Knollenberg Bernhard. Growth of the American Revolution: 1766-1775
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
fide restrained to the regulation of our external commerce, for the pur-
pose of securing the commercial advantages of the whole empire to the
mother country, and the commercial benefits of its respective members;
excluding every idea of taxation, internal or for raising a revenue on the
subjects in America, without their consent.”²⁷
So far as is known, the only British regulation of colonial trade meet-
ing this test was the restriction of the colonial carrying trade to British,
Irish, and colonial vessels,²⁸ which put colonial shipping on the same fa-
vored footing as British.
In his Mutual Claims, Galloway denounced the passage just quoted as
displaying “more art and finesse than an honest mind would wish to find
in the conduct of any man, much less in those of character,” pointing out
that the “concessions” concerning Parliament’s regulation of colonial
trade in fact “concede nothing.” “They have taken especial care,” he
observed, “that what they have consented to in one breath should be
blasted by the next. For there is no law of trade that I know of, nor can
such a law be formed, as shall secure the commercial advantages of all the
external American commerce to the mother country...and yet ‘secure to the
colonies’...their commercial benefit....Surely they could not mean
those statutes which enumerate American commodities and compel us
to land them in Britain before they can be exported to foreign markets,
nor those which oblige us to purchase their manufactures and forbid us
to get them from other countries. These are so far from ‘securing’ that
they greatly diminish the commercial benefits of the colonies....”²⁹
There obviously was much force in Galloway’s remarks, and the
Congress would have been wise to say nothing at all as to the regulation
of colonial trade, rather than make an ostensible concession so greatly
limited as to be practically meaningless.
While the Statement of Rights was under consideration, the Con-
gress took action (September ) on the so-called “Suffolk Resolves” laid
before it by the Massachusetts delegation.³⁰ It resolved unanimously
“That this assembly deeply feels the suffering of their countrymen in
the Massachusetts-Bay, under the late unjust, cruel and oppressive acts
of the British Parliament
—that they most thoroughly approve the wis-
dom and fortitude with which opposition to these wicked ministerial
measures has hitherto been conducted, and they earnestly recommend
to their brethren a perseverance in the same firm and temperate con-
duct as expressed in the resolutions determined upon at a meeting of
the delegates for the county of Suffolk....”³¹
The Congress also voted that this resolution and the Suffolk Re-
solves themselves be published in the newspapers,³² thus giving public
notice of its action.³³
To appreciate the impact (described in later chapters) of the Con-
gress’ action on the Suffolk Resolves,³⁴ the reader should have before
him the high points of their fiery contents. These are summarized in a
second appendix to this chapter.
Furthermore, in response to a letter of September from the Bos-
ton Committee of Correspondence, reporting Gage’s menacing activi-
ties at Boston and requesting the Congress’ advice,³⁵ it was voted (Octo-
ber ) “That this Congress approve of the opposition by the inhabitants
of Massachusetts-Bay, to the execution of the late acts of Parliament,
and if the same shall be attempted to be carryed into execution by force
all America ought to support them in their opposition.”³⁶
This resolution, probably introduced by one of the Virginia dele-
gates³⁷ (unlike that of September ) did not pass unanimously.³⁸ What
colony or colonies voted against it or did not vote at all is unknown. Only
Galloway of Pennsylvania and Duane of New York are known definitely
to have opposed the resolution,³⁹ but the remark of Henry soon after it
was adopted that if Galloway, Jay, and the Rutledges had their way, they
would “ruin the cause of America,”⁴⁰ suggests that Jay and the Rut-
ledges voted with Galloway and Duane on this question.
The Boston Committee probably hoped that their letter might even
spur the Congress to vote money, men, and arms for defense. But, if so,
in this hope they must have been disappointed.
The day after the Committee’s letter of September reached
Philadelphia, John Adams wrote William Tudor in Boston (October ):
“If it is a secret hope of many, as I suspect it is, that the congress will ad-
vise to offensive measures, they will be mistaken. I have had opportuni-
ties enough, both public and private, to learn with certainty the deci-
sive sentiments of the delegates and others on this point. They will not,
at this session, vote to raise men or money or arms or ammunition.
Their opinions are fixed against hostilities and rupture, except they
should be come absolutely necessary; and this necessity they do not yet
see. They dread the thought of action because it would...render all
hopes of reconciliation with Great Britain desperate; it would light up
the flames of war, perhaps through the whole continent, which might
rage for twenty years, and end in the subduction of America as likely as
in her liberation.”⁴¹
Adams’ appraisal proved to be correct; the Congress rose on Octo-
ber , without having taken any action, open or secret, to prepare for
war. It had gone far in measures to exert pressure for redress of colonial
grievances; but, as Adams indicated, nearly all of its members were
opposed to action that would almost certainly preclude a peaceful
settlement.
THE ASSOCIATION AND THE
MEMORIAL TO THE COLONISTS
I
the adoption of the non-importation
and non-exportation resolutions described in Chapter , the Con-
gress (September ) “Agreed, That Mr. Cushing, Mr. Low, Mr. Miff-
lin, Mr. Lee and Mr. Johnson be a committee to bring in a plan for
carrying into effect, the non-importation, non-consumption and non-
exportation agreed upon.”¹ Cushing, Low, and Mifflin were merchants
in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia, respectively; Lee was a Vir-
ginia planter; and Johnson, a Maryland lawyer.
The committee brought in its plan, called the Association, on Octo-
ber ; and six days later, “after sundry amendments,” it was adopted.²
The Association, most important of the Congress’ state papers, de-
manded the following redress of colonial grievances:
Repeal of “such parts of the several acts of parliament passed since
the close of the last war” as “impose or continue duties on tea, wine, mo-
lasses, sugar, syrups, paneles [unrefined sugar], coffee, pimento, indigo,
foreign paper, glass and painters’ colours imported into America;³ ex-
tend the powers of the admiralty courts beyond their ancient limits...
[depriving] the American subject of trial by jury; authorize the judge’s
certificate to indemnify the prosecutor from damages, that he might
otherwise be liable to from a trial by his peers; [and] require oppressive
security from a claimant of ships or goods seized, before he shall be al-
lowed to defend his property.”⁴
Repeal of “that part of the act of G. ch. , entitled ‘An Act for
the better securing his majesty’s dock-yards, magazines, ships, ammu-
nition and stores,’ by which any persons charged with committing any
of the offences therein described in America, may be tried in any shire
or county within the realm [Great Britain].”
Repeal of “the four acts passed the last session of parliament, viz.
that for stopping the port and blocking up the harbour of Boston; that
for altering the charter and government of the Massachusetts-Bay; and
that which is entitled ‘An act for the better administration of justice
etc.’⁵ and that ‘for extending the limits of Quebec etc.’”
Other grievances recited in the documents described in Chapters
and presumably were negotiable; those specified here were not. The
measures about to be described were to remain in force until every one
of the grievances stated in the Association was redressed.
The measures for redress to be pursued by the members of the Con-
gress and their constituents were:
Beginning immediately, not to export sheep to any place;⁶
Beginning December , ,⁷ not to import “any goods, wares or
merchandize whatsoever” exported from Great Britain and Ireland,⁸
East India tea from any part of the world,⁹ molasses, syrups, paneles
(raw sugar),¹⁰ coffee or pimento from the British West Indies,¹¹ wine
from Madeira or the Western Isles (the Azores), and foreign indigo;¹²
Beginning December , , not to import or purchase any slaves
or engage, directly or indirectly, in the slave trade;¹³
Beginning March , , “not to purchase or use any East-India tea
whatever...[or] any of those goods, wares or merchandizes we have
agreed not to import, which we shall know, or have cause to suspect,
were imported after the first day of December [] except such as
come under the rules and directions of the tenth article hereafter men-
tioned”;¹⁴ and
Beginning September , , not to “directly or indirectly export
any merchandize or commodity whatsoever to Great-Britain, Ireland,
or the West-Indies, except rice to Europe.”¹⁵
Hardship to persons who received forbidden goods after December ,
was alleviated by providing, in Article of the Association, that goods
arriving between December , , and January , , might be
stored or sold and the proceeds applied to reimbursement of the
importer’s costs, the profit, if any, “to be applied towards relieving and
employing such poor inhabitants of the town of Boston as are immedi-
ate sufferers by the Boston port-bill....”¹⁶
The Association called for the election of committees of inspection
in every county, city, and town throughout the participating colonies by
those qualified to vote for representatives in the several colonial Legis-
latures. The members of these committees were to keep an eye on their
neighbors and publish the names of anyone violating the agreement, af-
ter which those loyal to the Association were to break off all dealings
with the offender.
A central Committee of Correspondence in each of the participat-
ing colonies was to inspect the custom house entries in its colony, and,
from time to time, report to the other central Committees its findings
concerning these entries and other material circumstances.
Furthermore, to induce the other British colonies in North America
to adhere to the Association, the twelve subscribing colonies were to
cut off all trade and intercourse with any other that failed to adopt the
Association.¹⁷
Thus, this time the people as a whole, not, as in the case of the non-
importation agreements of –, merely importers, were to be re-
sponsible for enforcing the agreement.
The Association also contained commitments to not raise the price
of goods made scarce by observance of the Association,¹⁸ promote lo-
cal manufacturing, especially of woolen goods, discountenance horse-
racing, cock-fighting, plays, and other diversions, and discourage ex-
pensive mourning.
The Association’s ban on imports was more comprehensive than that
envisaged by the non-importation resolution of September , quoted
in Chapter , in that the Association banned not only articles pro-
duced in, or exported from, Great Britain or Ireland, but also molasses,
coffee, pimento, syrups, and paneles from the British West Indies, wines
from Madeira and the Azores, East India tea, foreign indigo wherever
produced, and slaves.¹⁹ Some member, probably Lee,²⁰ moved exten-
sion of the non-importation agreement to cover all dutied imports, in-
cluding molasses and sugar from the foreign West Indies.²¹ But this pro-
posal was opposed by Pendleton and Chase and probably by Low, who
queried, “Will, can the people bear a total interruption of the West In-
dia trade? Can they live without rum [distilled from molasses], sugar
and molasses? Will not this impatience and vexation defeat the mea-
sure?”²² The motion failed; importation of dutied molasses and sugar
from the foreign West Indies was not banned.
The most striking addition to the ban on importation was of slaves,
which, though favored by a resolution of the Virginia Convention of
August, ,²³ referred to in Chapter , was not included in the Con-
gress’ non-importation resolution of September . Sentiments of hu-
manity and the incongruity of denouncing British “enslavement” of
the colonies without at least banning the slave trade probably were the
dominant reasons for now adding this.
But practical considerations may well have contributed to this mea-
sure, which apparently was adopted without opposition. Shipment of
slaves from Africa to America was so important a branch of the British
shipping industry that banning their importation into the colonies was an
obvious way to put additional pressure on Parliament to meet colonial
demands for redress. Furthermore, the inclusion in the Association of a
ban on the slave trade would please the Quakers, who were highly in-
fluential in Pennsylvania and to a lesser extent in several other colonies.
Turning to non-exportation, some unidentified member moved that
the non-exportation resolution of September (quoted in Chapter )
be revised in the Association to ban the exportation of flaxseed and
lumber immediately, instead of September , .²⁴ (Ireland was so
dependent on British colonial flaxseed and the British West Indies on
British colonial lumber that cutting off the supply of these articles would
put particular pressure on members of Parliament and their constituents
having Irish or West Indian interests.)
Ward of Rhode Island and Lynch of South Carolina supported the
motion, but Ross of Pennsylvania, whose colony exported flaxseed,
objected to singling out flaxseed, observing that to ban the export of
flaxseed ahead of other items would be “quarrelling with Ireland before
We begin with G. Britain”; Sullivan of New Hampshire, whose colony
was a large exporter of lumber, objected to singling out lumber; and
Galloway of Pennsylvania, Dyer of Connecticut, and Johnson of Mary-
land, whose colonies were exporters of flaxseed, objected to subjecting
any kind of exports to particular hardship.²⁵
The opponents of the motion prevailed; it was “Negatived
Nem. Con.”²⁶
The Association, however, revised the non-exportation resolution of
September in one respect, an important one, by exempting the ex-
port of “rice to Europe,”²⁷ a term broad enough to permit export of rice
to Great Britain and Ireland, as well as to the continent of Europe.
The reasons for exempting rice, as given by the South Carolina del-
egates upon their return home, were that “while other colonies had the
exportation of wheat, flour, oil, fish and other commodities open [to the
continent of Europe] Carolina would (without the exception of rice)
have had no sort of article to export at all”;²⁸ that “Carolina having no
manufactures was under a more immediate necessity of some means to
purchase the necessaries of life, particularly negro clothing”; and that
“the lands which produce rice can be turned to no other use;...[and]
rice is a perishable article.”²⁹
Edward Rutledge tried also to secure the exception of South Car-
olina’s other chief export crop, indigo,³⁰ but failed; rice alone was
excepted.
Another important proposal, moved by Gadsden and supported by
Ward and Ross, was to put additional pressure on Parliament for re-
dress by stopping all remittances to creditors in Great Britain.³¹ But
they were opposed by Edward Rutledge and Galloway, and this pro-
posal was defeated.³²
The only known argument concerning the grievances to be set forth
in the Association as demanding redress was over the Quebec Act.
Duane, who had unsuccessfully opposed inclusion of this act among
the grievances to be recited in the proposed Address to the King about
to be discussed, now made a similar move concerning the Association.
“If we demand too much,” he argued, “we...may get nothing.” “Will it
not,” he added, “be said that we go beyond our sphere, and, while we
contend for an exclusive internal legislature [for ourselves] intermeddle
with the police of other governments?”³³
Duane was supported by his colleague Jay, but McKean of Delaware
and Lee opposed him,³⁴ and he was defeated;³⁵ the Quebec Act was
among the acts whose repeal was to be demanded in the Association.³⁶
On October , a fair copy of the Association was signed by, or
on behalf of, all the members of the Congress except Goldsborough,
Rhoads, Haring, and Randolph,³⁷ and it was voted to print copies of
the Association,³⁸ thus providing ten copies for each of the delegations.
On the following day the Congress adopted, and ordered printed a
like number of copies of a Memorial to the inhabitants of the colonies
represented at the Congress, prepared by Lee, William Livingston, and
Jay,³⁹ justifying the Association and appealing for general adoption of,
and firm adherence to, it.⁴⁰
This impressive Memorial begins with the recital of eight acts
passed by Parliament from to , which, together with other un-
named acts, “compared with one another, will be found, not only to
form a regular system, in which every part has great force, but also a
pertinacious adherence to that system, for subjugating these Colonies
(that are not, and from local circumstances cannot be represented in
the House of Commons) to the uncontroulable and unlimited power of
Parliament, in violation of their undoubted rights and liberties, in con-
tempt of their humble and repeated petitions.”
The Memorial proceeds to a vindication of the province of Massa-
chusetts, which, according to the Memorial, had acted with modera-
tion considering the extreme provocation to which it had been sub-
jected during the past decade.
Then follows a masterly summary of evidence in support of the dec-
laration that “Severe as the Acts of Parliament before mentioned are,
yet the conduct of Administration hath been equally injurious, and
irritating....”
Stationing British troops and ships of war among the colonists
“to assist in taking their money without their consent”; making judges
“entirely dependent on the Crown for their commissions and salaries”;
Lord Hillsborough’s letter to Governor Bernard in April, , censur-
ing the Massachusetts House for its resolution to invite the Assemblies
of other colonies to join in protesting against the Townshend Act and
ordering him to dissolve the House if it refused to rescind this resolu-
tion; pouring troops into Boston in to compel obedience to laws
which its people together with those of the other colonies had vainly
protested against; and, finally, the recent “outrageous proceedings”
against Massachusetts of a severity calculated to frighten the other col-
onies “to desert their brethren in a common cause” and thus create di-
vision that “all may be subdued.”
In conclusion, the Memorial appealed for general and steady support
of the Association as the only alternative to “either a more dangerous
contest, or a final, ruinous and infamous submission,” but warned that
“the schemes agitated against these colonies have been so conducted,
as to render it prudent...[to] extend your views to the most mournful
events, and be in all respects prepared for every contingency,” meaning,
of course, war.⁴¹
On the same day the Congress also adopted an Address to the
People of Great Britain following in a general way the Memorial, but
emphasizing the iniquity of the Quebec Act in promoting the Catholic
religion, a religion which had “dispersed impiety, bigotry, murder and
rebellion through every part of the world,” and warning the British
people, “if you are determined that your Ministers shall wantonly sport
with the rights of Mankind...we must tell you, that we will never sub-
mit to be hewers of wood or drawers of water for any ministry or nation
in the world.”⁴²