Generated for (University of
Chicago)
on 2014-08-19 01:36 GMT / http://hdl.
Arthur Schlesinger - Colonial Merchants and the American Revolution
1 A new and even more liberal plan was there-
fore drafted; and on June 22, 1770, it was jointly adopted
by the members of the House of Burgesses and the merchant
body of Williamsburg. The new association was a lengthy
document which covered the essential points of the earlier
agreement. Several changes were made in the list of articles
enumerated for non-importation. A regulation was added
to boycott importers who defied the association or who
bought goods imported into Virginia because rejected in
other provinces; and a committee of inspection was au-
thorized for each county with instructions to publish the
names of all offenders. The association was signed by the
moderator, Peyton Randolph, by Andrew Sprowle, chairman
of the Williamsburg traders, and by one hundred and sixty-
six others. Copies of the association were sent to the coun-
ties for signing. 2 Only one or two attempts to enforce the
1Bland, Papers (Campbell, C. , ed. ), vol. i, pp. 28-30; Washington,
Writings (Ford), vol. ii, pp. 280-283.
? Pa. Gas. , July 12, 1770; also N. Y. Journ. , July 19. A copy, signed
by sixty-two inhabitants of Fairfax County, is in the Library of
Congress.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? NON-IMPORTATION Ig9
association were noted in the newspapers. In one instance,
Captain Spier of the Sharpe, whose conduct at Philadelphia
had caused his proscription, arrived at Norfolk to ply his
trade. Although the signers of the association took occa-
sion to express their belief that the landing or storing of his
goods would be an offense against the association, neverthe-
less the merchants, William and John Brown, received goods
from him and defied the local committee. In Rind's Vir-
ginia Gasette of August 2, 1770, the committee published the
facts of the affair, with the statement: "What is further
necessary to be done . . . is submitted to the Consideration
of the Virginia Associators. "
Considerably more pains were taken to enforce the as-
sociation jp Maryland and wifh greater success. The non-
importation combination in that province gained much
strength from the proximity of the Maryland ports to
Philadelphia and from the fact that non-importation had re-
ceived some local mercantile support from the beginning.
The number of native merchants was greater than in Vir-
ginia; and indeed Baltimore was showing indications of
becoming a commercial rival of Philadelphia. 1 The execu-
tion of the Maryland pact was jealously scrutinized by the
merchants at Philadelphia, and for a time the good faith
of the Baltimore merchants was suspected. This feeling
took definite shape in November, 1769, when the Baltimore
Committee of Merchants permitted two merchants to bring
in goods, valued at ? 2600, that violated the local agreement
of March 30. In the one case, the importer had satisfied a
meeting of associators that he had received a special exemp-
tion covering the fall shipments; and, in the other, it had
been shown that the goods were permitted by the general
Maryland association which postdated the local agreement.
1 Lincoln, Revolutionary Movement in Pa. , pp. 59-65.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 200 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
These occurrences brought a sharp letter from the Philadel-
phia Committee of Merchants, with an intimation that the
Marylanders were plotting to deflect trade from Phila-
delphia and a warning that their conduct would surely bring
on them a rigorous boycott. When they got further light,
however, the Philadelphia Committee freely admitted their
error and expressed pleasure at the upright conduct of Balti-
more. 1 In view of no evidence to the contrary, the mer-
chants of Baltimore seem to have merited this good opinion.
Thus, in May, 1770, a meeting of merchants refused to
permit a shipment, valued at ? 1292, to be landed. 2
In all Maryland, the best known case of enforcement was
that of the brigantine Good Intent at Annapolis in Febru-
ary, 1770. 8 Courts of law have seldom sat on cases involv-
ing nicer points of interpretation; and few better examples
could be found of the application of a rule of conduct
against the wish and interest of individuals. The Good
Intent arrived from London heavily laden with European
goods for a number of mercantile houses of Annapolis.
James Dick and Anthony Stewart, the largest importers and
respected merchants of the town, admitted that their own
shipment amounted to ? 1377, of which only ? 715 worth con-
sisted of articles permitted by the agreement. Believing
that the character of the importations was being widely
misunderstood, Dick & Stewart requested a joint meeting
1 Md. Gas. , Dec. 28, 1769; Papers of Phila. Merchants, pp. 45-47, 62-63.
1 Pa. Gas. , June 7, 1770; also N. Y. Journ. , June 7.
1 The Proceedings of the Committee Appointed to examine . . .
Brigantine Good Intent . . . (Annapolis, 1770), reprinted in Md. Hist.
Mag. , vol. iii, pp. 141-157, 240-256, 342-363; statement of minority of
this committee in Md. Gas. , Apr. 19, 1770. An abstract of the pam-
phlet was published in ibid. , Feb. 14, and copied into N. Y. Journ. , Mch.
8. Vide also Governor Eden's correspondence with reference to this
affair in 4 M. H. S. Colls. , vol. x, pp. 621-626.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:36 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? NON-IMPORTATION 2OI
of the committees of the counties of Baltimore, Prince
George and Anne Arundel to render judgment in the matter,
and agreed that no goods should be removed from the
vessel for twelve days after its arrival. Before this joint
committee a vast mass of evidence was laid by the various
importers, consisting of correspondence, manifests, invoices,
shop-notes, bills of lading and other papers. After careful
consideration, "Abundant and satisfactory Proofs " 1 made
it clear that the importers had ordered their goods before
any association had been formed in Maryland; but the com-
mittee held that, long since, the orders had properly become
"dead," because of the protracted delay of the London
shipper in sending the goods after hearing of the Maryland
Association, and because of countermanding orders in other
cases. The shipper's belated performance of his orders was
attributed to his "ungenerous Principle . . . in trumping
up old Orders to colour a premeditated Design to subvert
the Association. " Therefore, the committee resolved that
merchandise debarred by the association should not be
landed, and that, as the allowable articles were packed in
with them, no goods at all should be landed. The im-
porters made several pointed protests, emphasizing that they
had not violated the letter of the association and that many
practical difficulties lay in the way of returning the goods.
Nevertheless, they were forced to yield; and the Good
Intent with all goods on board sailed for London on Tues-
day, February 27. The principle upon which the committee
acted was that, if the present cargo were admitted, " every
Merchant in London, trading to this Province, might send
in any quantities of Goods he pleased, under Orders that he
must in Course of Business have refused to comply with. "
Although Baltimore and Annapolis were the chief trading
1 The committee's own expression.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:36 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 202 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
centres, committees of inspection were established through-
out the province; and a number of instances of enforcement
were noted in the newspapers. 1
The efforts to execute the non-importation association at
Charleston. South Carolina, developed a situation which
"Contained some unusual features. Sam Adams has been
said to have had his counterpart in Chris Gadsden of South
Carolina. Likewise, it may be said that the course of Wil-
liam Henry Drayton at this period reflected the stormy
career of John Mein. Dravton was a young man scarce
twenty-seven, a gentleman of independent wealth. Fear-
less, hotblooded, and of brilliant parts, he was by nature a
conservative. His later conversion to the radical cause has
been attributed to personal ambition, but can be more rightly
ascribed to his intense Americanism and to a change of
British policy in 1774 that outraged his sense of justice
as deeply as the situation he faced in 1769. Drayton was
the foremost adversary cf non-importation in South Caro-
lina; and unlike John Mein, his tendency was to place his
opposition on legal and constitutional grounds, although he
indulged in furious abuse upon occasion. Whether he
knew of Mein or not is uncertain; but Mein knew of him
and copied some of his most effective strictures into the
columns of the Boston Chronicle.
Drayton opened the attack in an article in the $a1dh
Carolina (fazetff. August 3, 1769, under the signature
"Free-man. " Centering his attention on the clause of the
association which proscribed all persons who failed to at-
tach their signatures within one month, he likened it to " the
Popish method of gaining converts to their religion by fire
and faggot. To stigmatize a man . . . with the infamous
1 Particularly in the counties of Prince George, St. Mary's, Talbot
and Charles. Md. Gos. , Apr. 12, May 24, July 12, 1770; Pa. Gas. , Nov.
30, 1769.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:36 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? NON-IMPORTATION 203
name of an enemy to his country can be legally done by no
authority but by that of the voice of the Legislature. " Of
Gadsden he declared, in a transparent allusion, "this man
who sets up for a patriot and pretends to be a friend to
Liberty, scruples not, like Cromwell, who was the patriot
of his day, to break through and overthrow her fundamental
laws, while he declared he would support and defend them
all, and to endeavour to enslave his fellow-subjects, while
he avowed that he only contended for the preservation of
their liberties. " Doubtful as to whether this patriot were
"a traitor or madman," he proposed that, to avoid any ill
consequences of his disorder, " he may be lodged in a certain
brick building, behind a certain white house near the old
barracks, and there maintained, at least during the ensuing
change and full of the moon, at the public expence. "
The next issue of the Gazette brought an answer from
"C. G. ", full of abuse and personalities; and he was an-
swered in kind by " Freeman " the following week. On the
afternoon of September 1, 1769, a general meeting of the
inhabitants of Charleston was held under Liberty Tree to
take counsel over the persistence of a few people in refusing
to sign the agreement. It was voted that the delinquents
should be given until September 7 to redeem themselves. 1
When that day arrived, handbills were distributed over the
city containing the names of all non-subscribers. It ap-
peared that, exclusive of crown officials, only thirty-one per-
sons had withheld their signatures. 8 Among the names pub-
lished were those of William Henry Drayton, William
Wragg and John Gordon. All three men hastened to issue
protests,* but the burden of the controversy clearly rested
1 5. C. Gaz. , Sept. 7, 1769; also N. Y. Gas. & Merc. , Oct. 30.
1 S'. C. Gas. , Sept . 14 1769; also N. Y. Gas. & Merc. , Oct. 30.
* Gordon announced that he had signed the early merchants' agree-
ment; but that in the profusion of agreements, attempted and signed,
? ?
Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:36 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 204 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
with the energetic and caustic pen of Drayton. Drayton
dwelt long and emphatically on the charge that the com-
mittee--" that Harlequin Medley Committee "--had vio-
lated the first principle of liberty while pretending to strive
for it. He denounced "the laying illegal Restraints upon
the free Wills of free Men, who have an undoubted Right
to think and act for themselves;" and he declared: "The
profanum vtdgus is a species of mankind which I respect as
I ought,--it is hwmani generis. --But I see no reason why I
should allow my opinion to be controlled by theirs. " *
Gadsden replied in an article bristling with insinuation
and disparagement. He maintained that the proceedings of
the association did not violate a single law of the land; and,
turning Drayton's own phrase, he held that freemen had a
right to associate to deal with whom they pleased. 2 The
mechanic members of the General Committee, aroused by
Drayton's supercilious allusions, expressed their gratifica-
tion in print that he had "been pleased to allow us a place
amongst human beings," and added reprovingly: "Every
man is not so lucky as to have a fortune ready provided to
his hand, either by his own or his wife's parents. " *
"Freeman" returned to the controversy in two more
articles, addressing himself largely to the task of refuting
Gadsden's assertion that the association did not violate the
law. He showed, to his own satisfaction, that the associa-
he would not be "bandyed from resolutions to resolutions" and,
moreover, he would not adopt a measure of which he disapproved.
S. C. Gas. , Sept. 14, 1769. Wragg wrote that he had not signed, be-
cause he did not believe in subscribing to an' agreement to starve him-
self; and he argued that the agreement would not accomplish the
end desired. Ibid. , Sept. 21.
1 Ibid. , Sept . a1, 1769; also Bos. Chrott. , Oct. 30.
? 5. C. Gas. , Sept. 28, 1769.
1 Ibid. , Oct. 5, 1769.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:36 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? NON-IMPORTATION 205
tion bore the legal character of a " confederacy" in that it
was a voluntary combination by bonds or promises to do
damage to innocent third parties, and that therefore the as-
sociators were punishable by law. 1 Gadsden now advanced
to a truly revolutionary position. Passing over the charges
of the illegal character of the association, and citing the his-
tory of England as his best justification, he affirmed that,
whenever the people's rights were invaded in an outrageous
fashion by a corrupt Parliament or an abandoned ministry,
mankind exerted "those latent, though inherent rights of
SOCIETY, which no climate, no time, no constitution, no
contract, can ever destroy or diminish;" that under such
circumstances petty men who cavilled at measures were
properly disregarded. 2
Drayton was precluded from seeking redress for his
injuries in a court of law, as a majority of the common
pleas judges were signers of the association and as the jury
would probably consist entirely of signers, also. On De-
cember 5, 1769, he therefore had recourse to the legislature;
but his petition was rejected by the lower house without a
reading. The petition was afterwards published;s it con-
tained a powerful summary of the arguments he had used
in the Gasette as well as eloquent evidence of the efficacy of
the boycott measures. He freely admitted that "his com-
modities which heretofore were of ready sale now remain
upon his hands," and that possible purchasers, as soon as
they learned of his ownership of the commodities, "im-
1 Ibid. , Oct. 12, 26, 1769. William Wragg, maintaining the same
point, argued that it did not follow that a number of persons as-
sociating together had a right to do what one man might do, and he
said that Parliament had acted on this doctrine in punishing tailors
for combinations to increase wages. Ibid. , Nov. 16.
1 "A Member of the General Committee," ibid. , Oct. 18, 1769.
1 Ibid. , Dec. 14, 1769; also Bos. Chron. , Jan. 11, 1770.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:36 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 206 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
mediately declined any further treaty for the purchase of
them, because of the Resolutions. " Realizing that he was
a beaten man, he sailed for England on January 3, 1770, in
a ship that, appropriately enough, carried goods outlawed
by the association. 1
A vigorous execution of the association at Charleston
was insured by the fact that two-thirds of the General Com-
mittee consisted of planters and mechanics, only one-third
being merchants and factors. So successful was the en-
forcement that a recountal of even the striking instances
would be tedious and purposeless. 8 The General Com-
mittee met regularly every Tuesday; subordinate to them
was a vigilant committee of inspection, which saw to the
storing of goods or their reshipment, as the importer pre-
ferred. 8 Almost every issue of the South Carolina Gasette
contained statements of the arrival of vessels and of the
transactions of the committee thereon. In only one in-
stance was the good faith of the committee impugned. Ann
and Benjamin Mathews having been publicly proscribed for
selling goods stored by them, Mrs. Mathews retorted, in a
printed article, that the goods had been ordered prior to the
association, that her son had given the promise to store
while she was lying very ill, and that stern necessity had
compelled her to open the goods. She charged that in-
dividual members of the committee, whom she named, had
been permitted to receive articles ordered before the associa-
tion had been adopted, and that in one or two instances their
articles had arrived after hers. The only difference between
her offense and that of Mr. Rutledge, who had recently
1S. C. Gas. , Jan. 4, 1770.
1 An interesting account may be found in McCrady, S. C. under
Royal Govt. , pp. 664-676.
*S. C. Co*. , Nov. 14, 1769.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:36 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? NON-IMPORTATION 207
imported two horses in consequence of an old order, was,
she averred, that he was a man who would not be trifled
with, while she was a poor widow living within two doors
of a leading man of the committee and thus in a position to
take a little cash from some of his customers. By way of
vindication, the committee was able to show that the im-
portations of the Mathews' had been purchased after copies
of the South Carolina Association had arrived in England,
a fact not obtaining in the other cases. A few months later,
the son appeared before the committee, acknowledged guilt
and heartfelt contrition, and promised to deliver all goods,
remaining unsold, into charge of the committee. 1
The provision for the immediate reshipment of slaves was
rigidly enforced. For instance, Captain Evans arrived on
May 2, 1770, from Africa with three hundred and forty-
five negroes; and after attending a public meeting held to
consider his case, he filled his casks and set sail with his
cargo for the more hospitable shores of Georgia. 2 It was
estimated by friends of non-importation that Great Britain
had lost not less than ? 300,000 sterling, at a moderate com-
putation, through the South Carolina regulations against
slave importation. 8 Some little difficulty was experienced
in preventing violations of the association at Georgetown
and Beaufort; but this was obviated when jommittees of
inspection were appointed there early in February, 1770. 4
Governor Bull wrote on December 6, 1769, to the home
government that "the people persevere under much in-
convenience to trade in the strict observance of the associa-
tion;" on March 6 following, that the royal officials who
1 5. C. & Am. Gen. Gas. , June 15, 1770; S. C. Gas. , May 31, June 28,
Oct. 4.
1 Ibid. , May 17, 1770.
"Ibid. , May 24, 1770.
4 Ibid. , Feb. 1, 1770.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:36 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 208 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
had declined the association " daily experience great losses
thereby, as Subscribers are forbidden to purchase Rice,
Indigo &c from non Subscribers;" and again on October
20, that the subscribers to the non-importation were " tak-
ing large strides to enforce the rigid observing of their
Resolutions" through "the vigilance and industry of the
leaders, whose impetuosity of behaviour and reproachful
language deter the moderate, the timid and the dependent. " *
Trade statistics substantiate this view of the situation:
English imports into the Carolinas dropped from ? 306,600
in 1769 to ? 146,273 in 1770. 2
Facts throwing light on the observance of non-importa-
tion in North Carolina are meager; but it would appear that
the_pjrovince-wide association, inaugurated by the assembly
in November, 1769, was generally ignored by the_mer-
chants. On June 2, 1770, a general meeting was called at
Wilm1ngton by the " Sons of Liberty" and was attended
by "many of the principal inhabitants of six large and
populous counties," mostly planters. The meeting agreed
to boycott and publish all who imported or purchased goods
contrary to the agreement. A letter, issued later by the
General Committee of the Sons of Liberty upon the Cape
Fear, expressed the hope that the merchants' " own interest
will convince them of the necessity of importing such
articles, and such only, as the planters will purchase. " Com-
mittees of inspection were established in the six counties,
and those for the towns of Wilmington and Brunswick
were instructed to use particular vigilance. 8 Thereafter,
the conditions of enforcement improved. The Cape Fear
Mercury of July n, 1770, presented some instances of the
1 Brit. Papers ("Sparks Mss. "), vol. ii, pp. 202, 206, 217.
1 Macpherson, Annals of Com. , vol. iii, pp. 494-495, 508.
tCape Fear Merc. , July 11, 1770; Connor, Harnett, pp. 55-56.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:36 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? NON-IMPORTATION 2Og
activity of the Wilmington Committee of Inspection, al-
though it admitted that some merchants were "daily pur-
chasing wines and many other articles" prohibited by the
agreement, a course of conduct which would surely lead to
the publication of their names. At the town of Newbern
no formal steps were taken to adopt an agreement; but it
was claimed in September, 1 770, that "the whole town
cannot now furnish a single pound of Bohea Tea," and that
"all the merchants here cannot produce for sale a single
yard of osnabrigs, negro cloth, coarse linens or scarcely
any European goods at all. " 1
In Georgia, {he non-importatiofl
been so reluctantly adopted, was speedily disregarded. 2
Attempts were made to introduce slaves overland into South
Carolina; but this clandestine trade was closely watched. *
On June 27, 1770, a general meeting of Charleston inhabi-
tants voted solemnly, without a dissenting voice, that
Georgia ought "to be amputated from the rest of their
brethren, as a rotten part that might spread a dangerous
infection," and
severed, pftfir frr""*1""! r1? ygVi> The desertion of Georgia
had no important results, since Georgia had no trading re-
lations of importance.
At first thought it may provoke surprise that thf TMnvf-
ment fQLJLJLeneral relaxation. jaf _ pQn_-jmpgrtatioQ_ should
he prgmnted by the merchants of two of the chief commercial
provinces. The merchants of the northern provinces were
certain to receive important material benefits from a repeal
1 S. C. Gas. & Coun. Journ. , Oct . 2, 1770.
'Brit. Papers (" Sparks Mss. "), vol. ii, p. 286.
? S. C. Gas. , May 17. 1770.
fore drafted; and on June 22, 1770, it was jointly adopted
by the members of the House of Burgesses and the merchant
body of Williamsburg. The new association was a lengthy
document which covered the essential points of the earlier
agreement. Several changes were made in the list of articles
enumerated for non-importation. A regulation was added
to boycott importers who defied the association or who
bought goods imported into Virginia because rejected in
other provinces; and a committee of inspection was au-
thorized for each county with instructions to publish the
names of all offenders. The association was signed by the
moderator, Peyton Randolph, by Andrew Sprowle, chairman
of the Williamsburg traders, and by one hundred and sixty-
six others. Copies of the association were sent to the coun-
ties for signing. 2 Only one or two attempts to enforce the
1Bland, Papers (Campbell, C. , ed. ), vol. i, pp. 28-30; Washington,
Writings (Ford), vol. ii, pp. 280-283.
? Pa. Gas. , July 12, 1770; also N. Y. Journ. , July 19. A copy, signed
by sixty-two inhabitants of Fairfax County, is in the Library of
Congress.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? NON-IMPORTATION Ig9
association were noted in the newspapers. In one instance,
Captain Spier of the Sharpe, whose conduct at Philadelphia
had caused his proscription, arrived at Norfolk to ply his
trade. Although the signers of the association took occa-
sion to express their belief that the landing or storing of his
goods would be an offense against the association, neverthe-
less the merchants, William and John Brown, received goods
from him and defied the local committee. In Rind's Vir-
ginia Gasette of August 2, 1770, the committee published the
facts of the affair, with the statement: "What is further
necessary to be done . . . is submitted to the Consideration
of the Virginia Associators. "
Considerably more pains were taken to enforce the as-
sociation jp Maryland and wifh greater success. The non-
importation combination in that province gained much
strength from the proximity of the Maryland ports to
Philadelphia and from the fact that non-importation had re-
ceived some local mercantile support from the beginning.
The number of native merchants was greater than in Vir-
ginia; and indeed Baltimore was showing indications of
becoming a commercial rival of Philadelphia. 1 The execu-
tion of the Maryland pact was jealously scrutinized by the
merchants at Philadelphia, and for a time the good faith
of the Baltimore merchants was suspected. This feeling
took definite shape in November, 1769, when the Baltimore
Committee of Merchants permitted two merchants to bring
in goods, valued at ? 2600, that violated the local agreement
of March 30. In the one case, the importer had satisfied a
meeting of associators that he had received a special exemp-
tion covering the fall shipments; and, in the other, it had
been shown that the goods were permitted by the general
Maryland association which postdated the local agreement.
1 Lincoln, Revolutionary Movement in Pa. , pp. 59-65.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 200 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
These occurrences brought a sharp letter from the Philadel-
phia Committee of Merchants, with an intimation that the
Marylanders were plotting to deflect trade from Phila-
delphia and a warning that their conduct would surely bring
on them a rigorous boycott. When they got further light,
however, the Philadelphia Committee freely admitted their
error and expressed pleasure at the upright conduct of Balti-
more. 1 In view of no evidence to the contrary, the mer-
chants of Baltimore seem to have merited this good opinion.
Thus, in May, 1770, a meeting of merchants refused to
permit a shipment, valued at ? 1292, to be landed. 2
In all Maryland, the best known case of enforcement was
that of the brigantine Good Intent at Annapolis in Febru-
ary, 1770. 8 Courts of law have seldom sat on cases involv-
ing nicer points of interpretation; and few better examples
could be found of the application of a rule of conduct
against the wish and interest of individuals. The Good
Intent arrived from London heavily laden with European
goods for a number of mercantile houses of Annapolis.
James Dick and Anthony Stewart, the largest importers and
respected merchants of the town, admitted that their own
shipment amounted to ? 1377, of which only ? 715 worth con-
sisted of articles permitted by the agreement. Believing
that the character of the importations was being widely
misunderstood, Dick & Stewart requested a joint meeting
1 Md. Gas. , Dec. 28, 1769; Papers of Phila. Merchants, pp. 45-47, 62-63.
1 Pa. Gas. , June 7, 1770; also N. Y. Journ. , June 7.
1 The Proceedings of the Committee Appointed to examine . . .
Brigantine Good Intent . . . (Annapolis, 1770), reprinted in Md. Hist.
Mag. , vol. iii, pp. 141-157, 240-256, 342-363; statement of minority of
this committee in Md. Gas. , Apr. 19, 1770. An abstract of the pam-
phlet was published in ibid. , Feb. 14, and copied into N. Y. Journ. , Mch.
8. Vide also Governor Eden's correspondence with reference to this
affair in 4 M. H. S. Colls. , vol. x, pp. 621-626.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:36 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? NON-IMPORTATION 2OI
of the committees of the counties of Baltimore, Prince
George and Anne Arundel to render judgment in the matter,
and agreed that no goods should be removed from the
vessel for twelve days after its arrival. Before this joint
committee a vast mass of evidence was laid by the various
importers, consisting of correspondence, manifests, invoices,
shop-notes, bills of lading and other papers. After careful
consideration, "Abundant and satisfactory Proofs " 1 made
it clear that the importers had ordered their goods before
any association had been formed in Maryland; but the com-
mittee held that, long since, the orders had properly become
"dead," because of the protracted delay of the London
shipper in sending the goods after hearing of the Maryland
Association, and because of countermanding orders in other
cases. The shipper's belated performance of his orders was
attributed to his "ungenerous Principle . . . in trumping
up old Orders to colour a premeditated Design to subvert
the Association. " Therefore, the committee resolved that
merchandise debarred by the association should not be
landed, and that, as the allowable articles were packed in
with them, no goods at all should be landed. The im-
porters made several pointed protests, emphasizing that they
had not violated the letter of the association and that many
practical difficulties lay in the way of returning the goods.
Nevertheless, they were forced to yield; and the Good
Intent with all goods on board sailed for London on Tues-
day, February 27. The principle upon which the committee
acted was that, if the present cargo were admitted, " every
Merchant in London, trading to this Province, might send
in any quantities of Goods he pleased, under Orders that he
must in Course of Business have refused to comply with. "
Although Baltimore and Annapolis were the chief trading
1 The committee's own expression.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:36 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 202 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
centres, committees of inspection were established through-
out the province; and a number of instances of enforcement
were noted in the newspapers. 1
The efforts to execute the non-importation association at
Charleston. South Carolina, developed a situation which
"Contained some unusual features. Sam Adams has been
said to have had his counterpart in Chris Gadsden of South
Carolina. Likewise, it may be said that the course of Wil-
liam Henry Drayton at this period reflected the stormy
career of John Mein. Dravton was a young man scarce
twenty-seven, a gentleman of independent wealth. Fear-
less, hotblooded, and of brilliant parts, he was by nature a
conservative. His later conversion to the radical cause has
been attributed to personal ambition, but can be more rightly
ascribed to his intense Americanism and to a change of
British policy in 1774 that outraged his sense of justice
as deeply as the situation he faced in 1769. Drayton was
the foremost adversary cf non-importation in South Caro-
lina; and unlike John Mein, his tendency was to place his
opposition on legal and constitutional grounds, although he
indulged in furious abuse upon occasion. Whether he
knew of Mein or not is uncertain; but Mein knew of him
and copied some of his most effective strictures into the
columns of the Boston Chronicle.
Drayton opened the attack in an article in the $a1dh
Carolina (fazetff. August 3, 1769, under the signature
"Free-man. " Centering his attention on the clause of the
association which proscribed all persons who failed to at-
tach their signatures within one month, he likened it to " the
Popish method of gaining converts to their religion by fire
and faggot. To stigmatize a man . . . with the infamous
1 Particularly in the counties of Prince George, St. Mary's, Talbot
and Charles. Md. Gos. , Apr. 12, May 24, July 12, 1770; Pa. Gas. , Nov.
30, 1769.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:36 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? NON-IMPORTATION 203
name of an enemy to his country can be legally done by no
authority but by that of the voice of the Legislature. " Of
Gadsden he declared, in a transparent allusion, "this man
who sets up for a patriot and pretends to be a friend to
Liberty, scruples not, like Cromwell, who was the patriot
of his day, to break through and overthrow her fundamental
laws, while he declared he would support and defend them
all, and to endeavour to enslave his fellow-subjects, while
he avowed that he only contended for the preservation of
their liberties. " Doubtful as to whether this patriot were
"a traitor or madman," he proposed that, to avoid any ill
consequences of his disorder, " he may be lodged in a certain
brick building, behind a certain white house near the old
barracks, and there maintained, at least during the ensuing
change and full of the moon, at the public expence. "
The next issue of the Gazette brought an answer from
"C. G. ", full of abuse and personalities; and he was an-
swered in kind by " Freeman " the following week. On the
afternoon of September 1, 1769, a general meeting of the
inhabitants of Charleston was held under Liberty Tree to
take counsel over the persistence of a few people in refusing
to sign the agreement. It was voted that the delinquents
should be given until September 7 to redeem themselves. 1
When that day arrived, handbills were distributed over the
city containing the names of all non-subscribers. It ap-
peared that, exclusive of crown officials, only thirty-one per-
sons had withheld their signatures. 8 Among the names pub-
lished were those of William Henry Drayton, William
Wragg and John Gordon. All three men hastened to issue
protests,* but the burden of the controversy clearly rested
1 5. C. Gaz. , Sept. 7, 1769; also N. Y. Gas. & Merc. , Oct. 30.
1 S'. C. Gas. , Sept . 14 1769; also N. Y. Gas. & Merc. , Oct. 30.
* Gordon announced that he had signed the early merchants' agree-
ment; but that in the profusion of agreements, attempted and signed,
? ?
Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:36 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 204 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
with the energetic and caustic pen of Drayton. Drayton
dwelt long and emphatically on the charge that the com-
mittee--" that Harlequin Medley Committee "--had vio-
lated the first principle of liberty while pretending to strive
for it. He denounced "the laying illegal Restraints upon
the free Wills of free Men, who have an undoubted Right
to think and act for themselves;" and he declared: "The
profanum vtdgus is a species of mankind which I respect as
I ought,--it is hwmani generis. --But I see no reason why I
should allow my opinion to be controlled by theirs. " *
Gadsden replied in an article bristling with insinuation
and disparagement. He maintained that the proceedings of
the association did not violate a single law of the land; and,
turning Drayton's own phrase, he held that freemen had a
right to associate to deal with whom they pleased. 2 The
mechanic members of the General Committee, aroused by
Drayton's supercilious allusions, expressed their gratifica-
tion in print that he had "been pleased to allow us a place
amongst human beings," and added reprovingly: "Every
man is not so lucky as to have a fortune ready provided to
his hand, either by his own or his wife's parents. " *
"Freeman" returned to the controversy in two more
articles, addressing himself largely to the task of refuting
Gadsden's assertion that the association did not violate the
law. He showed, to his own satisfaction, that the associa-
he would not be "bandyed from resolutions to resolutions" and,
moreover, he would not adopt a measure of which he disapproved.
S. C. Gas. , Sept. 14, 1769. Wragg wrote that he had not signed, be-
cause he did not believe in subscribing to an' agreement to starve him-
self; and he argued that the agreement would not accomplish the
end desired. Ibid. , Sept. 21.
1 Ibid. , Sept . a1, 1769; also Bos. Chrott. , Oct. 30.
? 5. C. Gas. , Sept. 28, 1769.
1 Ibid. , Oct. 5, 1769.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:36 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? NON-IMPORTATION 205
tion bore the legal character of a " confederacy" in that it
was a voluntary combination by bonds or promises to do
damage to innocent third parties, and that therefore the as-
sociators were punishable by law. 1 Gadsden now advanced
to a truly revolutionary position. Passing over the charges
of the illegal character of the association, and citing the his-
tory of England as his best justification, he affirmed that,
whenever the people's rights were invaded in an outrageous
fashion by a corrupt Parliament or an abandoned ministry,
mankind exerted "those latent, though inherent rights of
SOCIETY, which no climate, no time, no constitution, no
contract, can ever destroy or diminish;" that under such
circumstances petty men who cavilled at measures were
properly disregarded. 2
Drayton was precluded from seeking redress for his
injuries in a court of law, as a majority of the common
pleas judges were signers of the association and as the jury
would probably consist entirely of signers, also. On De-
cember 5, 1769, he therefore had recourse to the legislature;
but his petition was rejected by the lower house without a
reading. The petition was afterwards published;s it con-
tained a powerful summary of the arguments he had used
in the Gasette as well as eloquent evidence of the efficacy of
the boycott measures. He freely admitted that "his com-
modities which heretofore were of ready sale now remain
upon his hands," and that possible purchasers, as soon as
they learned of his ownership of the commodities, "im-
1 Ibid. , Oct. 12, 26, 1769. William Wragg, maintaining the same
point, argued that it did not follow that a number of persons as-
sociating together had a right to do what one man might do, and he
said that Parliament had acted on this doctrine in punishing tailors
for combinations to increase wages. Ibid. , Nov. 16.
1 "A Member of the General Committee," ibid. , Oct. 18, 1769.
1 Ibid. , Dec. 14, 1769; also Bos. Chron. , Jan. 11, 1770.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:36 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 206 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
mediately declined any further treaty for the purchase of
them, because of the Resolutions. " Realizing that he was
a beaten man, he sailed for England on January 3, 1770, in
a ship that, appropriately enough, carried goods outlawed
by the association. 1
A vigorous execution of the association at Charleston
was insured by the fact that two-thirds of the General Com-
mittee consisted of planters and mechanics, only one-third
being merchants and factors. So successful was the en-
forcement that a recountal of even the striking instances
would be tedious and purposeless. 8 The General Com-
mittee met regularly every Tuesday; subordinate to them
was a vigilant committee of inspection, which saw to the
storing of goods or their reshipment, as the importer pre-
ferred. 8 Almost every issue of the South Carolina Gasette
contained statements of the arrival of vessels and of the
transactions of the committee thereon. In only one in-
stance was the good faith of the committee impugned. Ann
and Benjamin Mathews having been publicly proscribed for
selling goods stored by them, Mrs. Mathews retorted, in a
printed article, that the goods had been ordered prior to the
association, that her son had given the promise to store
while she was lying very ill, and that stern necessity had
compelled her to open the goods. She charged that in-
dividual members of the committee, whom she named, had
been permitted to receive articles ordered before the associa-
tion had been adopted, and that in one or two instances their
articles had arrived after hers. The only difference between
her offense and that of Mr. Rutledge, who had recently
1S. C. Gas. , Jan. 4, 1770.
1 An interesting account may be found in McCrady, S. C. under
Royal Govt. , pp. 664-676.
*S. C. Co*. , Nov. 14, 1769.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:36 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? NON-IMPORTATION 207
imported two horses in consequence of an old order, was,
she averred, that he was a man who would not be trifled
with, while she was a poor widow living within two doors
of a leading man of the committee and thus in a position to
take a little cash from some of his customers. By way of
vindication, the committee was able to show that the im-
portations of the Mathews' had been purchased after copies
of the South Carolina Association had arrived in England,
a fact not obtaining in the other cases. A few months later,
the son appeared before the committee, acknowledged guilt
and heartfelt contrition, and promised to deliver all goods,
remaining unsold, into charge of the committee. 1
The provision for the immediate reshipment of slaves was
rigidly enforced. For instance, Captain Evans arrived on
May 2, 1770, from Africa with three hundred and forty-
five negroes; and after attending a public meeting held to
consider his case, he filled his casks and set sail with his
cargo for the more hospitable shores of Georgia. 2 It was
estimated by friends of non-importation that Great Britain
had lost not less than ? 300,000 sterling, at a moderate com-
putation, through the South Carolina regulations against
slave importation. 8 Some little difficulty was experienced
in preventing violations of the association at Georgetown
and Beaufort; but this was obviated when jommittees of
inspection were appointed there early in February, 1770. 4
Governor Bull wrote on December 6, 1769, to the home
government that "the people persevere under much in-
convenience to trade in the strict observance of the associa-
tion;" on March 6 following, that the royal officials who
1 5. C. & Am. Gen. Gas. , June 15, 1770; S. C. Gas. , May 31, June 28,
Oct. 4.
1 Ibid. , May 17, 1770.
"Ibid. , May 24, 1770.
4 Ibid. , Feb. 1, 1770.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:36 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 208 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
had declined the association " daily experience great losses
thereby, as Subscribers are forbidden to purchase Rice,
Indigo &c from non Subscribers;" and again on October
20, that the subscribers to the non-importation were " tak-
ing large strides to enforce the rigid observing of their
Resolutions" through "the vigilance and industry of the
leaders, whose impetuosity of behaviour and reproachful
language deter the moderate, the timid and the dependent. " *
Trade statistics substantiate this view of the situation:
English imports into the Carolinas dropped from ? 306,600
in 1769 to ? 146,273 in 1770. 2
Facts throwing light on the observance of non-importa-
tion in North Carolina are meager; but it would appear that
the_pjrovince-wide association, inaugurated by the assembly
in November, 1769, was generally ignored by the_mer-
chants. On June 2, 1770, a general meeting was called at
Wilm1ngton by the " Sons of Liberty" and was attended
by "many of the principal inhabitants of six large and
populous counties," mostly planters. The meeting agreed
to boycott and publish all who imported or purchased goods
contrary to the agreement. A letter, issued later by the
General Committee of the Sons of Liberty upon the Cape
Fear, expressed the hope that the merchants' " own interest
will convince them of the necessity of importing such
articles, and such only, as the planters will purchase. " Com-
mittees of inspection were established in the six counties,
and those for the towns of Wilmington and Brunswick
were instructed to use particular vigilance. 8 Thereafter,
the conditions of enforcement improved. The Cape Fear
Mercury of July n, 1770, presented some instances of the
1 Brit. Papers ("Sparks Mss. "), vol. ii, pp. 202, 206, 217.
1 Macpherson, Annals of Com. , vol. iii, pp. 494-495, 508.
tCape Fear Merc. , July 11, 1770; Connor, Harnett, pp. 55-56.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:36 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? NON-IMPORTATION 2Og
activity of the Wilmington Committee of Inspection, al-
though it admitted that some merchants were "daily pur-
chasing wines and many other articles" prohibited by the
agreement, a course of conduct which would surely lead to
the publication of their names. At the town of Newbern
no formal steps were taken to adopt an agreement; but it
was claimed in September, 1 770, that "the whole town
cannot now furnish a single pound of Bohea Tea," and that
"all the merchants here cannot produce for sale a single
yard of osnabrigs, negro cloth, coarse linens or scarcely
any European goods at all. " 1
In Georgia, {he non-importatiofl
been so reluctantly adopted, was speedily disregarded. 2
Attempts were made to introduce slaves overland into South
Carolina; but this clandestine trade was closely watched. *
On June 27, 1770, a general meeting of Charleston inhabi-
tants voted solemnly, without a dissenting voice, that
Georgia ought "to be amputated from the rest of their
brethren, as a rotten part that might spread a dangerous
infection," and
severed, pftfir frr""*1""! r1? ygVi> The desertion of Georgia
had no important results, since Georgia had no trading re-
lations of importance.
At first thought it may provoke surprise that thf TMnvf-
ment fQLJLJLeneral relaxation. jaf _ pQn_-jmpgrtatioQ_ should
he prgmnted by the merchants of two of the chief commercial
provinces. The merchants of the northern provinces were
certain to receive important material benefits from a repeal
1 S. C. Gas. & Coun. Journ. , Oct . 2, 1770.
'Brit. Papers (" Sparks Mss. "), vol. ii, p. 286.
? S. C. Gas. , May 17. 1770.
