No More Learning

ii, pp.
178-179.
Hutchinson's own analysis of mob government at this period was as
follows: "It will be some amusement to you to have a more circum-
stantial account of the model of government among us. I will begin
with the lowest branch, partly legislative, partly executive. This con-
sists of the rabble of the town of Boston, headed by one Mackintosh,
who, I imagine, you never heard of. He is a bold fellow, and as likely
for a Masaniello as you can well conceive. When there is occasion to
"burn or hang effigies or pull down houses, these are employed; but
since government has been brought to a system, they are somewhat
controlled by a superior set consisting of the master-masons, and car-
penters, &c. , of the town of Boston. . . . When anything of more im-
portance is to be determined, as opening the custom-house on any mat-
ters of trade, these are under the direction of a committee of merchants,
Mr. Rowe at their head, then Molyneux, Solomon Davis, &c. : but all
affairs of a general nature, opening all the courts of law, &c. , this is
proper for a- general meeting of the inhabitants of Boston, where Otis,
with his mob-high eloquence, prevails in every motion, and the town
first determine what is necessary to be done, and then apply either to
the Governor or Council, or resolve that it is necessary the General
Court correct it; and it would be a very extraordinary resolve indeed
that is not carried into execution. " Quoted by Hosmer, J. K. , The Life
of Thomas HutMnson (Boston, 1896), pp. 103-104.
? ? 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
? FIRST CONTEST FOR REFORM 73
Conditions probably were not greatly different at Phila-
delphia. Although the stamp collector there was inclined
to lay the popular outbreak to the machinations of the
"Presbyterians and proprietary minions," it seems rather
more significant that the committee which asked him to re-
sign was composed of five merchants, one attorney and one
printer. 1 In New York, as we have seen, the lawyers
seemed to be at the bottom of the tumults, aided beyond
a dpubt by the merchants and printers.
{Popular outbreaks also occurred in the plantation prov-
inces; but, lacking the multiplied resentments accumulated
by two years of hostile legislation, the demonstrations were
neither as frequent nor usually as violent as in the commer-
cial provinces! The planters generally were wedded to the
notion of d1gnified protests by representative assemblies;
and a compact working-class element was non-existent, ex-
cept at Charleston. The agitation of the newspapers aided
in spreading the tumultuous spirit of the northern trading
towns to the South. Governor Bull, of South Carolina,
testified that the people of Charleston were generally dis-
gosed to obey thfi . Stamp Actt^ but bv the artifices of some
busy spirits the minds of men here were so universally
poisoned with the principles which were imbibed and propa-
gated from Boston and Rhode Island (from which Towns,
at this tifse of the year, vessels very frequently arrive) that
after their example the People of this Town resolved to
seize and destroy the Stamp Papers . . . "Jj[ There was in-
deed a shortage of currency, chiefly in Virginia and South
Carolina, which bore hardly on men owing money and which
1 Robert Morris, Charles Thomson, Archibald McCall, John Cox
and William Richards; James Tilghman; and William Bradford, editor
of the Pennsylvania Journal.
1 Smith, W. R,, South Carolina as a Royal Province, 1719-1776 (New
York, 1903), p. 351.
? ? 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
? 74
THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
the Currency Act of 1764 made it difficult to relieve.
"This private distress which every man feels," wrote Gov-
ernor Fauquier, of Virginia, "encreases the general dis-
satisfaction at the duties laid by the late Stamp Act, which
breaks out and shews itself on every trifling occasion. " 1
However, the inconvenience was not great enough to cause
the people to take part in the efforts to establish domestic
manufacturing or to boycott British goods.
The merchants and factors generally lent the weight of
their influence against popular demonstrations. Henry
Laurens, of Charleston, was a representat1ve ot the best that
the class had to offer. Wealthy, of an excellent American
family and a disapprover of the Stamp Act, he did all he
could to discourage " those infamous inglorious feats of riot
and dissipation which have been performed to the No'ward
. . . " He believed that " the Act must be executed and . . .
that if a stamp officer were so timid as to resign and a Gov-
ernor so complisant as not to appoint another in his stead--
we should in one fortnight . . . go down on our knees and
pray him to give life to that law. What, else, would become
of our estates, particularly ours who depend upon com-
merce? " The searching of houses by mobs he regarded as
"burglary and robbery " and he saw in the zeal of the rioters
only a desire to postpone the payment of their debts. 2
Lauren's attitude, although consistent in itself, aroused
popular suspicion and brought the mob down on his own ears.
1 Brit. Papers ("Sparks Mss. "), vol. ii, p. 44. Other evidence of
money stringency in the various plantation provinces may be found in:
Bos. Post-Boy, Mch. 17, 1766; N. C. Col. Recs. , vol. vii, p. 144; Gibbes,
Doc. Hist. , vol. ii, pp t-6; 5. C. Gas. , Dec. 17, 1765; Ca. Hist. Soc.
Colls. , vol. vi, pp. 44-46.
1 Wallace, D. D. , Henry Laurenz (New York, 1915), pp. 116-122.
Laurens's business was that of factor and, to a lesser extent, inde-
pendent trader, importing and exporting on his own account. He also
had planting interests. Ibitl. , pp. 16, 21, 44-47, 69, 123-136.
? ? 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
? FIRST CONTEST FOR REFORM
75
In Georgia, some of the merchants, who at first had
talked against the act, drew off and even endeavored to sup-
press the spirit of opposition by converting the majority of
the shipmasters to their change of view. In the latter part
of December they circulated a petition asking the governor
to appoint a new stamp agent. When the mob got wind of
this and protested to the governor, he declared he would act
as he thought best; and forty merchants; with their clerks,
and several ship captains evinced their approbation by
arming and guarding the governor until danger of violence
subsided. 1 Some stamps were actually used in Georgia.
Christopher Gadsden, a Charlestonian possessing large
mercantile and planting interests, represented a different
spirit. A radical by temperament, he was, for years, to be
a contradiction of anything that might be said of the factors
who managed most of the trade of the South. He em-
ployed his talents on the present occasion in instructing the
leaders of the mob, meeting with them frequently under
Liberty Tree for that purpose. 2
The two prouns of provinces met on common ground in
the Stamp Art Cnn^TMgg ** Mow VorL- jn Ortnher. 176? .
This event, so important in light of the subsequent trend
toward union, received scarcely any contemporary mention
in the newspapers, even at New York. The lower houses
of the various provincial legislatures had been invited by
Massachusetts to send committees to a continental congress
to confer on "the difficulties to which they are and must
be reduced by the operation of the acts of parliament for
levying duties and taxes on the colonies" and to unite on
petition for redress. * Delegates from n;ne provinces ap-
peared.
1 Letter from Georgia in Newport Merc. , Feb. 10, 1766. Vide also
5. C. Gaz. , Feb. 25.
? Gibbes. op. cit. , vol. ii, pp. 10-11; Wallace, op. cit. , p. 120.
* Bos. Eve. Post. Aug. 26. 1765.
? ? 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
? 76 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
It was clearly the design of the Massachusetts House of
Representatives that the congress should remonstrate
chiefly against the restrictive and revenue measures passed
by the Parliament in the years 1764-1765. When the mem-
bers of congress assembled, they found it necessary to make
certain alterations in their ideas before a common ground
could be reached. In particular, there was much skirmish-
ing as to the form in which the various arguments and views
should be presented. Gadsden, the South Carolina radical,
displayed great political acumen in insisting that all sections
could harmonize in their opposition by urging their views
"on the broad, common ground" of natural rights. 1 The
official UlltTaMlfKJ Of tnfi congress Show ihe result of this
plan. A great deal was said about the theoretical rights of
the colonists, and the stamp tax and the laws enabling ad-
miralty courts to try breaches of the trade laws were roundly
denounced as heinous invasions of such rights. Neverthe-
less, all trace of the spirit of the Massachusetts summons
was not obliterated: each memorial, with varying degrees of
emphasis, set forth the alarming scarcity of hard money
and requested the repeal of the laws restricting trade and en-
larging the jurisdiction of the admiralty courts, as well as
the act imposing the stamp duty. 2
in the COmmP"-] rr. iri""^, **-. >>.
gyidences of economic distrg" hoA g*;^<<i>. *^ +kv p^p^ to
mult1ply tHe'lf eiioris 10 retrench expenses. Leading cit-
1zens of New York and Boston, as well as of Philadelphia,
signed resolutions not to purchase or eat lamb, and to boy-
cott any butcher who sought to counteract the resolutions. 8
1 Frothingham, Rise of Republic, p. 188.
1 Authentic Account of the Proceedings of the Congress held at
New York, in MDCCLXV, On the Subject of the Stamp Act (1767).
The petition to the House of Commons is especially explicit on these
points.
? Weyler's N. Y. Co*. , Feb. 10, 17, 1766; Bos. Post-Boy, Apr. 8, 1765,
Mch. 10, 1766; Pa. Gas, Feb. 13, 1766-
? ? 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
? FIRST COXTEST FOR REFORM
77
The movement for simpler mourning, so popular farther
north, now spread to Philadelphia. 1 Articles in newspapers
advocated the superiority of sage, sassafras and balm to the
enervating beverage of tea. 2 The New York Society for
the Promotion of Arts, Agriculture and Oeconomy now
reached the zenith of its activity, increasing its list of
premiums for local manufactures, establishing spinning
schools, and conducting a fortnightly market for the sale of
New York manufactures. The service of the society in en-
couraging flax culture and linen manufacture was of more
than temporary importance. In the making of linen, more
than three hundred persons were employed from the middle
of 1765 to the close of 1766. * Philadelphia took over the
idea of a market, and three times a week linens, shalloons,
flannels, ink-powder and other wares of Pennsylvania fabri-
cation were offered for sale. Nearly two hundred poor
women were employed in spinning flax in the factory. 4 In
Rhode Island the thrifty maids and matrons improved the
shining hours by gathering in groups and spinning, usually
"from Sunrise to Dark. " The maids of Providence and
Bristol displayed the extent of their resolution by bravely
agreeing to admit the addresses of no man who favored the
Stamp Act.
*
It did not take the Americans long to perceive that their
measures of economic self-preservation might be capitalized
to good advantage as political arguments for the repeal of
the obnoxious laws. In face of the fact that British im-
ports were rapidly diminishing from natural causes, news-
1 Pa. Journ. , May 16, Sept . 12, 1765; Pa. Gas. , Jan. 9, 1766.
1 Pa. Journ. , May 9, 1765; N. Y. Gas. & Post-Boy, May 30.
'AT. Y. Journ. , Dec. 17, 31, 1767.
1 Pa. Journ. , Nov. 28, 1765, Jan. 23, 1766; The Record of the Cele-
bration of the sooth Anniversary of the Birth of Franklin (Hays, I. M. ,
ed. ), vol. ii, p. 57.
? Newport Merc. , Apr. 14, May 12, 1766; N. Y. Gas. & Post-Boy,
Apr. 3, 1766; A Pror. Gas. , Aug. 24, 1765.
? ? 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
? 78 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
paper writers in New York and Connecticut urged in Sep-
tember, 1765, that the people should abstain from the use
of British manufactures until the trade restrictions and
taxes were removed. 1 About the same time, a number of
Boston merchants, in writing for spring goods, ordered
them to be sent only when the Stamp Act should be re-
pealed. 2 But to New York belongs the credit of taking the
first formal action for the boycotting of British goods.
Four days before the Stamp Act was to go into operation,
most of the gentlemen of New York signed an agree-
ment to buy no European wares until the Sugar Act should
be altered, trade conditions relieved and the Stamp Act re-
pealed. Three days later the merchants held a general meet-
ing and agreed to make all past and future orders for British,
merchandise contingent upon the repeal of the Stamp Act.
Such merchants as were shipowners were to be permitted
to bring their vessels back to port with cargoes of coal,
grindstones or other bulky articles. Two hundred merch-
ants affixed their signatures to the agreement. In order to
protect the merchants from the unrestricted importers of
other provinces, the retail dealers of the city bound them-
selves to buy no goods whatsoever which should be shipped
from Great Britain after January 1, 1766, until the repeal
of the Stamp Act. 8 The merchants of Albany agreed unani-
mously to accept the New York resolutions. 4
*N. Y. Gas. & Post-Boy, Sept. 12, 1765; Conn. Gas. , Sept. 13.
* Bos. Eve. Post, Sept, 23, 1765; alsoW. Y. Ga*. & Post-Boy, Sept. 26.
1N. Y. Merc. , Oct. 28, 31, Nov. 11, 1765; N. Y. Gas. & Post-Boy,
Nov. 7. A London newspaper of Dec. 17 noted: "We hear that the
merchants upon 'change on Wednesday last received upwards of one
hundred letters from New-York, countermanding their orders for
goods. " Newport Merc. , Feb. 24, 1766. Colden said of the non-impor-
tation agreement, that "the people in America will pay an extravagant
price for old, moth eaten Goods, and such as the Merchants could not
otherwise Sell. " Letter Books, vol. ii, p. 78.
4 Weyler's N. Y. Gas. , Jan. 27, 1766.
? ? 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
? FIRST CONTEST FOR REFORM 79
The merchants of Philadelphia got under way about a
week after New York. With a prefatory statement that
the trading difficulties were due to " the Restrictions, Pro-
hibitions, and ill advised Regulations, made in the several
Acts of the Parliament of Great-Britain, lately passed " and
that they regarded the Stamp Act as the last straw, they
united in an agreement similar to that of the New Yorkers. 1
More than four hundred merchants and traders signed the
agreement, and a committee was appointed to observe its ex-
ecution and to report violations to the body of subscribers.
Printed forms for countermanding former orders were
distributed to every local merchant. 2 The merchants also
sent a memorial to the merchants and mapnfart11rprs of
their assistance jn the reneal of_the
_
Stamp Act and the removal of commercial restrictions,
particularly the restraints on paper currency, the mo-
lasses duty, the prohibition of the exportation of bar
iron to foreign ports in Europe, the heavy duties on Ma-
deira, and the requirement that European wines and fruits
must be imported by way of Great Britain. 8 The retailers
of Philadelphia supported the merchants by refusing to buy
any goods, shipped from Great Britain after January 1,
1766, except those approved by the merchants' committee.
1 Local shipowners were permitted to include in the return cargo of
their vessels from abroad dye-stuffs and utensils for manufacturing, as
well as bulky articles. The agreement was limited to May 1, 1766,
when another meeting should consider the advisability of continuing it.
Pa. Journ. , Nov. 14, 21, 1765; also AT. Y. Merc. , Nov. 25. The original
copy of the agreement, in, the library of the Historical Society of Penn-
sylvania, contains the signatures of all the subscribers.
* For samples of conditional orders of Philadelphia merchants, vide
letters of Benjamin Marshall, Pa. Mag. , vol. xx, pp. 209-211, and of
Charles Thomson, N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. , vol. ix, pp. 6-8.
1Pub. Rec. Off. , C. O. 5, no. 114 (L. C. Transcripts), pp. 161-169; Pa.
Gas. , Nov. 28, 1765; Pa. Mag. , vol. xx, p. 211.
? ? 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
? 80 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
The principal backcountry dealers cheerfully acquiesced
in this regulation.
Qn December q, 176;. the merchants of Boston drew UP a
formal agreement to import no goods from England until
the Stamp Act should be repealed, except utensils for manu-
facturing, certain bulky articles, and articles absolutely
necessary for the fishery. Two hundred and fifty merchants
and traders quickly signed. 1 Salem and Marblehead, the
ports of next importance, came into the same measure, and,
soon after, Plymouth and Newbury. 2
Only a few instances of enforcement are recorded in the
case of the several provinces, a fact which indicates lack
of infraction and not an absence of zeal. Money was
tight; business men in Great Britain and America were
retrenching. It has already been suggested that the non-
importation agreements derived their importance less as
economic measures than as political protests. Indeed, more
than three months before the first non-importation agree-
ment had been signed, London houses had begun to notice
a sharp falling-off of American orders, due to the hard times
from which the colonies were suffering. Thus, a London
concern stated on July 5, 1765 that " so few and so small
are the orders from America . . . that the ships lately
sailed thither have not had half their lading. " * It was
estimated in England that, for the entire summer, American
commissions for English goods were ? 600,000 less than had
been known for thirty years, and that the fall orders had
not been so small "in the memory of man. " * British
1 The agreement was limited to May 1, 1766, when it might be re-
newed. Bos. Post-Boy, Dec. 9, 16, 23, 1765. For orders of Hancock in
accordance with this agreement, vide Brown, John Hancock His Book,
pp. 103, 106, 108, 112, 114, 115, 117.
1 Adams, J. , Works, vol. ii, p. 176.
'Pa. Gaz. , Sept. 12, 1765. Vide also ibid. , Oct. 24.
4 Ibid. , Jan. 2, 1766. Vide also ibid. , Feb. 27; Bos. Eve. Post, Feb. 17.
? ?