On April 6, without
allusion
to political independence, the
fateful step was taken.
fateful step was taken.
Arthur Schlesinger - Colonial Merchants and the American Revolution
, vol.
iii, p.
264.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:37 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 574
THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
plicated the problem of enforcement for the committees.
Thus, in February, 1776, a representation was made to
Congress by the Philadelphia committee that vessels were
loading with produce for Great Britain, Ireland and the
British West Indies. Congress appointed a committee to
examine into the circumstances and then permitted them to
sail as being within the terms of the congressional resolu-
tion of July IS-1
Recorded instances of enforcement are not many. The
Newcastle, Del. , committee compelled the Peace and Plenty,
which had arrived from Belfast on September 8, to make
her return voyage in ballast. 8 Arthur Upshur, of Accomack
County, Va. , was held up to the public by the county com-
mittee for having sent a cargo of grain to the West Indies
after the tenth. 8 The Georgians came under the criticism
of the South Carolina council of safety for their apparent
laxness in enforcing non-exportation; * nevertheless, it is a
matter of record that more than five thousand barrels of
rice, which Governor Wright had prepared for exportation
in 1775, were withheld from shipment through their zeal. 5
Very illuminating was the statement, made by Robert
Haliday, customs collector at Charleston, S. C, that by the
non-importation regulation the emoluments of his office had
been greatly reduced, and by the non-exportation regulation
"entirely annihilated. " ? Thomas Clifford, the Philadel-
phia merchant, wrote on October 25, 1775, that he was lay-
ing up his ships as fast as they came in, "there being no
1 Journals, vol. iv, pp. 172-173, 183.
2 Pa. Journ. , Sept. 27, 1775; also 4 Am. Arch. , vol. iii, p. 726.
1 Ibid. , voL iii, p. 935; Jefferson, Writings (Ford), vol. ii, pp. 118-119.
4White, Ca. Hist. Co/fr, pp. 86-87; Ga. Rev. Recs. , vol. i, pp. 89,
108, III-J12.
* Loyalist Claims Transcripts, vol. xxxiv, p. 91.
? Ibid. , vol. Iv, pp. 359-360.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:37 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? TRANSFORMATION OF THE ASSOCIATION
575
Prospect of Employ abroad worth sending them to seek in
ballast," that most people were doing the same thing, and
that " this Port and we believe all the others along the Con-
tinent have been strictly kept shut from the Exportation of
Produce agreeable to the Congress Resolves. " * Indeed,
there is no reason to believe that the non-exportation regu-
lation was otherwise than well kept.
For a period of four months, beginning November I,
1775, the partial non-exportation established by the Conti-
nental Association, was converted into a total non-exporta-
tion by resolution of the Continental Congress. This de-
cision was the outcome of warm debates in Congress and
was determined upon in face of a determined effort to
secure the exemption of tobacco and lumber from its terms
and in spite of Robert R. Livingston's insistence that the
non-exportation policy be abandoned instead of extended. 2
Edward Rutledge of South Carolina advocated the resolu-
tion that passed as the only absolutely certain way of keep-
ing exports from British ports and as the most effective way
to promote domestic manufacturing. The purpose animat-
ing the majority was probably the desire to prevent food
supplies from reaching the enemy through capture by the
British warships off the coast. 1 The resolution of Novem-
ber I provided that no produce of the United Colonies
should be exported until March 1, excepting only licensed
shipments for military supplies or for any other purpose
designated by Congress. 4
1 Correspondence, vol. xxix, Oct. 25, 1775.
1 Adams, J. , Works, vol. ii, pp. 453-456, 483-484-
1 Cf. Journals, vol. ii, p. 201.
4 Ibid. , vol. iii, p. 314.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:37 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? CHAPTER XV
TRANSFORMATION OF THE ASSOCIATION (Continued)
THE early months of 1776 witnessed further notable
modifications of the Continental Association. The four
months of total non-exportation had the effect of aggravat-
ing the distresses of the mercantile and agrarian interests
dependent upon the export trade for profit; it also gave
momentum and direction to the sentiment, that had long
been entertained by radicals of the doctrinaire school, for
an entire freedom of trade with the nations of the world.
As early as July 21, 1775, the committee of the Continental
Congress appointed to devise ways and means of protecting
colonial commerce had submitted a report to the effect that
all ports in the United Colonies should on January 20, 1776,
be declared thenceforth "open to the ships of every state
in Europe that will admit our commerce and protect it. " 1
The series of resolutions, the first of which was passed on
July 15, had sanctioned smuggling with foreign countries
for the purpose of procuring munitions; the committee's
proposition was far more comprehensive and revolutionary,
nothing less than that the acts of trade and the famous
navigation act should be repudiated and that trade should
be opened with foreign nations in foreign or domestic ves-
sels. The committee's report was postponed from time to
time for further consideration; but in every debate on trade
1 Journals Cont. Cong. , vol. ii, pp. 200-201. It would appear that reso-
lutions covering this matter were submitted by both Dr. Franklin and
Richard Henry Lee.
576
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:37 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? TRANSFORMATION OF THE ASSOCIATION 577
conditions from that time forward, allusion was almost in-
variably made to the proposal as a desirable or unacceptable
or desperate alternative.
On August 26, 1775, a member of the Continental Con-
gress hazarded the opinion in a private letter that in the
course of the coming winter Congress would adopt the
measure, adding: "Whether that will not be one means of
dissolving our connections entirely with Great Britain, I
shall leave to wiser heads to determine. " 1 During the
month of October the matter came up again for active dis-
cussion in Congress; but when a decision was reached to
establish a general non-exportation until March 1, 1776, in-
terest again waned, and it was not until it became necessary
to determine what the status of trade should be after that
date that the discussion was renewed, in the weeks after
Christmas Day, 1775.
The chief opposition to opening trade with the world
came from the members who wished to safeguard such
American shipping as still remained and from those mem-
bers who saw in the measure a virtual declaration of inde-
pendence. 2 Willing of Philadelphia, shipowner as well as
exporter, emphasized the fact that the profits of carrying
would go to foreigners. "Carriage is an amazing revenue,"
he declared. "Holland and England have derived their
maritime power from their carriage. " Likewise, Johnson
of Maryland pointed out shrewdly that the measure, while
injuring the merchant and shipbuilder, would leave the far-
mer unscathed. "The grower, the farmer, gets the same,
let who will be the exporter," he declared, "but the com-
munity does not. The shipwright, rope-maker, hemp-
grower, all shipbuilders, the profits of the merchant, are all
1 4 Am. Arch. , vol. iii, pp. 435-436.
* The October debates are summarized in Adams, J. , Works (Adams),
vol. ii, pp. 452-457. 469-483.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:37 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 578 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
lost, if foreigners are our sole carriers, as well as seamen. "
Chase of Maryland asserted that he had not absolutely
abandoned all hope of reconciliation, and until that time
came he would oppose a free trade with foreign nations.
Zubly of Georgia declared that there was no assurance that
the world would trade with the Americans and the measure
gave the appearance of a design to separate from England.
The chief speakers on the other side were Lee and Wythe
of Virginia, Gadsden of South Carolina, and the Adamses
of Massachusetts. The point that they stressed in the early
stages of the discussion was that, lacking a navy, the colo-
nists were in danger of being cut off from the world by the
British warships, whereas foreign nations would come in
and protect their own vessels engaged in American trade. 1
On January 20, 1776, the Virginia delegates were instructed
by the Virginia provincial convention to use their endeavors
to have such a measure adopted. 2 It soon became apparent
in Congress that the whole matter was intimately related to
the question of political independence. As Sherman of
Connecticut asserted on February 16: "A treaty with a
foreign power is necessary, before we open our trade, to
protect it;" and Wythe completed the thought when he
said that, to accomplish this, "we must declare ourselves a
free people. " * John Adams wrote later in his autobiog-
raphy: "This measure of opening the ports, &c, labored
exceedingly because it was considered a bold step to inde-
pendence. Indeed, I urged it expressly with that view, and
as connected with the institution of government in all the
States, and a declaration of national independence. The
party against me had an art and influence as yet to evade,
1 Adams, J. , Works, vol. ii, pp. 453, 454, 456, 485-486.
1 Dixon & Hunter's Va. Gas. , Apr. 13, 1776.
1 Adams, J, Works, vol. ii, pp. 485-486.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:37 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? TRANSFORMATION OF THE ASSOCIATION 579
retard, and delay every motion that we made. Many mo-
tions were made and argued at great length, and with great
spirit on both sides, which are not to be found in the Jour-
nals. " 1
On March 1 the period of total non-exportation expired,
and the partial non-exportation that had subsisted prior to
November, 1775, became effective again. In the weeks im-
mediately following, it became evident that the merchants'
stocks, acquired in the days before the non-importation
regulation, were approaching depletion. There was a grow-
ing scarcity of goods, which exceedingly distressed the poor
and, in view of the inadequate supply of domestic manu-
factures, made imperative the opening of trade with foreign
nations. It was argued also that such a freedom of com-
merce would attract specie to the colonies and serve to check
the depreciation of the continental currency. On April 2
the Philadelphia committee of inspection was asked to
bring these facts to the attention of the Continental Con-
gress, in an address from the Committee of Privates of the
local Military Association, signed by the retailer, William
Adcock, as president. 2
An added incentive to the adoption of drastic measures
of relief was the news, that had arrived at Philadelphia on
February 26, that Parliament had enacted that after' Jan-
uary 1, 1776, all American vessels found on the coast of
the British Isles were to be seized and confiscated; all Amer-
ican vessels sailing into and out of American ports after
March 1 were to be seized and confiscated; and all foreign
vessels trading to America after June I were to be seized.
The colonies were to be isolated from the world, save such
districts as would make submission. 8 On the day following
1 Adams, J. , Works, vol. iii, p. 29.
1 Pa. Eve. Post, Apr. 4, 1776.
? 16 George III, c. 5. '
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:38 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 580 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
the arrival of the news a Maryland member of Congress,
who had often reprobated the idea of independence both in
public and private, wrote: "What measures Congress may
pursue in consequence of this act, I know not. With me,
every idea of reconciliation is precluded by the conduct of
Great Britain; and the only alternative, absolute slavery or
independency. " J
The public prints were meantime urging the opening of
commerce as a measure conditioned by a declaration of in-
dependence. 2 But Congress, fearing the potency of an ill-
timed phrase, preferred to do the seemingly illogical thing.
On April 6, without allusion to political independence, the
fateful step was taken. It was then provided that any
goods and wares, except staves and empty casks under cer-
tain conditions, might be exported from the United Colo-
nies, in colonial or foreign vessels, to any parts of the world
not under dominion of Great Britain; and that any goods
and merchandise might be imported into the United Colo-
nies in like fashion, except articles produced in or shipped
from British possessions, East India tea, and slaves. It
was further provided that all merchandise and wares im-
ported into the United Colonies directly or indirectly from
Great Britain or Ireland contrary to the regulations of Con-
gress should be forfeited and disposed of under rules made
by the several assemblies. 8
After this event a declaration of political independence,
however great its sentimental importance, was a mere for-
mality. The Adamses, for example, appreciated this fully
and it gave them good occasion for exultation. Not only
has Congress raised armies and a navy, fought battles and
1Robert Alexander; 4 Am. Arch. , vol. iv, pp. 1507-1508.
1 Ibid. , vol. iv, pp. 470-473, 527-530, 920-922, 1141-1144; vol. v, pp. 225-
227, 860-862, 918-919, 921-926.
* Journals, vol. iv, pp. 257-259.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:38 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? TRANSFORMATION OF THE ASSOCIATION 581
commissioned privateers against the British, wrote Sam
Adams to a congenial spirit, but now we have "torn into
Shivers their Acts of Trade, by allowing Commerce subject
to Regulations to be made by our selves with the People of
all Countries but such as are Subjects of the British King. " 1
The nullification of the acts of trade and navigation was
followed by the introduction of two other important changes
in the Continental Association, one relating to the provision
for the non-consumption of tea, the other dealing with the
regulation of prices. Both changes represented concessions
to the merchants who had not yet detached themselves from
the radical cause. With reference to the first, it should be
recalled that Article iii had provided for the total disuse of
tea, smuggled as well as dutied, after March 1, 1775. This
prohibition expressed a real protest against tea drinking on
hygienic grounds, but it had obtained its widest support be-
cause of the impracticability of distinguishing between Eng-
lish dutied tea and Dutch undutied tea and because of the
desire to refute the charge that the tea smugglers had insti-
gated the uprising against British measures.
In the spring months of 1775 little difficulty had been
experienced by the committees of observation in enforcing
the prohibition; but by midsummer, cases of violation began
to become numerous. Thus, the committee at Providence,
R. I. , forced the recantation of the tea dealer, Nathan
Angell, in October and seized such of his stock as remained
unsold; but they admitted that they had reason to suspect,
from the frequent complaints of country people, that some
dealers in Providence still continued the practice. 2 It was
openly asserted in Congress in September that ninety-nine
1To Joseph Hawley, Apr. 15, 1776; Adams, S. , Writings (Cushing),
vol. iii, pp. 279-280.
1 4 Am. Arch. , vol. iii, pp. 975-976.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:38 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? Sg2 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
out of one hundred in New York drank tea, although this
was obviously an exaggeration. 1 A persistent tea seller at
Reading, Pa. , was tarred and feathered and ridden on a
horse with his face to the tail, " to the great diversion of the
inhabitants who, I believe, hardly ever beheld a more ridic-
ulous figure. " 2
The truth was, as the Continental Congress was at length
forced to admit, that the period allowed by the Continental
Association for the consumption of tea, which was then in
stock, was too short, " whereby many zealous friends to the
American cause, who had imported large quantities of that
commodity, with design not merely to advance their for-
tunes, but to counteract the plan then pursued by the min-
istry and India company to introduce and sell in these colo-
nies tea subject to duty, are likely to become great suffer-
ers; the greater part of the estates of many of them being
vested in that article, anS they, by that means, rendered in-
capable not only of paying their debts and maintaining their
families, but also of vigorously exerting themselves in the
service of their country. " *
Great pressure was brought to bear upon Congress to
permit the sale of such teas as had been imported before
Article iii of the Association became effective. Alexander
McDougall of New York urged the matter on the attention
of Richard Henry Lee, a member of Congress, in a letter
of June 5, 1775; but the latter replied that, although such
suffering was to be found in all the provinces, "Should
Congress determine to admit the sale and the use of what
1 Adams, J. , Works, vol. ii, p. 447.
1 Pa. Merc. , Oct. 20, 1775. For other examples, vide 4 Am. Arch. ,
vol. ii, pp. 920, 1678; vol. iii, pp. 729, 937-938; Pa. Journ. , May 17, I77S:
Conn. Cour. , Apr. 8, 1776.
* Preamble to the congressional resolution of Apr. 13, 1776; Journals,
vol. iv, pp. 277-278.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:38 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? TRANSFORMATION OF THE ASSOCIATION 583
tea is on hand, may not bad men take the advantage of the
impossibility of distinguishing this from newly imported
Tea . . . ? "' The New York provincial congress, in a
letter to the New York delegates at the Continental Con-
gress on July 28, declared that the smuggling merchants had
so much capital tied up in unsalable Dutch teas that they
were deprived of the means of introducing into the prov-
ince Dutch textiles and munitions, which were badly needed.
The delegates were therefore instructed to urge Congress
to authorize the sale of teas in stock, at a fixed price, with
a tax of one shilling imposed as a penalty on " the obstinate
consumers. " *
On July 31, 1775, the question of renewing the sale of
teas was formally presented to Congress in the form of two
petitions, one from sundry New York merchants and the
other from sundry merchants of Philadelphia. Due to the
pressure of other business, the matter did not receive con-
sideration for some months. Finally, on November 28, the
petitions were rejected. * The matter did not rest here, the
Maryland delegates receiving instructions from their pro-
vincial convention to press Congress to permit the consump-
tion of all teas imported before February 1, 1775. The
subject was debated for two days in mid-January, 1776,
with Dr. Franklin and Thomas Lynch as the chief oppo-
sition speakers, and was finally lost by a vote of seven
provinces to five. 4
Meantime it became increasingly evident that the prohibi-
1 Lee, R. H. , Letters (Ballagh), vol. t, pp. 143-144.
'4 Am. Arch. , vol. ii, p. 1805. For the reply of the delegates vide
ibid. , vol. iii, p. 750.
'Journals, vol. ii, p. 235; vol. iii, pp. 294, 298, 388-389.
* The negative provinces were New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Delaware and Maryland. 4 Am. Arch. , vol. iv, p. 887; Am. Hist. Rev. ,
vol. i, pp. 308, 309.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:38 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
tion of tea drinking was serving no useful purpose and was,
on the other hand, fomenting divisions within radical ranks.
"Whenever the reason of any law ceases," declared "Aescu-
lapius," "the law ceases . . . whether the law is in a
formal manner repealed or not;" and he added: "If we
should drink tea three times a day, we shall not be taxed for
it to Great-Britain--no one can import it from there while
we remain in our present situation. " * Congress yielded to
the increasing pressure finally on April 13, one week after
trade had been opened with foreign nations. They voted
that all teas imported before December 1, 1774, should be
placed on sale, except such as had been imported by the East
India Company. To guard against excessive prices, it was
provided that Bohea tea should not retail at more than
three-fourths of a dollar a pound and that the prices of
other teas should be fixed by the local committees. 5
In somewhat similar fashion, the provisions of the Asso-
ciation for maintaining the customary level of prices had,
after the first year of the non-importation, become increas-
ingly difficult to administer. In the plantation provinces
the chief trouble was found in regulating the price of salt.
That commodity was of essential importance as being prac-
tically the only preservative of meat and fish; and the
supply in the South had nearly reached the point of exhaus-
tion by the autumn following the cessation of importation.
Beginning in the spring of 1775, the provincial conventions
of Virginia, Maryland and the Carolinas offered pecuniary
inducements to private individuals who would undertake the
manufacture of salt. 8 The people in the uplands of Vir-
1 Conn. Cour. , Apr. 8, 1776.
* Teas found in the cargo of prizes were also permitted to be sold.
Journals, vol. iv, pp. 277-278.
1Virginia, Mch. 27; Maryland, Aug. 14; North Carolina, Sept. 10;
and South Carolina, Nov. 28; Smith, C. S. , "Scarcity of Salt in the
Revolutionary War," / M. H. S. Procs. , vol. xv, pp. 221-227.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:38 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? TRANSFORMATION OF THE ASSOCIATION -85
ginia, suffering from the great scarcity, did not hesitate on
several occasions to descend upon some of the tidewater
merchants and seize such salt as they could lay hands on. 1
The local committees in these provinces did what they
could to prevent the inevitable rise in prices. For example,
in August, 1775, the Surry County committee in Virginia
published Robert Kennon, a factor, for advancing the price
from 2s. 6d. per bushel to 3s. 2 In November the Baltimore
County, Md. , committee established a maximum price for
salt, and authorized past purchasers of salt to collect from
dealers any money charged beyond that amount. 8 Such
treatment, however, did not penetrate to the source of the
trouble; so, on December 29, 1775, the Continental Con-
gress took measures to afford relief. Virginia, Maryland
and North Carolina, where the need was greatest, were
authorized to import as much salt from any foreign coun-
try as their conventions or committees of safety might
think necessary and to export produce therefor. 4 The con-
ventions of all the continental provinces were urged to
offer bounties for salt making. Most of the provinces acted
upon this advice in the following year. 0
At the leading northern ports and in the rural districts
which were their markets, the regulation of prices had
created more or less trouble from the beginning of non-
importation. 3 The cause of high prices in the early months
had been the greed of forestallers and monopolists; nor did
the city committees always take prompt action in such cases,
especially if the articles in question were not widely used or
1 Pinkney's Va. Gas. , Dec. 6, 1775.
1 Ibid. , Aug. 22, 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
? 574
THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
plicated the problem of enforcement for the committees.
Thus, in February, 1776, a representation was made to
Congress by the Philadelphia committee that vessels were
loading with produce for Great Britain, Ireland and the
British West Indies. Congress appointed a committee to
examine into the circumstances and then permitted them to
sail as being within the terms of the congressional resolu-
tion of July IS-1
Recorded instances of enforcement are not many. The
Newcastle, Del. , committee compelled the Peace and Plenty,
which had arrived from Belfast on September 8, to make
her return voyage in ballast. 8 Arthur Upshur, of Accomack
County, Va. , was held up to the public by the county com-
mittee for having sent a cargo of grain to the West Indies
after the tenth. 8 The Georgians came under the criticism
of the South Carolina council of safety for their apparent
laxness in enforcing non-exportation; * nevertheless, it is a
matter of record that more than five thousand barrels of
rice, which Governor Wright had prepared for exportation
in 1775, were withheld from shipment through their zeal. 5
Very illuminating was the statement, made by Robert
Haliday, customs collector at Charleston, S. C, that by the
non-importation regulation the emoluments of his office had
been greatly reduced, and by the non-exportation regulation
"entirely annihilated. " ? Thomas Clifford, the Philadel-
phia merchant, wrote on October 25, 1775, that he was lay-
ing up his ships as fast as they came in, "there being no
1 Journals, vol. iv, pp. 172-173, 183.
2 Pa. Journ. , Sept. 27, 1775; also 4 Am. Arch. , vol. iii, p. 726.
1 Ibid. , voL iii, p. 935; Jefferson, Writings (Ford), vol. ii, pp. 118-119.
4White, Ca. Hist. Co/fr, pp. 86-87; Ga. Rev. Recs. , vol. i, pp. 89,
108, III-J12.
* Loyalist Claims Transcripts, vol. xxxiv, p. 91.
? Ibid. , vol. Iv, pp. 359-360.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:37 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? TRANSFORMATION OF THE ASSOCIATION
575
Prospect of Employ abroad worth sending them to seek in
ballast," that most people were doing the same thing, and
that " this Port and we believe all the others along the Con-
tinent have been strictly kept shut from the Exportation of
Produce agreeable to the Congress Resolves. " * Indeed,
there is no reason to believe that the non-exportation regu-
lation was otherwise than well kept.
For a period of four months, beginning November I,
1775, the partial non-exportation established by the Conti-
nental Association, was converted into a total non-exporta-
tion by resolution of the Continental Congress. This de-
cision was the outcome of warm debates in Congress and
was determined upon in face of a determined effort to
secure the exemption of tobacco and lumber from its terms
and in spite of Robert R. Livingston's insistence that the
non-exportation policy be abandoned instead of extended. 2
Edward Rutledge of South Carolina advocated the resolu-
tion that passed as the only absolutely certain way of keep-
ing exports from British ports and as the most effective way
to promote domestic manufacturing. The purpose animat-
ing the majority was probably the desire to prevent food
supplies from reaching the enemy through capture by the
British warships off the coast. 1 The resolution of Novem-
ber I provided that no produce of the United Colonies
should be exported until March 1, excepting only licensed
shipments for military supplies or for any other purpose
designated by Congress. 4
1 Correspondence, vol. xxix, Oct. 25, 1775.
1 Adams, J. , Works, vol. ii, pp. 453-456, 483-484-
1 Cf. Journals, vol. ii, p. 201.
4 Ibid. , vol. iii, p. 314.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:37 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? CHAPTER XV
TRANSFORMATION OF THE ASSOCIATION (Continued)
THE early months of 1776 witnessed further notable
modifications of the Continental Association. The four
months of total non-exportation had the effect of aggravat-
ing the distresses of the mercantile and agrarian interests
dependent upon the export trade for profit; it also gave
momentum and direction to the sentiment, that had long
been entertained by radicals of the doctrinaire school, for
an entire freedom of trade with the nations of the world.
As early as July 21, 1775, the committee of the Continental
Congress appointed to devise ways and means of protecting
colonial commerce had submitted a report to the effect that
all ports in the United Colonies should on January 20, 1776,
be declared thenceforth "open to the ships of every state
in Europe that will admit our commerce and protect it. " 1
The series of resolutions, the first of which was passed on
July 15, had sanctioned smuggling with foreign countries
for the purpose of procuring munitions; the committee's
proposition was far more comprehensive and revolutionary,
nothing less than that the acts of trade and the famous
navigation act should be repudiated and that trade should
be opened with foreign nations in foreign or domestic ves-
sels. The committee's report was postponed from time to
time for further consideration; but in every debate on trade
1 Journals Cont. Cong. , vol. ii, pp. 200-201. It would appear that reso-
lutions covering this matter were submitted by both Dr. Franklin and
Richard Henry Lee.
576
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:37 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? TRANSFORMATION OF THE ASSOCIATION 577
conditions from that time forward, allusion was almost in-
variably made to the proposal as a desirable or unacceptable
or desperate alternative.
On August 26, 1775, a member of the Continental Con-
gress hazarded the opinion in a private letter that in the
course of the coming winter Congress would adopt the
measure, adding: "Whether that will not be one means of
dissolving our connections entirely with Great Britain, I
shall leave to wiser heads to determine. " 1 During the
month of October the matter came up again for active dis-
cussion in Congress; but when a decision was reached to
establish a general non-exportation until March 1, 1776, in-
terest again waned, and it was not until it became necessary
to determine what the status of trade should be after that
date that the discussion was renewed, in the weeks after
Christmas Day, 1775.
The chief opposition to opening trade with the world
came from the members who wished to safeguard such
American shipping as still remained and from those mem-
bers who saw in the measure a virtual declaration of inde-
pendence. 2 Willing of Philadelphia, shipowner as well as
exporter, emphasized the fact that the profits of carrying
would go to foreigners. "Carriage is an amazing revenue,"
he declared. "Holland and England have derived their
maritime power from their carriage. " Likewise, Johnson
of Maryland pointed out shrewdly that the measure, while
injuring the merchant and shipbuilder, would leave the far-
mer unscathed. "The grower, the farmer, gets the same,
let who will be the exporter," he declared, "but the com-
munity does not. The shipwright, rope-maker, hemp-
grower, all shipbuilders, the profits of the merchant, are all
1 4 Am. Arch. , vol. iii, pp. 435-436.
* The October debates are summarized in Adams, J. , Works (Adams),
vol. ii, pp. 452-457. 469-483.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:37 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 578 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
lost, if foreigners are our sole carriers, as well as seamen. "
Chase of Maryland asserted that he had not absolutely
abandoned all hope of reconciliation, and until that time
came he would oppose a free trade with foreign nations.
Zubly of Georgia declared that there was no assurance that
the world would trade with the Americans and the measure
gave the appearance of a design to separate from England.
The chief speakers on the other side were Lee and Wythe
of Virginia, Gadsden of South Carolina, and the Adamses
of Massachusetts. The point that they stressed in the early
stages of the discussion was that, lacking a navy, the colo-
nists were in danger of being cut off from the world by the
British warships, whereas foreign nations would come in
and protect their own vessels engaged in American trade. 1
On January 20, 1776, the Virginia delegates were instructed
by the Virginia provincial convention to use their endeavors
to have such a measure adopted. 2 It soon became apparent
in Congress that the whole matter was intimately related to
the question of political independence. As Sherman of
Connecticut asserted on February 16: "A treaty with a
foreign power is necessary, before we open our trade, to
protect it;" and Wythe completed the thought when he
said that, to accomplish this, "we must declare ourselves a
free people. " * John Adams wrote later in his autobiog-
raphy: "This measure of opening the ports, &c, labored
exceedingly because it was considered a bold step to inde-
pendence. Indeed, I urged it expressly with that view, and
as connected with the institution of government in all the
States, and a declaration of national independence. The
party against me had an art and influence as yet to evade,
1 Adams, J. , Works, vol. ii, pp. 453, 454, 456, 485-486.
1 Dixon & Hunter's Va. Gas. , Apr. 13, 1776.
1 Adams, J, Works, vol. ii, pp. 485-486.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:37 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? TRANSFORMATION OF THE ASSOCIATION 579
retard, and delay every motion that we made. Many mo-
tions were made and argued at great length, and with great
spirit on both sides, which are not to be found in the Jour-
nals. " 1
On March 1 the period of total non-exportation expired,
and the partial non-exportation that had subsisted prior to
November, 1775, became effective again. In the weeks im-
mediately following, it became evident that the merchants'
stocks, acquired in the days before the non-importation
regulation, were approaching depletion. There was a grow-
ing scarcity of goods, which exceedingly distressed the poor
and, in view of the inadequate supply of domestic manu-
factures, made imperative the opening of trade with foreign
nations. It was argued also that such a freedom of com-
merce would attract specie to the colonies and serve to check
the depreciation of the continental currency. On April 2
the Philadelphia committee of inspection was asked to
bring these facts to the attention of the Continental Con-
gress, in an address from the Committee of Privates of the
local Military Association, signed by the retailer, William
Adcock, as president. 2
An added incentive to the adoption of drastic measures
of relief was the news, that had arrived at Philadelphia on
February 26, that Parliament had enacted that after' Jan-
uary 1, 1776, all American vessels found on the coast of
the British Isles were to be seized and confiscated; all Amer-
ican vessels sailing into and out of American ports after
March 1 were to be seized and confiscated; and all foreign
vessels trading to America after June I were to be seized.
The colonies were to be isolated from the world, save such
districts as would make submission. 8 On the day following
1 Adams, J. , Works, vol. iii, p. 29.
1 Pa. Eve. Post, Apr. 4, 1776.
? 16 George III, c. 5. '
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:38 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 580 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
the arrival of the news a Maryland member of Congress,
who had often reprobated the idea of independence both in
public and private, wrote: "What measures Congress may
pursue in consequence of this act, I know not. With me,
every idea of reconciliation is precluded by the conduct of
Great Britain; and the only alternative, absolute slavery or
independency. " J
The public prints were meantime urging the opening of
commerce as a measure conditioned by a declaration of in-
dependence. 2 But Congress, fearing the potency of an ill-
timed phrase, preferred to do the seemingly illogical thing.
On April 6, without allusion to political independence, the
fateful step was taken. It was then provided that any
goods and wares, except staves and empty casks under cer-
tain conditions, might be exported from the United Colo-
nies, in colonial or foreign vessels, to any parts of the world
not under dominion of Great Britain; and that any goods
and merchandise might be imported into the United Colo-
nies in like fashion, except articles produced in or shipped
from British possessions, East India tea, and slaves. It
was further provided that all merchandise and wares im-
ported into the United Colonies directly or indirectly from
Great Britain or Ireland contrary to the regulations of Con-
gress should be forfeited and disposed of under rules made
by the several assemblies. 8
After this event a declaration of political independence,
however great its sentimental importance, was a mere for-
mality. The Adamses, for example, appreciated this fully
and it gave them good occasion for exultation. Not only
has Congress raised armies and a navy, fought battles and
1Robert Alexander; 4 Am. Arch. , vol. iv, pp. 1507-1508.
1 Ibid. , vol. iv, pp. 470-473, 527-530, 920-922, 1141-1144; vol. v, pp. 225-
227, 860-862, 918-919, 921-926.
* Journals, vol. iv, pp. 257-259.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:38 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? TRANSFORMATION OF THE ASSOCIATION 581
commissioned privateers against the British, wrote Sam
Adams to a congenial spirit, but now we have "torn into
Shivers their Acts of Trade, by allowing Commerce subject
to Regulations to be made by our selves with the People of
all Countries but such as are Subjects of the British King. " 1
The nullification of the acts of trade and navigation was
followed by the introduction of two other important changes
in the Continental Association, one relating to the provision
for the non-consumption of tea, the other dealing with the
regulation of prices. Both changes represented concessions
to the merchants who had not yet detached themselves from
the radical cause. With reference to the first, it should be
recalled that Article iii had provided for the total disuse of
tea, smuggled as well as dutied, after March 1, 1775. This
prohibition expressed a real protest against tea drinking on
hygienic grounds, but it had obtained its widest support be-
cause of the impracticability of distinguishing between Eng-
lish dutied tea and Dutch undutied tea and because of the
desire to refute the charge that the tea smugglers had insti-
gated the uprising against British measures.
In the spring months of 1775 little difficulty had been
experienced by the committees of observation in enforcing
the prohibition; but by midsummer, cases of violation began
to become numerous. Thus, the committee at Providence,
R. I. , forced the recantation of the tea dealer, Nathan
Angell, in October and seized such of his stock as remained
unsold; but they admitted that they had reason to suspect,
from the frequent complaints of country people, that some
dealers in Providence still continued the practice. 2 It was
openly asserted in Congress in September that ninety-nine
1To Joseph Hawley, Apr. 15, 1776; Adams, S. , Writings (Cushing),
vol. iii, pp. 279-280.
1 4 Am. Arch. , vol. iii, pp. 975-976.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:38 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? Sg2 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
out of one hundred in New York drank tea, although this
was obviously an exaggeration. 1 A persistent tea seller at
Reading, Pa. , was tarred and feathered and ridden on a
horse with his face to the tail, " to the great diversion of the
inhabitants who, I believe, hardly ever beheld a more ridic-
ulous figure. " 2
The truth was, as the Continental Congress was at length
forced to admit, that the period allowed by the Continental
Association for the consumption of tea, which was then in
stock, was too short, " whereby many zealous friends to the
American cause, who had imported large quantities of that
commodity, with design not merely to advance their for-
tunes, but to counteract the plan then pursued by the min-
istry and India company to introduce and sell in these colo-
nies tea subject to duty, are likely to become great suffer-
ers; the greater part of the estates of many of them being
vested in that article, anS they, by that means, rendered in-
capable not only of paying their debts and maintaining their
families, but also of vigorously exerting themselves in the
service of their country. " *
Great pressure was brought to bear upon Congress to
permit the sale of such teas as had been imported before
Article iii of the Association became effective. Alexander
McDougall of New York urged the matter on the attention
of Richard Henry Lee, a member of Congress, in a letter
of June 5, 1775; but the latter replied that, although such
suffering was to be found in all the provinces, "Should
Congress determine to admit the sale and the use of what
1 Adams, J. , Works, vol. ii, p. 447.
1 Pa. Merc. , Oct. 20, 1775. For other examples, vide 4 Am. Arch. ,
vol. ii, pp. 920, 1678; vol. iii, pp. 729, 937-938; Pa. Journ. , May 17, I77S:
Conn. Cour. , Apr. 8, 1776.
* Preamble to the congressional resolution of Apr. 13, 1776; Journals,
vol. iv, pp. 277-278.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:38 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? TRANSFORMATION OF THE ASSOCIATION 583
tea is on hand, may not bad men take the advantage of the
impossibility of distinguishing this from newly imported
Tea . . . ? "' The New York provincial congress, in a
letter to the New York delegates at the Continental Con-
gress on July 28, declared that the smuggling merchants had
so much capital tied up in unsalable Dutch teas that they
were deprived of the means of introducing into the prov-
ince Dutch textiles and munitions, which were badly needed.
The delegates were therefore instructed to urge Congress
to authorize the sale of teas in stock, at a fixed price, with
a tax of one shilling imposed as a penalty on " the obstinate
consumers. " *
On July 31, 1775, the question of renewing the sale of
teas was formally presented to Congress in the form of two
petitions, one from sundry New York merchants and the
other from sundry merchants of Philadelphia. Due to the
pressure of other business, the matter did not receive con-
sideration for some months. Finally, on November 28, the
petitions were rejected. * The matter did not rest here, the
Maryland delegates receiving instructions from their pro-
vincial convention to press Congress to permit the consump-
tion of all teas imported before February 1, 1775. The
subject was debated for two days in mid-January, 1776,
with Dr. Franklin and Thomas Lynch as the chief oppo-
sition speakers, and was finally lost by a vote of seven
provinces to five. 4
Meantime it became increasingly evident that the prohibi-
1 Lee, R. H. , Letters (Ballagh), vol. t, pp. 143-144.
'4 Am. Arch. , vol. ii, p. 1805. For the reply of the delegates vide
ibid. , vol. iii, p. 750.
'Journals, vol. ii, p. 235; vol. iii, pp. 294, 298, 388-389.
* The negative provinces were New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Delaware and Maryland. 4 Am. Arch. , vol. iv, p. 887; Am. Hist. Rev. ,
vol. i, pp. 308, 309.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:38 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
tion of tea drinking was serving no useful purpose and was,
on the other hand, fomenting divisions within radical ranks.
"Whenever the reason of any law ceases," declared "Aescu-
lapius," "the law ceases . . . whether the law is in a
formal manner repealed or not;" and he added: "If we
should drink tea three times a day, we shall not be taxed for
it to Great-Britain--no one can import it from there while
we remain in our present situation. " * Congress yielded to
the increasing pressure finally on April 13, one week after
trade had been opened with foreign nations. They voted
that all teas imported before December 1, 1774, should be
placed on sale, except such as had been imported by the East
India Company. To guard against excessive prices, it was
provided that Bohea tea should not retail at more than
three-fourths of a dollar a pound and that the prices of
other teas should be fixed by the local committees. 5
In somewhat similar fashion, the provisions of the Asso-
ciation for maintaining the customary level of prices had,
after the first year of the non-importation, become increas-
ingly difficult to administer. In the plantation provinces
the chief trouble was found in regulating the price of salt.
That commodity was of essential importance as being prac-
tically the only preservative of meat and fish; and the
supply in the South had nearly reached the point of exhaus-
tion by the autumn following the cessation of importation.
Beginning in the spring of 1775, the provincial conventions
of Virginia, Maryland and the Carolinas offered pecuniary
inducements to private individuals who would undertake the
manufacture of salt. 8 The people in the uplands of Vir-
1 Conn. Cour. , Apr. 8, 1776.
* Teas found in the cargo of prizes were also permitted to be sold.
Journals, vol. iv, pp. 277-278.
1Virginia, Mch. 27; Maryland, Aug. 14; North Carolina, Sept. 10;
and South Carolina, Nov. 28; Smith, C. S. , "Scarcity of Salt in the
Revolutionary War," / M. H. S. Procs. , vol. xv, pp. 221-227.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:38 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? TRANSFORMATION OF THE ASSOCIATION -85
ginia, suffering from the great scarcity, did not hesitate on
several occasions to descend upon some of the tidewater
merchants and seize such salt as they could lay hands on. 1
The local committees in these provinces did what they
could to prevent the inevitable rise in prices. For example,
in August, 1775, the Surry County committee in Virginia
published Robert Kennon, a factor, for advancing the price
from 2s. 6d. per bushel to 3s. 2 In November the Baltimore
County, Md. , committee established a maximum price for
salt, and authorized past purchasers of salt to collect from
dealers any money charged beyond that amount. 8 Such
treatment, however, did not penetrate to the source of the
trouble; so, on December 29, 1775, the Continental Con-
gress took measures to afford relief. Virginia, Maryland
and North Carolina, where the need was greatest, were
authorized to import as much salt from any foreign coun-
try as their conventions or committees of safety might
think necessary and to export produce therefor. 4 The con-
ventions of all the continental provinces were urged to
offer bounties for salt making. Most of the provinces acted
upon this advice in the following year. 0
At the leading northern ports and in the rural districts
which were their markets, the regulation of prices had
created more or less trouble from the beginning of non-
importation. 3 The cause of high prices in the early months
had been the greed of forestallers and monopolists; nor did
the city committees always take prompt action in such cases,
especially if the articles in question were not widely used or
1 Pinkney's Va. Gas. , Dec. 6, 1775.
1 Ibid. , Aug. 22, 1775.
