
in favor of importation when "too much in Liquor to be trusted with
the common Rights of Mankind. " Conn. Cour. , Aug. 20.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:36 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? NON-IMPORT A TION
227
conclusive; and within two days a vessel departed for Eng-
land with orders for a general importation of goods, except
tea or anv other riujied arrives. 1
The late Committee of Merchants of New York made all
haste to inform their brethren in Philadelphia and Boston
of the new developments. When a copy of the letter
reached Princeton, James Madison and his fellow-students,
garbed in black gowns, solemnly witnessed the burning of
the letter by a hangman, while the college bell tolled funereal
peals. * This was an augury of the reception that the letter
was to receive elsewhere. At Philadelphia, a great meeting
of the inhabitants of the city and county adopted numerous
resolutions, condemning the action of New York as " a sor-
did and wanton Defection from the common Cause" and
declaring a boycott against that city except for five neces-
sary articles. 8 At Boston, a meeting of the trade at Fan-
euil Hall voted unanimously that the New York letter, "in
just indignation, abhorrence and detestation, be forthwith
torn into pieces and thrown to the winds as unworthy of
the least notice;" which was accordingly done. 4 The New
York Committee received a scathing letter from the mer-
chants of Albany, remarking on their " unaccountable Dup-
licity" and quoting cruelly from their recent letter of cen-
sure on Albany for wavering in their non-importation. 5
1 N. Y. Journ. , July 12, 1770; N. Y. Col. Docs. , vol. viii, pp. 220-221.
On Nov. 26, Isaac Low advertised that, although he had lately been
"distinguished as Chairman of a certain Committee," he had freshly
imported goods in stock. N. Y. Gas. & Merc. , Nov. 26.
*AT. Y. Journ. , July 19, 1770; Madison, Writings (Hunt), vol. i,
pp. 6-7.
1 Meeting of July 14; Pa. Chron. , July 16, 1770; also Pa. Gas. , July
19. The excepted articles were: alkaline salt, skins, furs, flax and hemp.
4 Meeting of July 24; Bos. Eve. Post, July 30, 1770; also N. Y. Journ. ,
Aug. 2, 9. A New York sloop with a cargo of pork was turned away
from Marblehead by the Committee of Merchants there. Essex Gas. ,
Aug. 14.
6AT. Y. Journ. , Aug. 23, 1770. A town meeting at Huntington in
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:36 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 228 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
New Jersey was aflame with indignation. "Shall we be
humbug'd out of our Liberty and enslaved only by a Sett
of Traders? " wrote the committee of Somerset County. 1
Formal resolutions of censure and boycott were adopted by
mass meetings in Woodbridge and New Brunswick and in
the counties of Essex, Sussex and Burlington. 2 A New
Yorker, daring to hawk fruit at Woodbridge, was "gen-
teelly ducked to cool his courage. " 8 The inhabitants of
Sussex County, in the extreme northwestern corner of the
province, resolved that, although they had hitherto patron-
ized New York markets "by a long and tedious land-
carriage," they would now turn their trade of wheat and
iron "by the more natural and easy water-carriage down
the River Delaware" to Trenton and Philadelphia. 4
The people of Connecticut were equally incensed. The
New Haven merchants and other inhabitants resolved to buy
no British imports from New York and, when a general
importation occurred, to exert their influence either to di-
vert the trade of Connecticut to Boston or Philadelphia or
to give preference to local merchants. 8 Before very many
towns had followed this example, a public meeting at Hart-
ford started a movement for a general meeting of "the
mercantile and landed interest of the several towns" at
the eastern part of Long Island denounced the "mercenary and per-
f1dious Conduct" of New York and resolved to maintain the non-
importation inviolate. Ibid. , Aug. 30.
1 N. V. Gas. & Post-Boy, Sept. 24, 1770; also / N. J. Arch. , vol.
xxvii, pp. 253-254.
* N. Y. Journ. , July 26, Aug. 9, Sept. 27, Oct. 11,, 1770; also I N. J.
Arch. , vol. xxvii, pp. 206-207, 215-217, 218-219, 252-253, 260-262.
1 N, Y. Journ. , Aug. 9, 1770; also / N. J. Arch. , vol.