No More Learning

ii, pp. 184-185; vol. iii, p. 306. The regulation of this
traffic was left to the committees in the several provinces. On Sept. 19.
? ? 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 567
held from the newspapers until October 26, was not alto-
gether clear in its meaning. But whether or not a relaxing
of the non-importation regulation was intended, it clearly
permitted a limited exportation to Great Britain and the
West Indies, even after the date September to,1 and sanc-
tioned a smuggling traffic in munitions with foreign coun-
tries. Incidentally it afforded some relief to the merchants,
shipowners and sailors, who were beginning to suffer from
the straitening effects of the non-importation. 2 Without
withdrawing the resolution of July 15, which applied pri-
marily to shipments undertaken upon private initiative,
Congress, on October 26, recommended to the provincial
organizations to export to the foreign West Indies, at the
expense of the province, provisions and other produce in re-
turn for munitions. The secret committee of Congress was
empowered to do the same on the continental account, on
November 8. 8 These later resolutions also contravened the
non-exportation provisions of the Association. On January
3, 1776, the breach in the Association was made larger by
a blanket instruction of Congress to the secret committee
to "pursue the most effectual measures for importing"
drygoods and certain other merchandise into America. 4
Congress established a secret committee to look after the importation
of munitions for continental military purposes. Ibid. , vol. ii, p. 253;
vol. iii, p. 280; Adams, J. , Works, vol. ii, pp. 460-461.
1E. g. , vide Journals, vol. iv, pp. 172-173, 183.
1 Dyer, of Connecticut, complained in September that there were not
ten men in Connecticut who were worth as much money as the Phila-
delphia firm of Willing & Morris would make out of a contract with
Congress for the importation of powder. Adams, J. , Works, vol. ii,
pp. 448-449.
1 Journals, vol. iii, pp. 308, 315, 336; vol. iv, p. 414. Certain classes of
live stock were excepted in each instance. For the practice of Congress
in special cases, vide ibid. , vol. iii, pp. 408-409, 438-439; vol. iv, pp. 95-96.
108, 120, 176, 193.
* Ibid. , vol. iv, pp. 24-25.
? ? 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
? 568 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
This resolution practically annulled both the non-importa-
tion and non-exportation regulations of the Association, so
far as the powers of the secret committee were concerned.
Meantime, Congress had taken some steps for re-opening
trade with the British West Indies, contrary to the spirit
and wording of the Continental Association. Depending
upon the continental provinces for their food supply, the
British residents in those islands feared a servile insurrec-
tion when the non-exportation regulation should become
effective. In July, 1775, the Bermuda Assembly passed a
law placing an embargo upon the shipping of provisions
from the island. 1 Leading inhabitants dispatched a vessel
to Philadelphia to lay their case before the Continental
Congress. When that body took the matter under consid-
eration, in November, 1775, the continent was already be-
ginning to feel the lack of salt and was in bad need of war
munitions; and therefore Congress decided that, as "the
inhabitants of the island of Bermuda appear friendly to
the cause of America," enough food should be sent them
from time to time as might be necessary for their subsist-
ence and home consumption, upon condition that payment
should be made in salt and munitions. 2 The distress of the
people of the island of New Providence was alleviated tem-
porarily when Congress permitted the exportation of one
hundred bushels of flour, on November 29, in return for
muskets. 8
1 N. Y. Journ. , July 27, 1775.
J Journals, vol. iii, pp. 362-364. The annual exportation to Bermuda
was fixed at 72,000 bushels of Indian corn, 2,000 barrels of bread or
flour, 1,000 barrels of beef or pork, 2,100 bushels of peas or beans, and
300 tierces of rice.
* Ibid. , vol. iii, pp. 389-390. The Connecticut Gasette, Feb. 16, 1776,
reported that the non-exportation was beginning to be severely felt in
the West Indies, where the most ordinary beef sold for seven or eight
pounds per barrel, common flour at six pounds currency per barrel.
? ? 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 569
Congress was confronted with a practical problem of
serious import by the action of Parliament, in April, 1775,
in exempting four colonies from the provisions of the Gen-
eral Restraining Act. The radical organizations in these
colonies had taken active steps to prevent any advantage be-
ing taken of the parliamentary exemption. But as the need
for war supplies became greater, Congress began to con-
sider the practicability of making the United Colonies the
beneficiaries of these privileged trade-channels. Through-
out October the matter was under active consideration by
Congress. 1 Willing of Pennsylvania argued: "Shall we
act like the dog in the manger--not suffer New York and
the lower counties and North Carolina to export because we
can't? We may get salt and ammunition by those ports. "
Johnson of Maryland and Jay of New York spoke to the
same purpose. Lee of Virginia believed that for the ex-
empted colonies to trade would be exactly answering the
purpose of the British administration, for " jealousies and
dissensions will arise, and disunion and division. We shall
become a rope of sand. " Gadsden of South Carolina,
Wythe of Virginia and Chase of Maryland agreed. Chase
adding: "A few weeks will put us all on a footing; New
York &c are now all in rebellion, as the ministry call it, as
much as Massachusetts Bay. " John Rutledge of South
Carolina chided the opposition for wanting to break the
and that little was to be had at any price. The islanders were "under
terrible Apprehensions" of the effect of reduced rations upon the negro
slaves. On October 4, this sheet reported further that an insurrection
had broken out among the Jamaica negroes and that some merchant
vessels, just arrived in Connecticut, had been detained because of a
food embargo there and had saiied finally with a short allowance of
provisions.
1 Adams, J. , Works, vol. ii, pp. 452-457, 469-484; Journals, vol. iii, pp.
276, 280, 283, 286, 287, 291-292, 301-302, 307, 312. The exempted prov-
inces were New York, Delaware, North Carolina and Georgia.
? ? 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
? 570 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
Association so soon and reminded the members, with some
bitterness, that " if we had abided by a former non-impor-
tation, we should have had redress. " Finally, on Novem-
ber 1, Congress came to a decision. It was resolved that
no persons in the four privileged provinces should apply at
the custom houses for clearance papers; and the thanks of
Congress was voted for their self-denial in the past. 1
The tenth of September, 1775, was the date set by the
Continental Association for the prohibition of exportation
to Great Britain, Ireland and the West Indies; and for
months the merchants had been looking forward with dread
to the event. The non-importation had continued to be
effectively enforced -- the British warships proving of un-
intentional service after July in their efforts to prevent the
smuggling of tea, trade with the foreign West Indies, etc. ,
under the provisions of the General Restraining Act--and
there was every reason to believe that the non-exportation
regulation would be equally well executed, except of course
in such cases as Congress had chosen to make exceptions.
Throughout the spring and summer of 1775 the merchants
of the North and the planters of the South had increased
their shipments to Great Britain and the West Indies in
order to provide against the approaching abstention. Com-
parative figures for the years 1774 and 1775 show that at
New York the value of exports to England increased from
? 80,008 to ? 187,018; at Philadelphia, from ? 69,611 to
? 175,962; in Maryland and Virginia, from ? 612,030 to
? 758,356; in the Carolinas, from ? 432,302 to ? 579,549;
and in Georgia, from ? 67,647 to ? 103,477: and that even in
New England there was a slight increase from ? 112,248 to
? 116,588. 2 For the colonies as a whole there was an in-
crease of nearly forty per cent.
1 Journals, vol. iii, p. 314.
* Macpherson, Annals of Com. , vol. iii, pp. 564, 585.
? ? 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
When news of the Lexington affair electrified the conti-
nent, it was widely rumored that Congress would move for-
ward the date of the non-exportation. In the early days of
May, 1775, owners of vessels at Philadelphia got them out
of the harbor as fast as they could; the millers hurried their
flour to market, some of them near the city selling wheat out
of their mills without grinding. Vessels were not to be had
at any price; flour advanced from 13s. to 14s. 6d. J Thomas
Mumford, an exporter of horses at Groton, Conn. , wrote
to his brother-in-law, Silas Deane, a member of Congress,
for definite information as to the possibility of an earlier
non-exportation, pointing out that he had several vessels
which he was thinking of fitting out. Deane informed his
wife in a letter a few weeks later that it was still uncertain
what action Congress would take, but he added: "Tell my
brother to get his vessel away as quick as possible, some-
where or other, if he sends her at all; this is what the
merchts are doing here. " 2
Such precautions proved unnecessary, as Congress did
not tamper with the date originally set for non-exportation.
Considerable public sentiment, however, was aroused by the
enterprise of merchants, in several parts of the continent, in
collecting great quantities of flaxseed in the last weeks of
open commerce for exportation to Ireland. While such
exportation did not contravene the terms of the Association,
it was felt that it was nevertheless injurious to the Amer-
ican cause and thus contrary to the spirit of the Association.
When New York merchants sent agents into Connecticut to
buy up flaxseed for this purpose, the committees at New
Haven, Milford, Fairfield and other places sternly warned
the inhabitants against dealing with them. 8 On August 12,
1Clifford, Correspondence (L. C. Mss. ), vol. xxix, letters of May 2,
6, 30, 1775-
1 Conn. Hist. Soc. Colls. , vol. ii, pp. 263, 276.
1 Conn. Journ. , Aug. 16, 23, 1775; N. Y. Journ. , Aug. 24.
? ? 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
?
572 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
fourteen business houses of New York city applied to the
New York provincial congress for a definition of their
rights in shipping flaxseed; and that body responded that,
since the Continental Congress had left the provision un-
changed, exportation might continue until September IO. 1
Nevertheless the New York Journal announced, five days
after this action, that " some Merchants of this City, who
had chartered a Vessel to load her with Flax Seed for Ire-
land, have altered her Voyage, rather than give Dissatis-
faction to our Fellow Citizens. " When a town meeting at
Providence, R. I. , learned on September 7 that a large
quantity of flaxseed was about to be exported from the
town, they at once placed a ban on its shipment. 2
There was a great bustle at Philadelphia in the last week
of open trade; and no doubt the scene there was paralleled
in many other ports of the continent. Produce of all sorts
was brought to town and in such quantities that not enough
vessels could be found to carry it off. On the very last day,
fifty-two ships sailed from port, leaving hardly a vessel be-
hind. Several of these ships had arrived and taken a cargo
in forty-eight hours. 8
With the advent of non-exportation, conditions were far
different from those anticipated by the framers of the Con-
tinental Association. Military necessity, as we have seen,
had taken away from the non-exportation regulation, its
primary raison d'etre, i. e. a self-denying ordinance for pur-
poses of commercial coercion, and had converted it very
largely into a mechanism for procuring military supplies.
The work of enforcing the non-exportation regulation in
cases where it applied was zealously undertaken by the rad-
1 4 Am. Arch. , vol. iii, pp. 96, 529.
1 Ibid. , vol. iii, pp. 661-662.
1Pa. Journ. , Sept. 13,. 1775; Clifford, Corresp. , vol. xxix, Sept. 8;
Conn. Hist. Soc. Colls. , vol. ii, p. 305.
? ? 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 573
ical committees, notwithstanding that they were occupied
with a multitude of other duties. The presence of British
warships in American waters, pursuant to the General Re-
straining Act, was a mild deterrent to American ventures
to the foreign West Indies no doubt, and thus assisted the
observance of the non-exportation. The absolute prohibi-
tion of American trade, enacted by Parliament in December,
1775, imposed a heavier burden on the British navy, and,
when the prohibition became effective in March, '1776,
served further to discourage American exportations. How-
ever, smuggling past the British vessels off the coast pre-
sented no insurmountable difficulties; and the real burden
of enforcing the regulation fell upon the local committees.
One of the first questions that arose was whether vessels
that had, for some legitimate reason, been delayed in their
departure should be permitted to sail after September 10 to
any of the forbidden places. The committee of safety at
Wilmington, N. C. , had warned the merchants there in ad-
vance that their vessels could not depart after the tenth on
the excuse that their cargoes were not yet completely laden. 1
The Continental Congress permitted a vessel to sail that
had been much damaged in a storm on her outward voyage
and had been forced to return to Norfolk for refitting.
But when a mercantile house asked permission to charter a
vessel to export a cargo of wheat after the tenth, upon the
plea that the one that they had engaged had foundered in a
storm, the petition was tabled. 8
The various privileged exportations, under license of the
Continental Congress or of provincial organizations, com-
1 N. C. Col. Recs. , vol. x, p. 151. The provincial convention confirmed
this action. Ibid. , p. 183.
1 Journals, vol. ii, p. 246. Similar action was taken in some other
cases. Ibid. , voL iii, pp. 354-355-
* Ibid. , 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.