No More Learning

10, 1774; N. Y. Gas. , Nov. 21.
'/Wrf. , Oct. 3, 1774, also 4 Am. Arch. , vol. i, pp. 326-327, 809;
Golden, Letter Books, vol. ii, pp. 366-368.
'Mass. Sfy, Feb. 9, 1775; also 4 Am. Arch. , vol. i, pp. 1329-1330.
? ? 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
? CONTEST IN PLANTATION PROVINCES 389
tain portions of jthe pfanfction provinces. Although the
people had quietly paid the duty since the partial repeal in
1770, the passage of the coercive acts and the attendant ex-
citement in America had wrought a _change of opinion:
and with the passage of months the lawless element in the
community was more and more getting the upper hand.
This is best shown in the episode of the brig Peggy Stew-
art. 1 This vessel arrived at Annapolis, Maryland, on Fri-
day, October 14, 1774, laden with more than a ton of dutied
tea, consigned to the local firm of T. C. Williams & Com-
pany. The Pegpy Stewart was chiefly owned by Anthony
Stewart, of Annapolis, but his father-in-law, James Dick,
had a financial interest in the venture. These two gentle-
men had achieved unpopularity on a former occasion
when, as importers in the Good Intent, they had sought to
introduce British goods contrary to the will of the people
of Annapolis. 2 The orders for the tea had been sent by
Williams & Company in May, 1774, at a time when other
Maryland merchants were doing the same thing without
arousing disfavor. 8 Immediately upon the arrival of the
brig, Stewart hastened to pay the duty on the tea. When
news of the affair came to the Anne Arundel County Com-
mittee a few hours later, they convened a public meeting
in the evening to consider what measures should be taken.
The consignees and others concerned in the importation
were called before the meeting; and it was unanimously
1 Mr. Richard D. Fisher, of Baltimore, collected the chief source ac-
counts of this episode and published them, with editorial comment, in
the Baltimore News during the years 1905-1907. A scrapbook of these
clippings, entitled The Arson of the Peggy Stewart, is in the Library of
Congress. Some of the less accessible of these papers have been re-
published in the Md. Hist. Mag. , vol. v, pp. 235-245.
1 V1de sufira, pp. 200-201.
* Vide statement of Joseph and James Williams 1n Md. Gaz. , Oct.
27, 1774; also supra, p. 245.
? ? 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
resolved that the tea should not be landed in America. The
meeting adjourned to Wednesday, the nineteenth, and for
the interim a special committee was appointed to attend
the unloading of the other merchandise on board the brig
and to prevent the landing of the tea. Thus far the inci-
dent did not differ from many similar occurrences. Appar-
ently a concession from the importers to the effect that the
tea should be re-shipped at once or, at most, that the tea
should be cast into the sea would close the incident. Stew-
art sought to explain his action in paying the duty, in a
broadside on Monday, in which he told of the leaky condi-
tion of the vessel, the need of the fifty-three souls on board
to land after a three months' voyage, and the impossibility
of entering the vessel without the tea. He expressed his
sorrow for his unintentional transgression.
From the viewpoint of the orderly elements in the com-
munity, the postponement of final action until the public
meeting of Wednesday proved to be a tactical blunder.
During the interval handbills were dispersed through the
nearby counties containing notice of the meeting, and pop-
ular feeling was aroused to a high pitch. To the meeting
on Wednesday came parties of extremists from various
parts of the province determined upon violence: one group
from Prince George's County, headed by Walter Bowie (or
Buior), a planter: one from Baltimore County, led by
Charles Ridgely, Jr. , member of the Assembly; one from
the town of Baltimore, led by Mordecai Gist and John
Deavor; one from the head of Severn River, led by Rezen
Hammond; and two from Elk Ridge in Anne Arundel
County, headed respectively by Dr. Ephraim Howard and
Dr. Warfield. 1 When the great assemblage were ready
1 Affidavit of R. Caldeleugh, manager of Stewart's rope factory; Jtfd.
Hist. Mag. , vol. v, pp. 241-244. Cf. Galloway's account; Pa. Mag. ,
vol. xxv, pp. 248-253.
? ? 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
? CONTEST IN PLANTATION PROVINCES
391
for business, Stewart and the Williamses appeared before
them with an offer to destroy the tea and to make such
other amends as might be desired. The Anne Arundel
Committee advised the meeting that this offer should be
deemed sufficient; but the boisterous minority in attendance
would not have it that way. "Matters now began to run
very high and the people to get warm," declared a partici-
pant later; "some of the Gentlemen from Elk Ridge and
Baltimore Town insisted on burning the Vessel" as well
as the tea. 1 Charles Carroll, the barrister, and Matthias
Hammond proposed, as a compromise, that the tea should
be unloaded and burnt under the gallows; but the extrem-
ists were beyond halfway measures. "Old Mr. Dick," one
of the owners of the brig and the father of Stewart's wife,
now gave his consent to the destruction of the vessel, for
fear that the rage of the mob would be directed against the
Stewart home where Mrs. Stewart lay in a critical condi-
tion. "Mr. Quyn then stood forth," averred the observer
already quoted, "and said it was not the sense of the
majority of the people that the Vessell should be destroyed,
and made a motion which was seconded that there should
be a vote on the Question. We had a Vote on it and a
Majority of % of the people; still the few that was for
destroying the Brigg was Clamorous and insinuated that if
it was not done they would prejudice Mr. Stewart more
than if the vessel was burnt; the Committee then with the
Consent of Mr. Dick declared that the . Vessell and Tea
1 Galloway's account. '' Americanus '' declared in the London Pu&lic
Ledger, Jan. 4, 1775, that the bitter feeling against the principals in the
affair was caused by Stewart's earlier activity in opposing the resolution
for the suspension of debt collections, and by the jealousy of other merch-
ants because Williams & Co. had a splendid assortment of merchandise
on board. These charges do not bear close examination. The Anne
Arundel County Committee stigmatized them as "false, scandalous
and malicious. " ,'/. /. Gas. (Annapolis), Apr. 13, 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
? 392
THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
should be burnt. " l Stewart and the consignees made a
written acknowledgment of their " most daring insult. "
While preparations were being made for burning the ves-
sel, many of the substantial inhabitants began to believe that
undue weight had been given to the threats of the violent
minority, and determined to prevent the injustice; but as
they were going to the waterfront, they were met by " poor
Mr. Dick," who entreated them "for God sake not to
meddle in the matter" or Mr. Stewart's house would be
burnt, which would be a greater loss. The other program
was therefore duly carried out; and the Peggy Stewart,
with sails and colors flying, was consumed in the presence
of a great crowd of spectators. l^. This most infamous
and rascally affair . . . ," commented the observer quoted
before, "makes all men of property reflect with horror on
their present situation to have their Jives and propertys at
the disposal & mercy of a Mob . . . _" \
Such an incident could scarcely have occurred six months,
or even three months, earlier in a plantation province. The
truth was that the leaders of an orderly opposition to Brit-
ish measures were losing their mastery of the situation.
The destruction of the Peggy Stewart involved a monetary
loss of ? 1896 to owners and consignees. The public meet-
ing had, in effect, refused to accept as adequate an act of
destruction similar to that which had served to make the
Boston Tea Party heinous in the eyes of the British home
government. That the act was forced by an ungovernable
minority subtracts in no degree from the seriousness or
significance of the incident. In a word, Annapolis had out-
Bostoned Boston.
1 That this decision was forced by an aggressive minority is also ap-
parent from other contemporary accounts,^, g. : Eddis, Letters from
America, no. xviii; Ringgold's account in Pa. Mag. , vol. xxv, pp.
253-254; letter from Annapolis in London Chronicle, Dec. 31, 1774.
The ingeniously-worded official account does not deny it. 4 Am.
Arch. , vol. i, pp. 885-886.
? ? 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 X
THE ADOPTION OF THE CONTINENTAL ASSOCIATION
(SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER, 1774)
THE First Continental Congress was the product of
many minds. More than any other occurrence of the
eventful decade, the movement for an interprovincial con-
gress was of spontaneous origin. When the time was ripe,
the thought seemed to leap from the minds of men with
the thrill of an irresistible conclusion. It would be mis-
leading to give Providence, Rhode Island, the credit of
originating the idea, simply because the town meeting there
proposed a continental congress four days before the Phila-
delphia Committee, six days before the New York Com-
mittee, and ten days before the dissolved burgesses of Vir-
ginia. All these proposals were antedated by suggestions
in private letters and by a newspaper propaganda to the
same end; * and all advocates drew their inspiration from
a common source--the logic of the times.
^In its inception the project of a general congress was
favored -- and feared -- by all shades of opinionTjgovern-
mental and non-governmental, conservative, moderate and
radical, mercantile and non-mercantile. Governor Franklin
and " many of the Friends of Government " in New Jersey
approved of such a congress if it should be authorized by
the Crown and be composed of governors and selected mem-
bers of the provincial legislatures. 2 Joseph Galloway
1 For a summary of newspaper writings in support of a general con-
gress, vide Frothingham, Rise of Republic, pp. 314, 329, 331-333 n.
1 / N. J. Arch. , vol. x, pp. 464-465.
393
? ? 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
? 394 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
wanted a congress consisting preferably of delegates
"chosen either by the Representatives in Assembly or by
them in Convention. " * Both men desired to forestall a
resort to lawless action and to have the relations of the
mother country and the colonies defined in enlightened
terms. Many conservatives of Massachusetts believed that
a general congress would be "eminently serviceable" in
prevailing upon the Bostonians to make restitution to the
East India Company and in formulating a plan of perma-
nent conciliation; " Tories as well as whigs bade the dele-
gates God speed. " 2 The Rhode Island legislators and the
Virginians meeting at Raleigh Tavern appeared to have in
mind a permanent union of the provinces in annual con-
gresses, chosen by the several legislatures, for the sake of
the common concerns. The merchants of New York and
Philadelphia wanted a congress, constituted upon almost
any principle, in order to postpone or prevent the adoption
of a plan of non-intercourse, and in order to effect a uni-
form and lenient plan in case non-intercourse could not be
prevented. Dickinson advocated a congress, elected by
assemblies wherever possible, for the purpose of formulat-
ing a uniform boycott against England and avoiding the
dreadful necessity of war.
8 Sam Adams rendered lip-
service to the cause of a congress, but strained every energy
to committing the continent to a radical program before the
body could assemble,* Silas Deane criticized the premature
activity of Adams and favored a congress as a preventive
of " narrow partial and indigested " plans of action. 5
On the other hand. Governor Franklin in June feared
14 Am. Arch. , vol. i, pp. 485-486.
1" Massachusettensis" in Mass. Gas. & Post-Boy, Mch. 27, 1775.
* Pa. Journ. , June IS, I774; also Writings (Ford), vol. i, pp. 499-500.
4 Writings (Gushing), vol. iii, pp. 114-116, 125-127.
6Conn. Hist. Soc. Colls. , vol. ii, pp. 129-190.
? ? 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 CONTINENTAL ASSOCIATION
395
"the Consequences which may result from such a Con-
gress as is now intended in America, chosen by the Assem-
blies, or by Committees from all the several Counties, in
each of the Provinces;" * while, conversely, the radical,
Josiah Quincy, warned Dickinson two months later that:
"Corruption (which delay gives time to operate) is the de-
stroying angel we have most to fear. . . . I fear much that
timid or lukewarm counsels will be considered by our Con-
gress as prudent and politic. " z And Governor Gage, of
Massachusetts, writing at almost the same moment as Gov-
ernor Franklin, inclined to the opinion of Quincy when he
said: "I believe a Congress, of some sort, may be ob-
tained; but when or how it will be composed is yet at a
distance, and after all, Boston may get little more than
fair words. " 8
The original idea of the New England radicals seems to
have been for "a congress j>f the Merchants, by deputies
from among them in every seaport town, . . . with power
plan for the whoje^ . . " * Paul Revere,
after a fortnight's trip through the commercial provinces,
reported a sentiment in favor of a congress, so consti-
tuted, in order to place a restriction on the trade to the
West Indies. 5 When the widespread demand seemed to
call for aj1 assemblage nf ^ more g-eneral character, the
Boston Committee of Correspondence suggested that:
Ul'There must be both a political and commercial congress. " *
1 1 N. J. Arch. , vol. x, pp. 464-465.
*4 Am. Arch. , vol. i, p. 725.
1 Ibid. , vol. i, p. 451.
4 Letter of Boston Committee of Correspondence to Providence Com-
mittee of Correspondence, May 21, 1774; Bos. Com. Cor. Mss. , vol. x,
pp. 796-798.
'Mass. Spy, June 2, 1774.
'Bos. Com. Cor. Mss. , vol. x, pp. 796-798.
? ? 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
? 396 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763. 1776
This quickly proved to be unfeasible; and the Massachu-
setts Spy declared on June 16, 1774: "A
CANTILE CjjjifiRgss seems now to be the voice of all the
Colonies from Nova-Scotia to Georgia; and New York the
place of meeting proposed by private letters: However,
our generous brethren of that metropolis are pleased to
complement Boston with the appointment both of time
and place; which invitation will undoubtedly be accepted
with grateful alacrity. " On the very next day, the Massa-
chusetts House of Representatives acted with the promised
"alacrity. " While the secretary of the province read the
governor's proclamation of dissolution to a curious audi-
ence on the wrong side of the locked door, the house chose
delegates to the Congress and announced the place of meet-
ing to be Philadelphia on September 1. 1 Already on June
15 the Rhode Island Assembly had appointed delegates;
and in the subsequent weeks every province of the thirteen
designated representatives, in one fashion or other, except
Georgia. 2
What was to be the program of the Congress when it
met? The answer to the question depended upon a proper
evaluation of a number of factors, principally the follow-
ing : the instructions given to the members-elect of the Con-
gress; the crystallization of public opinion in the period
prior to the assembling of that body; the character and
temper of the members and of the interests functioning
through them; the steeplechase of ultimatum and conces-
sion which was certain to occur after the Congress had
assembled.
Although the instructions of the delegates obviously had
a bearing on the action of Congress, it would be mislead-
ing to ascribe to these papers any commanding importance;
1 Mow. Spy, June 23, 1774; also 4 Am. Arch. , vol. i, pp. 421-423.
1 Vide supra, chapters viii and ix, passim.
? ? 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 CONTINENTAL ASSOCIATION
397
for the instructions represented not so much what the
dominant elements in a community really wanted, as what
they dared to say that they wanted. These instructions
had originated in divers ways, although in almost every in-
stance they had been issued by the body which had chosen
the delegates. 1 The keynote of all instructions was the
injunction that the delegates should adopt proper measures
to extricate the colonies from their difficulties with the
mother nation, and that they should establish American
rights and liberties upon a just and permanent basis and
so restore harmony and union. Some difference of opinion
was apparent concerning the nature and extent of the colo-
nial grievances which should be redressed. About half the
provinces deemed these too patent, or the occasion prema-
ture, for a particular definition of them in the instructions.
The other provinces were unanimous in naming parlia-
mentary taxation of the colonies as a grievance, and almost
without exception they included the punitive acts of 1774,
particularly the Boston Port Act. 2 The Pennsylvania con-
vention had gone so far as to suggest the maximum con-
1 In Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut, the lower house of
the legislatures gave the instructions. In New Hampshire, New Jersey,
Delaware, Maryland, Virginia and North Carolina, provincial conven-
tions were responsible for the instructions. Both kinds of bodies
participated in South Carolina and Pennsylvania. In the province of
New York, the delegates were uninstructed in the technical sense of the
term, but a majority of them had been forced to announce their plat-
form in response to popular pressure. All the instructions may be
found in 'Am. Arch. , vol . i. Consult index under name of the prov-
ince desired.
'Virginia, Delaware and the Pennsylvania convention added the re-
vived statute of Henry VIII and the extension of the powers of the
admiralty courts. South Carolina included the "unnecessary restraints
and burthens on trade" and the statutes and royal instructions which
made invidious distinctions between subjects in Great Britain and in
America; Delaware, the curtailing of manufacturing; and the Pennsyl-
vania convention, the quartering of troops.
? ? 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
? 398 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
cessions which Congress should make in return for the
favors desired, >>". e. , the settlement of an annual revenue
on the king and the reimbursement of the East India
Company.
^he widest divergence of opinion appeared on the im-
portant point of the nature of the opposition which should
be directed against Great Britain. Most of the commercial
provinces instructed their delegates to adoo^ "**
'^prudent" or "lawfojj' measures without specifying
further details. 1 J^w TPTS^ and Delaware, provinces
largely agricultural in their economy, were the only ones
of the groupJa recomrngp^ a plan nf non-importation and
non-exportation to Congress. In contrast to the commer-
cial provinces, three_ of th& f n^r_ j1lanHng pr. 9. vi. n? ? S jfoat
tookjiction instructed ti\? \r j**i>>Bor~<^or aj1on-imgortation
andjion^xportation with Great Britain. 8
If the absence of such instructions in the northern
prov1nces suggested_ thejdo1T1inance of the business^motive
in that section, the form of the boycott plan proposed in
various parts of the South revealed the presence of power-
ful agricultural iptergsts_. there! ^he instructions to the
Maryland delegates carefully specified that that province
would not withhold the exportation of tobacco unless Vir-
ginia and North Carolina did so at the same time. By the
Virginia instructions, the delegates were told uncondition-
ally that non-exportation must not become operative be-
1 There were unimportant exceptions. The New York delegates had
been maneuvered into avowing a present inclination toward a non-
importation regulation. The Pennsylvania Assembly had refused to
give detailed instructions; but the provincial convention had recom-
mended the sending of petitions as a first resort, and had intimated
that Pennsylvania would, under no circumstances, go further than a
non-importation and non-exportation with Great Britain, unless Parlia-
ment should adopt further measures of aggression.
* Md. , Va. , N. C. South Carolina was silent on this point
.
? ? 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 CONTINENTAL ASSOCIATION 399
fore August 10, 1775, because that date would " avoid the
heavy injury that would arise to this country from an
earlier adoption of the non-exportation plan after th<<
people have already applied so much of their labour to the
perfecting of the present [tobacco] crop . . . " * Probably
from a similar motive, the North Carolina delegates were
instructed to delay the operation of non-exportation until
October 1, 1775, if possible. Virginia wished the non-
importation to become effective on November 1, 1774;
North Carolina preferred January 1, 1775. The instruc-
tions of the South Carolina delegates observed a discreet
silence as to the adoption of a boycott plan; but the rice
planters had safeguarded their interests by inserting a pro-
vision pledging the province only to such measures of the
Congress as commanded the support of the South Carolina
delegates as well as the majority of Congress.
A closer scrutiny of the several sets of instructions
would only serve to enforce the conclusion that, although
the plantation provinces stood rather clearly for a two-
edged plan of commercial opposition, the instructions of no
province contemplated a comprehensive and skilfully artic-
ulated plan such as the Continental Association turned out
to be. Every province, touching on the matter, specifically
limited the proposed suspension of trade to Great Britain,
except Maryland and New Jersey. Only Maryland author-
ized her delegates to agree to "any restrictions upon ex-
ports to the West Indies which may be deemed necessary
by a majority of the Colonies at the general Congress. "
1 This instruction provoked a writer in the commercial provinces to
query whether this restraint did not tend to render Congress totally
ineffective, inasmuch as every province had an equal right to safeguard
its material interests; thus Pennsylvania, the importation of cloth.
New York, the importation of hats and tea, New England, the im-
portation of flannels, calicoes, etc. Pa. Journ. , Sept. 28, 1774; also
4 Am. . Arch. , vol. i, pp. 755-756.
? ? 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
? 400
THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
The scope, the symmetry, the enforcement provisions of
the Continental Association clearly did not proceed from
the instructions of the delegates.
The development of public opinion in the interval be-
tween the giving of instructions and the assembling of
Congress marked a long stride in advance of the views em-
bodied in the instructions. The direction of the gathering
opinion was influenced, to some degree, by correspondents
in London, both of native and colonial birth, many of
whose letters appeared in the colonial press and all of whom
argued that the hard times then prevailing in England
made some form of trade suspension the logical mode of
opposition. 1 To a larger degree, the public mind was in-
fluenced by the trenchant articles with which the propa-
gandists filled the newspapers. As one newspaper writer
phrased it: "The Delegates must certainly desire to know
the mind of the country in general. No rational man will
think himself so well acquainted with our affairs as that he
cannot have a more full and better view of them. " The
questions which would confront Congress, the same writer
declared, were chiefly the following: In what manner and
in what spirit shall we make our application to Great Brit-
ain? ""Shall we stop importation only, or shall we cease
exportation also?