No More Learning

* Md. Gas. , Dec. 15, 1774. For other instances, vide ibid. , Feb. 23,
Men. 2, June 29, 1775.
? ? 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
? 506 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
servants and one hundred tons of British salt. Clearly the
bringing in of servants did not violate the Association, and
Dr. John Stevenson, the consignee, maintained to the com-
mittee that the salt ought to be considered merely as ballast
and thus not contrary to the Association. But the commit-
tee voted unanimously that the salt should not be landed.
A week later the captain and the consignee were called be-
fore the committee again and charged with having unladen
a portion of the salt in defiance of the decision of the com-
mittee. Stevenson replied that he had understood the reso-
lution to apply to Baltimore County only and that he had
shipped a quantity on board four bay-craft to various parts
of Maryland and Virginia. Inasmuch as there was a color-
able pretext for this interpretation, the committee decided
not to boycott him upon his pledge to give the proceeds of
the sales to the relief of Boston and not to land the remain-
der of the salt anywhere between Nova Scotia and Georgia.
Word was sent out to various parts of the province to stop
the sale of the salt and to punish all persons guiltily in-
volved. In Prince George's County Thomas Bailey was
discovered to be implicated and, after a hearing, declared
to have wilfully violated the Association. 1
The more usual procedure in cases of forbidden impor-
tation was for the captain to take his vessel away at the
command of the local committee without disturbing the
cargo. 2 A little out of the ordinary was the arrival of a
tomb-stone in Charles County, which had been brought
there from a vessel that had stopped in the Potomac. The
committee ordered that the stone should be broken to
pieces. 8 With regard to non-consumption regulations, some
1 Md. Gas. , Mch. 30, June 15, 1775; also 4 Am. Arch. , vol. ii, pp.
34, 308.
1 E. g. , vide ibid. , vol. ii, pp. 123, 175-176, 659-660, 1122-1123.
*N. Y. Gas. , July 24, 1775.
? ? 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
? IN THE PLANTATION PROVINCES 507
difficulty was experienced in preventing the use of tea. In
the instance of one obdurate tea dealer, the committee for
the Upper Part of Frederick County sentenced the offen-
der, one John Parks, to set fire to his tea with head uncov-
ered and then to suffer the rigors of the boycott. Not con-
tent with these measures, the populace derived some satis-
faction from breaking in his door and windows. 1 Usually,
however, offenders acquiesced without trouble.
The supervision of prices received careful attention. In
December, 1774, the Maryland convention noted the wide
range of prices in different parts of the province during the
preceding twelve months, and resolved that all merchants
must observe a uniform rule which the convention an-
nounced: that wholesale prices should not be more than
H2^ per cent, retail prices cash not more than 130 per
cent, and retail prices on credit not more than 150 per
cent, advance on the prime cost. 2 Alexander Ogg, a mer-
chant of Huntington, was found guilty of infringing this
rule by the Calvert County Committee and published as an
enemy to his country. He offered to give store credit for
every farthing he had charged beyond the limit fixed, but
his plea fell on deaf ears. 8
The rigorous observance of the boycott was attested by
the petitions of John Baillie, Patrick Graham and Alexan-
der Ogg to the provincial convention. 4 The first two had
been proscribed for knowingly importing goods forbidden
by the Association, at a public meeting called by the Charles
County committee. Baillie declared that he had suffered
"the extremity of a heavy, though just, sentence" which
14 Am. Arch. , vol. i, p. 1009; also Md. Journ. , Nov. 16, 1774, and
Md. Gas. , Dec. 22.
1 Ibid. , Dec. 15, 1774; also 4 Am. Arch. , vol. i, pp. 1031-1032.
* Ibid. , vol. ii, p. 281; also Md. Gas. , Apr. 13, 1775.
44 Am. Arch. , vol. ii, p. 727; vol. iii, pp. 101, 102, 106, 119-121.
? ? 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
? 508 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
had been " executed with such rigour that it has been with
the most extreme and hazardous difficulty he could obtain
the necessary food to support a life rendered miserable by
his conduct and the abovementioned sentence;" and he
promised exemplary conduct if his offense were forgiven.
Graham testified that he had " already suffered greatly, not
only in his own person, property and reputation, but should
he continue much longer in the present situation, his offence
must reduce an innocent wife and four children to beggary
and ruin. " Ogg, who had advanced prices unduly, declared
that he had not been able to carry on his business or to
collect the debts due to him. The convention squarely re-
jected Baillie's petition; but Graham and Ogg, because of
mitigating circumstances, were allowed to resume thei1
earlier occupations, the former under some restrictions.
A resolution of the Maryland convention in December
1774, sought to prevent the killing of any lamb under fGUI
years of age. Because the terms of this resolution were
much more severe than the recommendation in the Conti-
nental Association, considerable confusion arose from the
representations of violators that they were entirely in har-
mony with the Continental Association and therefore ought
not to be proscribed. To relieve the situation the resolu-
tion was withdrawn by the Maryland convention in August,
1775-1 The provincial convention of November, 1774,
recommended that balls be discontinued in this time of
public calamity. 2 The Jockey Club at Annapolis called off
the races which had been arranged to conclude the club sub-
scription. 8 In April, 1775, the Baltimore committee unani-
mously recommended to the people of the county not to en-
1 1 Am. f Arch. , vol. i, p. 1031; vol. ii, pp. 308-309, 903-904; vol. iii, pp.
104, 117. "
1 Ibid. , vol. i, p. 991; also Md. Gas. . Dec. 1, 1774.
? Ibid. , Nov. 3, 1774-
? ? 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
? IN THE PLANTATION PROVINCES 509
courage or attend the approaching fair because of its ten-
dency to encourage horse-racing, gaming, drunkenness and
other dissipation. 1
In view of the abundant evidence, it is scarcely necessary
to quote Governor Eden's words of December 30, 1774, to
the effect that he firmly believed that the Marylanders
would "persevere in their nonimportation and nonexporta-
tion experiments, in spite of every inconvenience that they
must consequently be exposed to, and the total ruin of their
trade. " *
In Virginia the chief dissent to the Association came
from the merchant and factor element, largely Scotch by
nativity. The fact that a majority of the faculty of Wil-
liam and Mary College were non-associators elicited un-
favorable comment from the radical press; * but their op-
position was no more important than that of the small
Quaker element in the population, which Madison noted,4
or of the royal office holding class, since none of these
groups was in position to enforce their views even if they
wanted to.
The opposition of the Scotch was clandestine but none
the less pertinacious. The body of the trade at Williams-
burg, numbering more than four hundred, professed sup-
port of the Association in a written pledge early in Novem-
ber, 1774, and received the thanks of Peyton Randolph and
other delegates of the province for disregarding the influ-
ence of their commercial interest in the great struggle for
liberty. * And the Norfolk committee affirmed on Decem-
1 Md. Gas. , May 4, 1775; also 4 Am. Arch. , vol. ii, p. 337.
1 Ibid. , vol. i, p. 1076; also Pa. Eve. Post, June 6, 1775.
? Pinkney's Va. Gas. , Dec. 22, 1774; Jan. 5, 26, 1775.
? Writings (Hunt), vol. i, pp. 28-29.
1 Pa. Gas. , Nov. 30, 1774; also 4 Am. Arch. , vol. i, pp. 972-973.
? ? 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
? THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
ber 6 that the whole trading body of the province had
cheerfully subscribed to the Association. 1 Whether or not
the motive of the merchants at this early time was to gain
the good will of the radical planters who owned them large
sums of money, the facts are clear that they had to regulate
their conduct ultimately by the instructions of the English
houses they represented or, in any case, be tempted almost
beyond endurance by the prospect of obtaining monopoly
prices during the suspension of importation.
Suspicion of the good faith of the Scotch merchants had
too deep a hold on many radicals to permit acceptance of
their protestations at face value. "It is generally believed,
by this time, that the Scotch have all signed the associa-
tion," declared one newspaper writer. "If they have, I
would ask if it is not through compulsion? " He urged
that, while there was still time, the province should be
purged of such filth by withdrawing all trade from them. 2
Another writer deplored "that antipathy to the Scotch,
which appears to be so general amongst us," and showed
that despite their personal predilections they must as a
matter of duty defer to their British employers with re-
spect to the Association. 8 When the period for enforcing
the non-importation arrived, the Scotch as a class proved to
be the most numerous offenders. The climax came when
Purdie's Virginia Gazette of December 22 and 29, 1775,
published a number of intercepted letters, which showed
that the leading Scotch merchants were as unprincipled as
the most skeptical radicals had believed them to be. A
letter was printed, written by Andrew Sprowle, chairman
of the Williamsburg trade, who had headed the merchants
1 4 M. H. S. Colls. , voL iv, pp. 160-161.
* Charles M'Carty, of Richmond County, in Pinkney's Va. Gas. , Jan.
* "A Citizen of th<< World" in ibid. , Jan. 26, 1775.
? ? 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
? IN THE PLANTATION PROVINCES
when they signed the Association in November, 1774. In
this letter Sprowle ordered some invoices of goods from
Greenock, Scotland, and declared further: "I would have
no fear in bringing in a vessel with Osnabrugs, Irish linen,
and other sortable goods, [as they] would be protected by
a man of war. " Robert Shedden of Portsmouth had writ-
ten to his Glasgow correspondent: "Depend upon it you
will never have such another opportunity to make money
by dry goods in this country. Osnabrugs, canvass, &c and
every necessary article; a large and full assortment of
goods, nails, &c; bring as many as you can get credit for.
. . . If you bring 20,000 1. in goods, they will sell to ad-
vantage. " Wrote the Norfork merchant, John Brown, to
London: " You are hereby ordered to ship, by the first op-
portunity, ? 1000 sterling value in linen goods, &c. "
Meantime, the merchants and factors had been taking
advantage of their position in another way--they had been
hastening to press their debtors for the payment of long-
outstanding obligations before the latter became entirely
bankrupt from the suspension of trade. This prudent busi-
ness transaction worked a grievous hardship on many plan-
ters, and estates were sold for debt in divers places. 1 A de-
mand arose for a boycott against merchants who used ex-
cessive caution in extending credit; and Peyton Randolph
felt impelled to declare in a public statement that the Asso-
ciation furnished no remedy, that it did not empower com-
mittees to dictate to merchants to whom they should sell
on credit or for what time they should give credit. 1
Unless the radicals could devise effective counter-
measures, the merchants seemed about to cut the ground
from under them. The radicals had foreseen this situation,
to some extent, and their course of action was designed to
1 "A Scotchman" in Pinkney's Va. Gas. , Mch. 23, 1775.
1 Ibid. , Feb. 2, 9, 1775.
? ? 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
? S12 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
cripple, if not to destroy, the economic power of the mer-
chants. The provincial convention of August, 1774, closed
up the county courts of justice on the ground that the last
session of the Assembly had not renewed the Fee Act; and
"the men of fortune and pre-eminence joined equally with
the lowest and meanest" in bringing this to pass, averred
Governor Dunmore. 1 They also recommended that lawyers
and witnesses stay away from the approaching General
Court of Judicature, except in criminal cases; and they suc-
ceeded in carrying their point. On March 25, 1775, a later
provincial convention gave their sanction to the suspension
of judicial proceedings. They declared that, on account of
the unsettled state of public affairs, the lawyers, suitors
and witnesses ought not to take part in civil cases at the
next General Court; that county courts ought not to hear
any suits on their dockets, except attachments, nor give
judgment, save in the case of sheriffs or other collectors
for money or tobacco received by them, or in cases where
judgment should be voluntarily confessed or in amicable
proceedings for the settlement of estates. 2 Though ex-
horted by Governor Dunmore, the House of Burgesses in
June refused "to interpose legislative authority in order
to compel the Magistrates to open the courts of civil juris-
diction, and thereby expose the people to cruel exactions. "
They justified their refusal as an answer to the act of Par-
liament, recently passed, restraining their trade, and de-
clared it was best for the courts to remain closed until wis-
dom had returned to the British administration. 3
These measures afforded an effective shield against the
merchant-creditors and saved the situation for the radicals.
1 4 Am. Arch. , vol. i, pp. 775, 1062.
1Ibid. , vol. ii, pp. 16B-16o; also Pinkney's Va. Gas. , Mch. 30, 1775.
*4 Am. Arch. , vol. ii, pp. 1188, 1190-1191.
? ? 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
? TN THE PLANTATION PROVINCES
513
Indeed, on August 25, a petition was presented to the Vir-
ginia convention by sundry factors and mercantile agents,
complaining of the ill-grounded prejudices which had been
aroused against them as natives of Great Britain and pledg-
ing their aid in the civil contest with the parent country in
every respect except that of taking up arms against the
people among whom they had been born. The convention
resolved unanimously that the petition was reasonable and
instructed the local committees "to treat all natives of
Great Britain resident here, as do not show themselves
enemies to the common cause of America, with lenity and
friendship. . . . " *
In carrying out the Association in Virginia, the plan was
adopted of requiring all the inhabitants to attach their sig-
natures to the document. Other provinces had been willing
and anxious to let sleeping dogs lie; the Virginia radicals
were so confident of the power of public opinion behind
them that they carried this challenge to every inhabitant, so
far as it proved practicable. 2 Thus, the Northampton com-
mittee divided the county into seven districts with sub-
committees appointed to present the Association to all the
inhabitants. * The committee for Princess Anne County
delivered a list of non-associators to every merchant in the
county and posted other copies at various public places and
at Norfolk, with the recommendation that all commercial
intercourse with the delinquents be stopped. When Ben-
jamin Gray, one of the proscribed, was reported to have
called the committee " a pack of damn'd rascals," his addi-
tional offense was also given publicity. 4 In Nansemond
14 Am. Arch. vol. iii, pp. 391-392; also Pinkney's Va. Gas. , Aug.
31. 1775-
1 Madison, Writings (Hunt), vol. i, pp. 28-29.
'4 Am. Arch. , vol. i, p. 1045.
4 Ibid. , vol. ii, pp. 76-77; also Pinkney's Va. Gas. , Mch. 23, 1775.
? ? 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
? 514
THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
County, the Reverend John Agnew was held up to public
censure for roundly condemning the Association in his ser-
mons and private conversations; and a man who rented a
"flatt" from the parson was obliged to give it up. 1 Ex-
amples like this abounded. The Virginia plan forced every
inhabitant into a position of either active friendship or open
hostility; and since it was entirely possible for a man to
disapprove of the Association without ever violating its
provisions, the number of those subject to neglect and boy-
cott was vastly greater than in other provinces. The Vir-
ginia radicals thus took an advanced stand--a stage which
the other provinces did not reach until the bloodshed of
April, 1775, had occurred.
In early November, 1774, a mob at Yorktown went on
board the Virginia and dumped into the river two half-
chests of tea, with the entire approval of the county com-
mittee. The London shippers and the consignees at Wil-
liamsburg were both held up for neglect by the York com-
mittee and the adjoining Gloucester County committee. *
This little "tea party" exceeded the provisions of the
Association, but marked the enthusiasm which character-
ized the execution of the non-importation regulation. Pub-
lic sales of cargoes that arrived between December 1, 1774^
and February 1, 1775, were reported at Norfolk and Wil-
liamsburg and in fourteen counties. 8 Many of these sales
showed small profits or none at all; but occasionally a ship-
ment brought a substantial advance, like Andrew Wod-
row's in King George County, which yielded a profit of
1 4 Am. Arch. , vol. ii, pp. 226-228; N. C. Col. Recs. , vol. ix, p. 1164.
1 Pinkney's Va. Co*. , Nov. 24, 1774; also 4 Am. Arch. , vol. i, pp.
964-965.
6Charles City, Dinwiddie, Elizabeth City, Essex, Fairfax, Gooch-
land. Henrico, Isle of Wight, King George, Nansemond, New Kent,
Princess Anne, Spotsylvania and Surry. Vide files of the three Vir-
ginia Gasettes, edited by Pinkney, by Purdie, and by Dixon & Hunter.
? ? 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
? IN THE PLANTATION PROVINCES
515
? 19 14s. for the Boston needy. 1 For this reason, it is im-
probable that the Scotch merchants felt tempted to with-
hold importations from committee auction.
One interesting case of defiance occurred. Late in Jan-
uary an importation of medicines worth ? 200 Sterling ar-
rived for Dr. Alexander Gordon, a well-known physician
of Norfolk; and he requested that he might be allowed to
receive the goods agreeable to the terms of the provincial
association of August, 1774. The committee informed
him that their rule of conduct now was the Continental
Association, and advised him to submit the medicines for
sale in accordance with Article x, as had been done by
other physicians. He expressed a preference for storing
the goods under charge of the committee; but while ar-
rangements were being made for this purpose, he quietly
landed the medicines and took possession of them himself.
It proved impossible for the committee to get the merchan-
dise away from him, and with very evident reluctance they
held him up for public censure. 2
The regulation against the importation of slaves had
caused very little difficulty in the northern provinces; but
the Norfolk committee found it necessary to proscribe John
Brown, a Scotch merchant who had been in Virginia since
1762, for being concerned in the importation of twenty
slaves in the brig Fanny from Jamaica. He stoutly pro-
tested his innocence, but his letter-books proved the con-
trary. 8
1 Dixon & Hunter's Va. Gas. , Jan. 28, 1775.
1 Pinkney's Va. Gas. , Feb. 16, 1775; also 4 Am. Arch. , vol. i, pp.
1217-1278.
1Ibid. , vol. ii, pp. 33-34; also Pinkney's Va. Gas. , Mcl1. 23, 1775.
Vide also memorial of the Browns in A. O. no. 55: N. Y. Loyalist
Claims Transcripts, vol. xxvii, pp. 459, 467-471. The Chesterfield
County committee also took occasion to voice their indignation and to
declare the suspension of all dealings with him. Purdie's Va. Gaus. ^
May 5, 1775.
?