The purpose animat-
ing the majority was probably the desire to prevent food
supplies from reaching the enemy through capture by the
British warships off the coast.
ing the majority was probably the desire to prevent food
supplies from reaching the enemy through capture by the
British warships off the coast.
Arthur Schlesinger - Colonial Merchants and the American Revolution
67,647 to ?
103,477: and that even in
New England there was a slight increase from ? 112,248 to
? 116,588. 2 For the colonies as a whole there was an in-
crease of nearly forty per cent.
1 Journals, vol. iii, p. 314.
* Macpherson, Annals of Com. , vol. iii, pp. 564, 585.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:37 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? TRANSFORMATION OF THE ASSOCIATION
When news of the Lexington affair electrified the conti-
nent, it was widely rumored that Congress would move for-
ward the date of the non-exportation. In the early days of
May, 1775, owners of vessels at Philadelphia got them out
of the harbor as fast as they could; the millers hurried their
flour to market, some of them near the city selling wheat out
of their mills without grinding. Vessels were not to be had
at any price; flour advanced from 13s. to 14s. 6d. J Thomas
Mumford, an exporter of horses at Groton, Conn. , wrote
to his brother-in-law, Silas Deane, a member of Congress,
for definite information as to the possibility of an earlier
non-exportation, pointing out that he had several vessels
which he was thinking of fitting out. Deane informed his
wife in a letter a few weeks later that it was still uncertain
what action Congress would take, but he added: "Tell my
brother to get his vessel away as quick as possible, some-
where or other, if he sends her at all; this is what the
merchts are doing here. " 2
Such precautions proved unnecessary, as Congress did
not tamper with the date originally set for non-exportation.
Considerable public sentiment, however, was aroused by the
enterprise of merchants, in several parts of the continent, in
collecting great quantities of flaxseed in the last weeks of
open commerce for exportation to Ireland. While such
exportation did not contravene the terms of the Association,
it was felt that it was nevertheless injurious to the Amer-
ican cause and thus contrary to the spirit of the Association.
When New York merchants sent agents into Connecticut to
buy up flaxseed for this purpose, the committees at New
Haven, Milford, Fairfield and other places sternly warned
the inhabitants against dealing with them. 8 On August 12,
1Clifford, Correspondence (L. C. Mss. ), vol. xxix, letters of May 2,
6, 30, 1775-
1 Conn. Hist. Soc. Colls. , vol. ii, pp. 263, 276.
1 Conn. Journ. , Aug. 16, 23, 1775; N. Y. Journ. , Aug. 24.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:37 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 572 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
fourteen business houses of New York city applied to the
New York provincial congress for a definition of their
rights in shipping flaxseed; and that body responded that,
since the Continental Congress had left the provision un-
changed, exportation might continue until September IO. 1
Nevertheless the New York Journal announced, five days
after this action, that " some Merchants of this City, who
had chartered a Vessel to load her with Flax Seed for Ire-
land, have altered her Voyage, rather than give Dissatis-
faction to our Fellow Citizens. " When a town meeting at
Providence, R. I. , learned on September 7 that a large
quantity of flaxseed was about to be exported from the
town, they at once placed a ban on its shipment. 2
There was a great bustle at Philadelphia in the last week
of open trade; and no doubt the scene there was paralleled
in many other ports of the continent. Produce of all sorts
was brought to town and in such quantities that not enough
vessels could be found to carry it off. On the very last day,
fifty-two ships sailed from port, leaving hardly a vessel be-
hind. Several of these ships had arrived and taken a cargo
in forty-eight hours. 8
With the advent of non-exportation, conditions were far
different from those anticipated by the framers of the Con-
tinental Association. Military necessity, as we have seen,
had taken away from the non-exportation regulation, its
primary raison d'etre, i. e. a self-denying ordinance for pur-
poses of commercial coercion, and had converted it very
largely into a mechanism for procuring military supplies.
The work of enforcing the non-exportation regulation in
cases where it applied was zealously undertaken by the rad-
1 4 Am. Arch. , vol. iii, pp. 96, 529.
1 Ibid. , vol. iii, pp. 661-662.
1Pa. Journ. , Sept. 13,. 1775; Clifford, Corresp. , vol. xxix, Sept. 8;
Conn. Hist. Soc. Colls. , vol. ii, p. 305.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:37 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? TRANSFORMATION OF THE ASSOCIATION 573
ical committees, notwithstanding that they were occupied
with a multitude of other duties. The presence of British
warships in American waters, pursuant to the General Re-
straining Act, was a mild deterrent to American ventures
to the foreign West Indies no doubt, and thus assisted the
observance of the non-exportation. The absolute prohibi-
tion of American trade, enacted by Parliament in December,
1775, imposed a heavier burden on the British navy, and,
when the prohibition became effective in March, '1776,
served further to discourage American exportations. How-
ever, smuggling past the British vessels off the coast pre-
sented no insurmountable difficulties; and the real burden
of enforcing the regulation fell upon the local committees.
One of the first questions that arose was whether vessels
that had, for some legitimate reason, been delayed in their
departure should be permitted to sail after September 10 to
any of the forbidden places. The committee of safety at
Wilmington, N. C. , had warned the merchants there in ad-
vance that their vessels could not depart after the tenth on
the excuse that their cargoes were not yet completely laden. 1
The Continental Congress permitted a vessel to sail that
had been much damaged in a storm on her outward voyage
and had been forced to return to Norfolk for refitting.
But when a mercantile house asked permission to charter a
vessel to export a cargo of wheat after the tenth, upon the
plea that the one that they had engaged had foundered in a
storm, the petition was tabled. 8
The various privileged exportations, under license of the
Continental Congress or of provincial organizations, com-
1 N. C. Col. Recs. , vol. x, p. 151. The provincial convention confirmed
this action. Ibid. , p. 183.
1 Journals, vol. ii, p. 246. Similar action was taken in some other
cases. Ibid. , voL iii, pp. 354-355-
* Ibid. , vol. iii, p. 264.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:37 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 574
THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
plicated the problem of enforcement for the committees.
Thus, in February, 1776, a representation was made to
Congress by the Philadelphia committee that vessels were
loading with produce for Great Britain, Ireland and the
British West Indies. Congress appointed a committee to
examine into the circumstances and then permitted them to
sail as being within the terms of the congressional resolu-
tion of July IS-1
Recorded instances of enforcement are not many. The
Newcastle, Del. , committee compelled the Peace and Plenty,
which had arrived from Belfast on September 8, to make
her return voyage in ballast. 8 Arthur Upshur, of Accomack
County, Va. , was held up to the public by the county com-
mittee for having sent a cargo of grain to the West Indies
after the tenth. 8 The Georgians came under the criticism
of the South Carolina council of safety for their apparent
laxness in enforcing non-exportation; * nevertheless, it is a
matter of record that more than five thousand barrels of
rice, which Governor Wright had prepared for exportation
in 1775, were withheld from shipment through their zeal. 5
Very illuminating was the statement, made by Robert
Haliday, customs collector at Charleston, S. C, that by the
non-importation regulation the emoluments of his office had
been greatly reduced, and by the non-exportation regulation
"entirely annihilated. " ? Thomas Clifford, the Philadel-
phia merchant, wrote on October 25, 1775, that he was lay-
ing up his ships as fast as they came in, "there being no
1 Journals, vol. iv, pp. 172-173, 183.
2 Pa. Journ. , Sept. 27, 1775; also 4 Am. Arch. , vol. iii, p. 726.
1 Ibid. , voL iii, p. 935; Jefferson, Writings (Ford), vol. ii, pp. 118-119.
4White, Ca. Hist. Co/fr, pp. 86-87; Ga. Rev. Recs. , vol. i, pp. 89,
108, III-J12.
* Loyalist Claims Transcripts, vol. xxxiv, p. 91.
? Ibid. , vol. Iv, pp. 359-360.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:37 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? TRANSFORMATION OF THE ASSOCIATION
575
Prospect of Employ abroad worth sending them to seek in
ballast," that most people were doing the same thing, and
that " this Port and we believe all the others along the Con-
tinent have been strictly kept shut from the Exportation of
Produce agreeable to the Congress Resolves. " * Indeed,
there is no reason to believe that the non-exportation regu-
lation was otherwise than well kept.
For a period of four months, beginning November I,
1775, the partial non-exportation established by the Conti-
nental Association, was converted into a total non-exporta-
tion by resolution of the Continental Congress. This de-
cision was the outcome of warm debates in Congress and
was determined upon in face of a determined effort to
secure the exemption of tobacco and lumber from its terms
and in spite of Robert R. Livingston's insistence that the
non-exportation policy be abandoned instead of extended. 2
Edward Rutledge of South Carolina advocated the resolu-
tion that passed as the only absolutely certain way of keep-
ing exports from British ports and as the most effective way
to promote domestic manufacturing.
The purpose animat-
ing the majority was probably the desire to prevent food
supplies from reaching the enemy through capture by the
British warships off the coast. 1 The resolution of Novem-
ber I provided that no produce of the United Colonies
should be exported until March 1, excepting only licensed
shipments for military supplies or for any other purpose
designated by Congress. 4
1 Correspondence, vol. xxix, Oct. 25, 1775.
1 Adams, J. , Works, vol. ii, pp. 453-456, 483-484-
1 Cf. Journals, vol. ii, p. 201.
4 Ibid. , vol. iii, p. 314.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:37 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? CHAPTER XV
TRANSFORMATION OF THE ASSOCIATION (Continued)
THE early months of 1776 witnessed further notable
modifications of the Continental Association. The four
months of total non-exportation had the effect of aggravat-
ing the distresses of the mercantile and agrarian interests
dependent upon the export trade for profit; it also gave
momentum and direction to the sentiment, that had long
been entertained by radicals of the doctrinaire school, for
an entire freedom of trade with the nations of the world.
As early as July 21, 1775, the committee of the Continental
Congress appointed to devise ways and means of protecting
colonial commerce had submitted a report to the effect that
all ports in the United Colonies should on January 20, 1776,
be declared thenceforth "open to the ships of every state
in Europe that will admit our commerce and protect it. " 1
The series of resolutions, the first of which was passed on
July 15, had sanctioned smuggling with foreign countries
for the purpose of procuring munitions; the committee's
proposition was far more comprehensive and revolutionary,
nothing less than that the acts of trade and the famous
navigation act should be repudiated and that trade should
be opened with foreign nations in foreign or domestic ves-
sels. The committee's report was postponed from time to
time for further consideration; but in every debate on trade
1 Journals Cont. Cong. , vol. ii, pp. 200-201. It would appear that reso-
lutions covering this matter were submitted by both Dr. Franklin and
Richard Henry Lee.
576
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:37 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? TRANSFORMATION OF THE ASSOCIATION 577
conditions from that time forward, allusion was almost in-
variably made to the proposal as a desirable or unacceptable
or desperate alternative.
On August 26, 1775, a member of the Continental Con-
gress hazarded the opinion in a private letter that in the
course of the coming winter Congress would adopt the
measure, adding: "Whether that will not be one means of
dissolving our connections entirely with Great Britain, I
shall leave to wiser heads to determine. " 1 During the
month of October the matter came up again for active dis-
cussion in Congress; but when a decision was reached to
establish a general non-exportation until March 1, 1776, in-
terest again waned, and it was not until it became necessary
to determine what the status of trade should be after that
date that the discussion was renewed, in the weeks after
Christmas Day, 1775.
The chief opposition to opening trade with the world
came from the members who wished to safeguard such
American shipping as still remained and from those mem-
bers who saw in the measure a virtual declaration of inde-
pendence. 2 Willing of Philadelphia, shipowner as well as
exporter, emphasized the fact that the profits of carrying
would go to foreigners. "Carriage is an amazing revenue,"
he declared. "Holland and England have derived their
maritime power from their carriage. " Likewise, Johnson
of Maryland pointed out shrewdly that the measure, while
injuring the merchant and shipbuilder, would leave the far-
mer unscathed. "The grower, the farmer, gets the same,
let who will be the exporter," he declared, "but the com-
munity does not. The shipwright, rope-maker, hemp-
grower, all shipbuilders, the profits of the merchant, are all
1 4 Am. Arch. , vol. iii, pp. 435-436.
* The October debates are summarized in Adams, J. , Works (Adams),
vol. ii, pp. 452-457. 469-483.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:37 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 578 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
lost, if foreigners are our sole carriers, as well as seamen. "
Chase of Maryland asserted that he had not absolutely
abandoned all hope of reconciliation, and until that time
came he would oppose a free trade with foreign nations.
Zubly of Georgia declared that there was no assurance that
the world would trade with the Americans and the measure
gave the appearance of a design to separate from England.
The chief speakers on the other side were Lee and Wythe
of Virginia, Gadsden of South Carolina, and the Adamses
of Massachusetts. The point that they stressed in the early
stages of the discussion was that, lacking a navy, the colo-
nists were in danger of being cut off from the world by the
British warships, whereas foreign nations would come in
and protect their own vessels engaged in American trade. 1
On January 20, 1776, the Virginia delegates were instructed
by the Virginia provincial convention to use their endeavors
to have such a measure adopted. 2 It soon became apparent
in Congress that the whole matter was intimately related to
the question of political independence. As Sherman of
Connecticut asserted on February 16: "A treaty with a
foreign power is necessary, before we open our trade, to
protect it;" and Wythe completed the thought when he
said that, to accomplish this, "we must declare ourselves a
free people. " * John Adams wrote later in his autobiog-
raphy: "This measure of opening the ports, &c, labored
exceedingly because it was considered a bold step to inde-
pendence. Indeed, I urged it expressly with that view, and
as connected with the institution of government in all the
States, and a declaration of national independence. The
party against me had an art and influence as yet to evade,
1 Adams, J. , Works, vol. ii, pp. 453, 454, 456, 485-486.
1 Dixon & Hunter's Va. Gas. , Apr. 13, 1776.
1 Adams, J, Works, vol. ii, pp. 485-486.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:37 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? TRANSFORMATION OF THE ASSOCIATION 579
retard, and delay every motion that we made. Many mo-
tions were made and argued at great length, and with great
spirit on both sides, which are not to be found in the Jour-
nals. " 1
On March 1 the period of total non-exportation expired,
and the partial non-exportation that had subsisted prior to
November, 1775, became effective again. In the weeks im-
mediately following, it became evident that the merchants'
stocks, acquired in the days before the non-importation
regulation, were approaching depletion. There was a grow-
ing scarcity of goods, which exceedingly distressed the poor
and, in view of the inadequate supply of domestic manu-
factures, made imperative the opening of trade with foreign
nations. It was argued also that such a freedom of com-
merce would attract specie to the colonies and serve to check
the depreciation of the continental currency. On April 2
the Philadelphia committee of inspection was asked to
bring these facts to the attention of the Continental Con-
gress, in an address from the Committee of Privates of the
local Military Association, signed by the retailer, William
Adcock, as president. 2
An added incentive to the adoption of drastic measures
of relief was the news, that had arrived at Philadelphia on
February 26, that Parliament had enacted that after' Jan-
uary 1, 1776, all American vessels found on the coast of
the British Isles were to be seized and confiscated; all Amer-
ican vessels sailing into and out of American ports after
March 1 were to be seized and confiscated; and all foreign
vessels trading to America after June I were to be seized.
The colonies were to be isolated from the world, save such
districts as would make submission. 8 On the day following
1 Adams, J. , Works, vol. iii, p. 29.
1 Pa. Eve. Post, Apr. 4, 1776.
? 16 George III, c. 5. '
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:38 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 580 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
the arrival of the news a Maryland member of Congress,
who had often reprobated the idea of independence both in
public and private, wrote: "What measures Congress may
pursue in consequence of this act, I know not. With me,
every idea of reconciliation is precluded by the conduct of
Great Britain; and the only alternative, absolute slavery or
independency. " J
The public prints were meantime urging the opening of
commerce as a measure conditioned by a declaration of in-
dependence. 2 But Congress, fearing the potency of an ill-
timed phrase, preferred to do the seemingly illogical thing.
On April 6, without allusion to political independence, the
fateful step was taken. It was then provided that any
goods and wares, except staves and empty casks under cer-
tain conditions, might be exported from the United Colo-
nies, in colonial or foreign vessels, to any parts of the world
not under dominion of Great Britain; and that any goods
and merchandise might be imported into the United Colo-
nies in like fashion, except articles produced in or shipped
from British possessions, East India tea, and slaves. It
was further provided that all merchandise and wares im-
ported into the United Colonies directly or indirectly from
Great Britain or Ireland contrary to the regulations of Con-
gress should be forfeited and disposed of under rules made
by the several assemblies. 8
After this event a declaration of political independence,
however great its sentimental importance, was a mere for-
mality. The Adamses, for example, appreciated this fully
and it gave them good occasion for exultation. Not only
has Congress raised armies and a navy, fought battles and
1Robert Alexander; 4 Am. Arch. , vol. iv, pp. 1507-1508.
1 Ibid. , vol. iv, pp. 470-473, 527-530, 920-922, 1141-1144; vol. v, pp. 225-
227, 860-862, 918-919, 921-926.
* Journals, vol. iv, pp. 257-259.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:38 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? TRANSFORMATION OF THE ASSOCIATION 581
commissioned privateers against the British, wrote Sam
Adams to a congenial spirit, but now we have "torn into
Shivers their Acts of Trade, by allowing Commerce subject
to Regulations to be made by our selves with the People of
all Countries but such as are Subjects of the British King. " 1
The nullification of the acts of trade and navigation was
followed by the introduction of two other important changes
in the Continental Association, one relating to the provision
for the non-consumption of tea, the other dealing with the
regulation of prices. Both changes represented concessions
to the merchants who had not yet detached themselves from
the radical cause. With reference to the first, it should be
recalled that Article iii had provided for the total disuse of
tea, smuggled as well as dutied, after March 1, 1775. This
prohibition expressed a real protest against tea drinking on
hygienic grounds, but it had obtained its widest support be-
cause of the impracticability of distinguishing between Eng-
lish dutied tea and Dutch undutied tea and because of the
desire to refute the charge that the tea smugglers had insti-
gated the uprising against British measures.
In the spring months of 1775 little difficulty had been
experienced by the committees of observation in enforcing
the prohibition; but by midsummer, cases of violation began
to become numerous. Thus, the committee at Providence,
R. I. , forced the recantation of the tea dealer, Nathan
Angell, in October and seized such of his stock as remained
unsold; but they admitted that they had reason to suspect,
from the frequent complaints of country people, that some
dealers in Providence still continued the practice. 2 It was
openly asserted in Congress in September that ninety-nine
1To Joseph Hawley, Apr. 15, 1776; Adams, S. , Writings (Cushing),
vol. iii, pp. 279-280.
1 4 Am. Arch. , vol. iii, pp. 975-976.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:38 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? Sg2 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
out of one hundred in New York drank tea, although this
was obviously an exaggeration. 1 A persistent tea seller at
Reading, Pa. , was tarred and feathered and ridden on a
horse with his face to the tail, " to the great diversion of the
inhabitants who, I believe, hardly ever beheld a more ridic-
ulous figure. " 2
The truth was, as the Continental Congress was at length
forced to admit, that the period allowed by the Continental
Association for the consumption of tea, which was then in
stock, was too short, " whereby many zealous friends to the
American cause, who had imported large quantities of that
commodity, with design not merely to advance their for-
tunes, but to counteract the plan then pursued by the min-
istry and India company to introduce and sell in these colo-
nies tea subject to duty, are likely to become great suffer-
ers; the greater part of the estates of many of them being
vested in that article, anS they, by that means, rendered in-
capable not only of paying their debts and maintaining their
families, but also of vigorously exerting themselves in the
service of their country. " *
Great pressure was brought to bear upon Congress to
permit the sale of such teas as had been imported before
Article iii of the Association became effective. Alexander
McDougall of New York urged the matter on the attention
of Richard Henry Lee, a member of Congress, in a letter
of June 5, 1775; but the latter replied that, although such
suffering was to be found in all the provinces, "Should
Congress determine to admit the sale and the use of what
1 Adams, J. , Works, vol. ii, p. 447.
1 Pa. Merc. , Oct. 20, 1775. For other examples, vide 4 Am. Arch. ,
vol.
New England there was a slight increase from ? 112,248 to
? 116,588. 2 For the colonies as a whole there was an in-
crease of nearly forty per cent.
1 Journals, vol. iii, p. 314.
* Macpherson, Annals of Com. , vol. iii, pp. 564, 585.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:37 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? TRANSFORMATION OF THE ASSOCIATION
When news of the Lexington affair electrified the conti-
nent, it was widely rumored that Congress would move for-
ward the date of the non-exportation. In the early days of
May, 1775, owners of vessels at Philadelphia got them out
of the harbor as fast as they could; the millers hurried their
flour to market, some of them near the city selling wheat out
of their mills without grinding. Vessels were not to be had
at any price; flour advanced from 13s. to 14s. 6d. J Thomas
Mumford, an exporter of horses at Groton, Conn. , wrote
to his brother-in-law, Silas Deane, a member of Congress,
for definite information as to the possibility of an earlier
non-exportation, pointing out that he had several vessels
which he was thinking of fitting out. Deane informed his
wife in a letter a few weeks later that it was still uncertain
what action Congress would take, but he added: "Tell my
brother to get his vessel away as quick as possible, some-
where or other, if he sends her at all; this is what the
merchts are doing here. " 2
Such precautions proved unnecessary, as Congress did
not tamper with the date originally set for non-exportation.
Considerable public sentiment, however, was aroused by the
enterprise of merchants, in several parts of the continent, in
collecting great quantities of flaxseed in the last weeks of
open commerce for exportation to Ireland. While such
exportation did not contravene the terms of the Association,
it was felt that it was nevertheless injurious to the Amer-
ican cause and thus contrary to the spirit of the Association.
When New York merchants sent agents into Connecticut to
buy up flaxseed for this purpose, the committees at New
Haven, Milford, Fairfield and other places sternly warned
the inhabitants against dealing with them. 8 On August 12,
1Clifford, Correspondence (L. C. Mss. ), vol. xxix, letters of May 2,
6, 30, 1775-
1 Conn. Hist. Soc. Colls. , vol. ii, pp. 263, 276.
1 Conn. Journ. , Aug. 16, 23, 1775; N. Y. Journ. , Aug. 24.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:37 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 572 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
fourteen business houses of New York city applied to the
New York provincial congress for a definition of their
rights in shipping flaxseed; and that body responded that,
since the Continental Congress had left the provision un-
changed, exportation might continue until September IO. 1
Nevertheless the New York Journal announced, five days
after this action, that " some Merchants of this City, who
had chartered a Vessel to load her with Flax Seed for Ire-
land, have altered her Voyage, rather than give Dissatis-
faction to our Fellow Citizens. " When a town meeting at
Providence, R. I. , learned on September 7 that a large
quantity of flaxseed was about to be exported from the
town, they at once placed a ban on its shipment. 2
There was a great bustle at Philadelphia in the last week
of open trade; and no doubt the scene there was paralleled
in many other ports of the continent. Produce of all sorts
was brought to town and in such quantities that not enough
vessels could be found to carry it off. On the very last day,
fifty-two ships sailed from port, leaving hardly a vessel be-
hind. Several of these ships had arrived and taken a cargo
in forty-eight hours. 8
With the advent of non-exportation, conditions were far
different from those anticipated by the framers of the Con-
tinental Association. Military necessity, as we have seen,
had taken away from the non-exportation regulation, its
primary raison d'etre, i. e. a self-denying ordinance for pur-
poses of commercial coercion, and had converted it very
largely into a mechanism for procuring military supplies.
The work of enforcing the non-exportation regulation in
cases where it applied was zealously undertaken by the rad-
1 4 Am. Arch. , vol. iii, pp. 96, 529.
1 Ibid. , vol. iii, pp. 661-662.
1Pa. Journ. , Sept. 13,. 1775; Clifford, Corresp. , vol. xxix, Sept. 8;
Conn. Hist. Soc. Colls. , vol. ii, p. 305.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:37 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? TRANSFORMATION OF THE ASSOCIATION 573
ical committees, notwithstanding that they were occupied
with a multitude of other duties. The presence of British
warships in American waters, pursuant to the General Re-
straining Act, was a mild deterrent to American ventures
to the foreign West Indies no doubt, and thus assisted the
observance of the non-exportation. The absolute prohibi-
tion of American trade, enacted by Parliament in December,
1775, imposed a heavier burden on the British navy, and,
when the prohibition became effective in March, '1776,
served further to discourage American exportations. How-
ever, smuggling past the British vessels off the coast pre-
sented no insurmountable difficulties; and the real burden
of enforcing the regulation fell upon the local committees.
One of the first questions that arose was whether vessels
that had, for some legitimate reason, been delayed in their
departure should be permitted to sail after September 10 to
any of the forbidden places. The committee of safety at
Wilmington, N. C. , had warned the merchants there in ad-
vance that their vessels could not depart after the tenth on
the excuse that their cargoes were not yet completely laden. 1
The Continental Congress permitted a vessel to sail that
had been much damaged in a storm on her outward voyage
and had been forced to return to Norfolk for refitting.
But when a mercantile house asked permission to charter a
vessel to export a cargo of wheat after the tenth, upon the
plea that the one that they had engaged had foundered in a
storm, the petition was tabled. 8
The various privileged exportations, under license of the
Continental Congress or of provincial organizations, com-
1 N. C. Col. Recs. , vol. x, p. 151. The provincial convention confirmed
this action. Ibid. , p. 183.
1 Journals, vol. ii, p. 246. Similar action was taken in some other
cases. Ibid. , voL iii, pp. 354-355-
* Ibid. , vol. iii, p. 264.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:37 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 574
THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
plicated the problem of enforcement for the committees.
Thus, in February, 1776, a representation was made to
Congress by the Philadelphia committee that vessels were
loading with produce for Great Britain, Ireland and the
British West Indies. Congress appointed a committee to
examine into the circumstances and then permitted them to
sail as being within the terms of the congressional resolu-
tion of July IS-1
Recorded instances of enforcement are not many. The
Newcastle, Del. , committee compelled the Peace and Plenty,
which had arrived from Belfast on September 8, to make
her return voyage in ballast. 8 Arthur Upshur, of Accomack
County, Va. , was held up to the public by the county com-
mittee for having sent a cargo of grain to the West Indies
after the tenth. 8 The Georgians came under the criticism
of the South Carolina council of safety for their apparent
laxness in enforcing non-exportation; * nevertheless, it is a
matter of record that more than five thousand barrels of
rice, which Governor Wright had prepared for exportation
in 1775, were withheld from shipment through their zeal. 5
Very illuminating was the statement, made by Robert
Haliday, customs collector at Charleston, S. C, that by the
non-importation regulation the emoluments of his office had
been greatly reduced, and by the non-exportation regulation
"entirely annihilated. " ? Thomas Clifford, the Philadel-
phia merchant, wrote on October 25, 1775, that he was lay-
ing up his ships as fast as they came in, "there being no
1 Journals, vol. iv, pp. 172-173, 183.
2 Pa. Journ. , Sept. 27, 1775; also 4 Am. Arch. , vol. iii, p. 726.
1 Ibid. , voL iii, p. 935; Jefferson, Writings (Ford), vol. ii, pp. 118-119.
4White, Ca. Hist. Co/fr, pp. 86-87; Ga. Rev. Recs. , vol. i, pp. 89,
108, III-J12.
* Loyalist Claims Transcripts, vol. xxxiv, p. 91.
? Ibid. , vol. Iv, pp. 359-360.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:37 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? TRANSFORMATION OF THE ASSOCIATION
575
Prospect of Employ abroad worth sending them to seek in
ballast," that most people were doing the same thing, and
that " this Port and we believe all the others along the Con-
tinent have been strictly kept shut from the Exportation of
Produce agreeable to the Congress Resolves. " * Indeed,
there is no reason to believe that the non-exportation regu-
lation was otherwise than well kept.
For a period of four months, beginning November I,
1775, the partial non-exportation established by the Conti-
nental Association, was converted into a total non-exporta-
tion by resolution of the Continental Congress. This de-
cision was the outcome of warm debates in Congress and
was determined upon in face of a determined effort to
secure the exemption of tobacco and lumber from its terms
and in spite of Robert R. Livingston's insistence that the
non-exportation policy be abandoned instead of extended. 2
Edward Rutledge of South Carolina advocated the resolu-
tion that passed as the only absolutely certain way of keep-
ing exports from British ports and as the most effective way
to promote domestic manufacturing.
The purpose animat-
ing the majority was probably the desire to prevent food
supplies from reaching the enemy through capture by the
British warships off the coast. 1 The resolution of Novem-
ber I provided that no produce of the United Colonies
should be exported until March 1, excepting only licensed
shipments for military supplies or for any other purpose
designated by Congress. 4
1 Correspondence, vol. xxix, Oct. 25, 1775.
1 Adams, J. , Works, vol. ii, pp. 453-456, 483-484-
1 Cf. Journals, vol. ii, p. 201.
4 Ibid. , vol. iii, p. 314.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:37 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? CHAPTER XV
TRANSFORMATION OF THE ASSOCIATION (Continued)
THE early months of 1776 witnessed further notable
modifications of the Continental Association. The four
months of total non-exportation had the effect of aggravat-
ing the distresses of the mercantile and agrarian interests
dependent upon the export trade for profit; it also gave
momentum and direction to the sentiment, that had long
been entertained by radicals of the doctrinaire school, for
an entire freedom of trade with the nations of the world.
As early as July 21, 1775, the committee of the Continental
Congress appointed to devise ways and means of protecting
colonial commerce had submitted a report to the effect that
all ports in the United Colonies should on January 20, 1776,
be declared thenceforth "open to the ships of every state
in Europe that will admit our commerce and protect it. " 1
The series of resolutions, the first of which was passed on
July 15, had sanctioned smuggling with foreign countries
for the purpose of procuring munitions; the committee's
proposition was far more comprehensive and revolutionary,
nothing less than that the acts of trade and the famous
navigation act should be repudiated and that trade should
be opened with foreign nations in foreign or domestic ves-
sels. The committee's report was postponed from time to
time for further consideration; but in every debate on trade
1 Journals Cont. Cong. , vol. ii, pp. 200-201. It would appear that reso-
lutions covering this matter were submitted by both Dr. Franklin and
Richard Henry Lee.
576
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:37 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? TRANSFORMATION OF THE ASSOCIATION 577
conditions from that time forward, allusion was almost in-
variably made to the proposal as a desirable or unacceptable
or desperate alternative.
On August 26, 1775, a member of the Continental Con-
gress hazarded the opinion in a private letter that in the
course of the coming winter Congress would adopt the
measure, adding: "Whether that will not be one means of
dissolving our connections entirely with Great Britain, I
shall leave to wiser heads to determine. " 1 During the
month of October the matter came up again for active dis-
cussion in Congress; but when a decision was reached to
establish a general non-exportation until March 1, 1776, in-
terest again waned, and it was not until it became necessary
to determine what the status of trade should be after that
date that the discussion was renewed, in the weeks after
Christmas Day, 1775.
The chief opposition to opening trade with the world
came from the members who wished to safeguard such
American shipping as still remained and from those mem-
bers who saw in the measure a virtual declaration of inde-
pendence. 2 Willing of Philadelphia, shipowner as well as
exporter, emphasized the fact that the profits of carrying
would go to foreigners. "Carriage is an amazing revenue,"
he declared. "Holland and England have derived their
maritime power from their carriage. " Likewise, Johnson
of Maryland pointed out shrewdly that the measure, while
injuring the merchant and shipbuilder, would leave the far-
mer unscathed. "The grower, the farmer, gets the same,
let who will be the exporter," he declared, "but the com-
munity does not. The shipwright, rope-maker, hemp-
grower, all shipbuilders, the profits of the merchant, are all
1 4 Am. Arch. , vol. iii, pp. 435-436.
* The October debates are summarized in Adams, J. , Works (Adams),
vol. ii, pp. 452-457. 469-483.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:37 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 578 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
lost, if foreigners are our sole carriers, as well as seamen. "
Chase of Maryland asserted that he had not absolutely
abandoned all hope of reconciliation, and until that time
came he would oppose a free trade with foreign nations.
Zubly of Georgia declared that there was no assurance that
the world would trade with the Americans and the measure
gave the appearance of a design to separate from England.
The chief speakers on the other side were Lee and Wythe
of Virginia, Gadsden of South Carolina, and the Adamses
of Massachusetts. The point that they stressed in the early
stages of the discussion was that, lacking a navy, the colo-
nists were in danger of being cut off from the world by the
British warships, whereas foreign nations would come in
and protect their own vessels engaged in American trade. 1
On January 20, 1776, the Virginia delegates were instructed
by the Virginia provincial convention to use their endeavors
to have such a measure adopted. 2 It soon became apparent
in Congress that the whole matter was intimately related to
the question of political independence. As Sherman of
Connecticut asserted on February 16: "A treaty with a
foreign power is necessary, before we open our trade, to
protect it;" and Wythe completed the thought when he
said that, to accomplish this, "we must declare ourselves a
free people. " * John Adams wrote later in his autobiog-
raphy: "This measure of opening the ports, &c, labored
exceedingly because it was considered a bold step to inde-
pendence. Indeed, I urged it expressly with that view, and
as connected with the institution of government in all the
States, and a declaration of national independence. The
party against me had an art and influence as yet to evade,
1 Adams, J. , Works, vol. ii, pp. 453, 454, 456, 485-486.
1 Dixon & Hunter's Va. Gas. , Apr. 13, 1776.
1 Adams, J, Works, vol. ii, pp. 485-486.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:37 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? TRANSFORMATION OF THE ASSOCIATION 579
retard, and delay every motion that we made. Many mo-
tions were made and argued at great length, and with great
spirit on both sides, which are not to be found in the Jour-
nals. " 1
On March 1 the period of total non-exportation expired,
and the partial non-exportation that had subsisted prior to
November, 1775, became effective again. In the weeks im-
mediately following, it became evident that the merchants'
stocks, acquired in the days before the non-importation
regulation, were approaching depletion. There was a grow-
ing scarcity of goods, which exceedingly distressed the poor
and, in view of the inadequate supply of domestic manu-
factures, made imperative the opening of trade with foreign
nations. It was argued also that such a freedom of com-
merce would attract specie to the colonies and serve to check
the depreciation of the continental currency. On April 2
the Philadelphia committee of inspection was asked to
bring these facts to the attention of the Continental Con-
gress, in an address from the Committee of Privates of the
local Military Association, signed by the retailer, William
Adcock, as president. 2
An added incentive to the adoption of drastic measures
of relief was the news, that had arrived at Philadelphia on
February 26, that Parliament had enacted that after' Jan-
uary 1, 1776, all American vessels found on the coast of
the British Isles were to be seized and confiscated; all Amer-
ican vessels sailing into and out of American ports after
March 1 were to be seized and confiscated; and all foreign
vessels trading to America after June I were to be seized.
The colonies were to be isolated from the world, save such
districts as would make submission. 8 On the day following
1 Adams, J. , Works, vol. iii, p. 29.
1 Pa. Eve. Post, Apr. 4, 1776.
? 16 George III, c. 5. '
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:38 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 580 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
the arrival of the news a Maryland member of Congress,
who had often reprobated the idea of independence both in
public and private, wrote: "What measures Congress may
pursue in consequence of this act, I know not. With me,
every idea of reconciliation is precluded by the conduct of
Great Britain; and the only alternative, absolute slavery or
independency. " J
The public prints were meantime urging the opening of
commerce as a measure conditioned by a declaration of in-
dependence. 2 But Congress, fearing the potency of an ill-
timed phrase, preferred to do the seemingly illogical thing.
On April 6, without allusion to political independence, the
fateful step was taken. It was then provided that any
goods and wares, except staves and empty casks under cer-
tain conditions, might be exported from the United Colo-
nies, in colonial or foreign vessels, to any parts of the world
not under dominion of Great Britain; and that any goods
and merchandise might be imported into the United Colo-
nies in like fashion, except articles produced in or shipped
from British possessions, East India tea, and slaves. It
was further provided that all merchandise and wares im-
ported into the United Colonies directly or indirectly from
Great Britain or Ireland contrary to the regulations of Con-
gress should be forfeited and disposed of under rules made
by the several assemblies. 8
After this event a declaration of political independence,
however great its sentimental importance, was a mere for-
mality. The Adamses, for example, appreciated this fully
and it gave them good occasion for exultation. Not only
has Congress raised armies and a navy, fought battles and
1Robert Alexander; 4 Am. Arch. , vol. iv, pp. 1507-1508.
1 Ibid. , vol. iv, pp. 470-473, 527-530, 920-922, 1141-1144; vol. v, pp. 225-
227, 860-862, 918-919, 921-926.
* Journals, vol. iv, pp. 257-259.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:38 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? TRANSFORMATION OF THE ASSOCIATION 581
commissioned privateers against the British, wrote Sam
Adams to a congenial spirit, but now we have "torn into
Shivers their Acts of Trade, by allowing Commerce subject
to Regulations to be made by our selves with the People of
all Countries but such as are Subjects of the British King. " 1
The nullification of the acts of trade and navigation was
followed by the introduction of two other important changes
in the Continental Association, one relating to the provision
for the non-consumption of tea, the other dealing with the
regulation of prices. Both changes represented concessions
to the merchants who had not yet detached themselves from
the radical cause. With reference to the first, it should be
recalled that Article iii had provided for the total disuse of
tea, smuggled as well as dutied, after March 1, 1775. This
prohibition expressed a real protest against tea drinking on
hygienic grounds, but it had obtained its widest support be-
cause of the impracticability of distinguishing between Eng-
lish dutied tea and Dutch undutied tea and because of the
desire to refute the charge that the tea smugglers had insti-
gated the uprising against British measures.
In the spring months of 1775 little difficulty had been
experienced by the committees of observation in enforcing
the prohibition; but by midsummer, cases of violation began
to become numerous. Thus, the committee at Providence,
R. I. , forced the recantation of the tea dealer, Nathan
Angell, in October and seized such of his stock as remained
unsold; but they admitted that they had reason to suspect,
from the frequent complaints of country people, that some
dealers in Providence still continued the practice. 2 It was
openly asserted in Congress in September that ninety-nine
1To Joseph Hawley, Apr. 15, 1776; Adams, S. , Writings (Cushing),
vol. iii, pp. 279-280.
1 4 Am. Arch. , vol. iii, pp. 975-976.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:38 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? Sg2 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
out of one hundred in New York drank tea, although this
was obviously an exaggeration. 1 A persistent tea seller at
Reading, Pa. , was tarred and feathered and ridden on a
horse with his face to the tail, " to the great diversion of the
inhabitants who, I believe, hardly ever beheld a more ridic-
ulous figure. " 2
The truth was, as the Continental Congress was at length
forced to admit, that the period allowed by the Continental
Association for the consumption of tea, which was then in
stock, was too short, " whereby many zealous friends to the
American cause, who had imported large quantities of that
commodity, with design not merely to advance their for-
tunes, but to counteract the plan then pursued by the min-
istry and India company to introduce and sell in these colo-
nies tea subject to duty, are likely to become great suffer-
ers; the greater part of the estates of many of them being
vested in that article, anS they, by that means, rendered in-
capable not only of paying their debts and maintaining their
families, but also of vigorously exerting themselves in the
service of their country. " *
Great pressure was brought to bear upon Congress to
permit the sale of such teas as had been imported before
Article iii of the Association became effective. Alexander
McDougall of New York urged the matter on the attention
of Richard Henry Lee, a member of Congress, in a letter
of June 5, 1775; but the latter replied that, although such
suffering was to be found in all the provinces, "Should
Congress determine to admit the sale and the use of what
1 Adams, J. , Works, vol. ii, p. 447.
1 Pa. Merc. , Oct. 20, 1775. For other examples, vide 4 Am. Arch. ,
vol.
