Knollenberg Bernhard. Growth of the American Revolution: 1766-1775
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
ing, Henry, and Mifflin) who had been members of the committee referred to in
below, same , .
The resolution of Sept. , , concerning a Statement of Rights, same . On this
same day, the Congress resolved “That a Committee be appointed to examine &
report the several Statutes which affect the trade and Manufactures of the colo-
nies,” and on Sept. , this committee, composed of one member from each col-
ony, was chosen, same , . This committee made its report (which has not been
found) on Sept. , same –, and thereafter nothing further is known of it.
The Suffolk Resolves of Sept. , , same I –.
Resolution requesting merchants to stop ordering goods from Great Britain,
passed unanimously Sept. , , same I .
Adams’ notes of debates Sept. and , , state, “Mr. Lee made a motion for
a non-importation,” Burnett Letters I . Lee’s motion probably called for non-
importation to begin Nov. , , in accordance with the instructions of the Va.
convention to the Va. delegates, Force I . As later brought out, the motion fi-
nally adopted provided for non-importation to begin at a later date, and this prob-
ably explains why Lee’s motion does not appear in the journals of the Congress,
which contain only motions that were adopted.
Galloway wrote in a pamphlet published a few months after the Congress rose,
that he had “uniformly opposed” a non-importation agreement at this time, Can-
did Examination . The opposition also is reported in the letter from his intimate
friend, Governor William Franklin of N.J., quoted in note below.
William Franklin wrote Lord Dartmouth Sept. , , that Galloway “was in
hopes to have formed a party among the Delegates sufficient to have prevented a
non-importation agreement for the present, but he now seems to despair of Suc-
cess,” since even those delegates from New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania
“who are of different sentiments begin to think it will answer no good End to make
any opposition,” Aspinwall II . Franklin does not indicate which or how many
of the delegates from the three colonies mentioned were thought to share Gal-
loway’s sentiments.
News of the King’s assent to the Quebec Act reached the colonies in the latter part
of August. See, for example, Ezra Stiles’ bitter reaction to the news, recorded in
his diary for Aug. , , Stiles Diary I .
Joseph Reed to Dartmouth Sept. , , and to Dennys De Berdt Sept. con-
cerning the effect of the Quebec Act, as quoted in the text, Reed Reed I , .
James Allen to Ralph Izard Oct. , , concerning the effect of the Quebec Act,
as quoted in the text, Izard .
Bland’s proposal of date of shipment as basis for effective date of non-importation
and Gadsden’s and Lee’s counterproposal that date of arrival be the basis,
Adams’ notes of debates Sept. and , , Burnett Letters I –. The date of
importation chosen, non-importation resolution Sept. , Journals Cont. Cong. I .
Mifflin’s proposal of the date of arrival on or after Nov. , , as the effective date
for non-importation and Cushing and Edward Rutledge’s counterproposal that
non-importation take place immediately, Adams’ notes of debates, Sept. and
, Burnett Letters I , .
Debate concerning the date for non-importation to become effective, Adams’
notes of debates Sept. and , , Burnett Letters I –. The acceptance
of Henry’s view as to the effective date is evidenced by the resolution adopted
Sept. , Journals Cont. Cong. I .
Mifflin’s proposal for inclusion of “dutied articles,” no matter where from, in the
non-importation resolution, Adams’ notes Sept. and , Burnett Letters I .
Ward’s diary for Sept. , same , records, “The Congress...considered a non-
importation of all dutiable goods,” but gives no indication of who supported the
proposal. As brought out in Chapter , this proposal was later reviewed and
adopted in large part.
Resolution as to non-importation adopted unanimously Sept. , , Journals
Cont. Cong. I .
Though none of the resolutions or instructions to delegates of the colonial As-
semblies or conventions mentioned the inclusion of Ireland in the ban on non-
importation, this had been included in the resolutions of Fairfax County, Va., de-
scribed in Chapter , Force I .
The N.J. resolutions (quoted in Chapter ) called for a non-consumption, as well
as a non-importation, agreement, and the Va. resolutions of Aug., , included
resolutions not to purchase, as well as not to import, East Indian products and
slaves. Schlesinger Col. Merchants –, –, – passim, , – pas-
sim, , , –, describes other colonial non-consumption measures
dating back to the Stamp Act crisis of –.
Galloway’s resolution for a Plan of Union, Sept. , , Journals Cont. Congress I
; Adams’ notes of debates Sept. , , Burnett Letters I –; Cadwallader
Colden to Dartmouth Dec. , Colden . There are sketches of Galloway in
D.A.B. and Baldwin “Galloway.”
The quoted words concerning the actions of Congress on Galloway’s plan are
from Ward’s diary for Sept. and Oct. , , Burnett Letters I , . These ac-
tions are discussed in the appendix to this chapter.
John Adams’ notes of debates Sept. , , quote Galloway as stating, “A gen-
eral non-exportation I have ever looked on as an undigested proposition....We,
in this Province [of Pa.] should have tens of thousands of people thrown upon the
cold hand of charity. Our ships would lie by the walls, our seamen would be
thrown out of bread, our shipwrights, etc. out of employ, and it would affect the
landed interests,” Burnett Letters I .
Non-exportation resolution of Sept. , , Journals Cont. Cong. I –. A reso-
lution Aug. , , of the Second Continental Congress defines the “West Indies”
as comprehending “all the West India islands, British and foreign...and also the
Summer islands [Bermudas] Bahama Islands, Berbicia and Surinam on the Main
[Dutch colonies on the South American mainland] and every other island within
the latitude of the southern line of Georgia and the Equator,” same II .
Remarks of Gadsden, Edward Rutledge, and Cushing opposing long deferment
of date for non-exportation to take effect, Burnett Letters I –. Chase seems to
have blown hot and cold on the question, same.
As brought out in Chapter , the Va. delegates’ instructions forbade them to as-
sent to a date earlier than “after the th day of August, ,” Force I . The
long deferment probably was proposed by Lee, who is the only member known to
have spoken in favor of this, Adams’ notes of debates Sept. –, , Burnett
Letters I –.
The resolution for non-exportation was not passed unanimously, Journals Cont.
Cong. I .
Another question relating to the non-exportation agreement as to which I have
found no evidence is why the Congress adopted Sept. , , rather than the ear-
lier date of Aug. , , which (as brought out in Chapter ) was the date spec-
ified by the Va. convention, for non-exportation to begin. Perhaps Sept. was ar-
rived at as a compromise between the Va. delegates and the N.C. delegates, who
(as brought out in Chapter ) were instructed in favor of Oct. , , as the date
for non-exportation to begin.
Deane’s diary for Oct. and , , concerning Gadsden’s motion to withhold
payment to British creditors, “Deane Diary” .
Chapter
Draft of Statement of Rights submitted by the Committee on Rights Sept. ,
, and adopted, after amendment, Oct. , Journals Cont. Cong. I , –.
John Adams’ comment on the waste of time in the Congress, Adams’ diary for
Oct. , , Adams Papers II . Adams’ diary for Oct. has a similar com-
plaint, same , and he wrote his wife (Oct. ), “I believe if it was moved and sec-
onded that We should come to a Resolution that Three and two make five. We
should be entertained with Logick and Rhetorick, Law, History, Politics and
Mathematicks concerning the Subject for two whole Days, and then We should
pass the Resolution unanimously in the Affirmative,” Adams Family Corresp. I .
John Adams’ comment on Dyer and Sherman’s tedious speaking, Adams diary for
Oct. , , Adams Papers II . Sherman apparently embarrassed his fellow
New Englanders, judging not only from Adams’ comment, but also from Deane’s
comment to his wife (Aug. ), shortly after the Conn. delegates had had drinks
with some of New York’s elite, that his “odd questions” and “very odd and coun-
trified cadence” made him “as badly calculated to appear in such a Company as
a chestnut burr is for an eye-stone...,” Deane Papers I .
The Congress sat every day but Sunday, Journals Cont. Cong. I – passim, from
nine .. to .., John Adams to his wife Oct. , , Adams Family Corresp. I .
Washington’s diary Sept. –, , records that he dined at private houses every
night but three and on one of these (Sept. ) “Dined at the State House at an En-
tertainment given by the City to the Members of the Congress,” Washington Diaries
II –. Paine’s description of the grand dinner given by the City of Philadel-
phia is in Adams Papers II n.
Washington’s diary records the names of his hosts, and entries as to winnings and
losses at cards appear in his book of accounts
—he won £ net. But what card game
or games were played is not stated, Washington’s Pocket Day Book, Huntington
Lib., and Ledger B fol. , L.C., summarized in Freeman Washington III n.
The O.E.D. quotes an English recipe of for fool as a “Custard...made of
Cream, Yolks of Eggs, Cinamon, Mace boiled: and served on Sippets [small pieces
of toast or fried bread] with sliced Dates, Sugar and white and red Comfits [can-
died fruit] strawed [sprinkled] thereon.”
Bullock Williamsburg Art of Cookery quotes an English recipe of as stating
that to make a trifle “Cover the Bottom of your Dish with Naples Biscuits broke
in Pieces, Mackeroons, and Ratafia cakes [cakes tinctured with peach or apricot
brandy], just wet them all with Sack [any strong, dry wine from southern Europe],
pour on a good boiled Custard when cold, then a whipt Syllabub over that.”
Same quotes a Virginia recipe of stating that to make syllabubs (a favorite
colonial dish) “Take a Quart of Cream, not too thick, and a Pint of Sack, and the
Juice of two Lemons; sweeten it to your Palate, and put into a broad earthen Pan,
and with a Whisk [egg-beater] whip it, and lay it in your Syllabub Glasses; but first
you must sweeten some Claret or Sack or white-wine and strain it, and put seven
or eight Spoonfuls of the Wine into your Glasses, and then gently lay in your
Froth.”
John Adams’ descriptions of the dinners he attended and what was served, Adams
Papers II –.
John Adams to his wife Sept. , , as to the continuing round of eating and
drinking, Adams Family Corresp. I . Adams attributed his holding out “surpriz-
ingly” to his sticking to “Phyladelphia Beer and Porter” which agreed with him
“infinitely better than...Spirituous Liquor,” same. Adams complained again to
his wife on Oct. of “the perpetual Round of feasting...we are obliged to sub-
mit to...,” same . Also Deane wrote his wife Sept. that after : .., the
members did nothing but “eat and drink” and that he was “engaged to dine out
every day this week,” Burnett Letters I .
Connecticut delegates to Gov. Jonathan Trumbull of Conn. Oct. , , ex-
plaining why the Congress was sitting so long, same .
A draft, undated, by Sullivan of a statement perhaps prepared for a subcommit-
tee of the Committee on the Statement of Rights, is published in Journals Cont.
Cong. I –, but there is no evidence that the draft submitted by the committee
to the Congress followed Sullivan’s paper.
Statement of grounds for claim of colonial rights in the Statement of Rights as
adopted, same . It will be noted that the statement refers to the “English” colo-
nies, “English” liberty, and the “English” constitution, not to the “British” colo-
nies, liberty, and constitution, serving to bring out that the rights claimed were
long-established rights antedating the Act of uniting England and Scotland
as Great Britain.
The Statement of Rights declared that the colonists were entitled to an “exclusive
power...in all cases of taxation,” same .
The act of Geo. III ch. (the Townshend Act of ) recited as a grievance in
the statement, same , not only imposed colonial duties for revenue but provided
(sec. ) for issuing general writs of assistance in the colonies.
The acts before cited as grievances are referred to by year and section, same
–; the Intolerable Acts of are described, same –.
The grievances recited against the Crown are in same . The complaints against
the Crown are discussed in an appendix to this chapter. Evidently none of them
was regarded as sufficiently serious to be included among the demands for redress
in the Association later adopted by the Congress.
The resolution of the Delaware convention, Aug. , , as to British restriction
on colonial manufactures, quoted in the text, Force I . The British acts
restricting colonial manufactures are described in Knollenberg Origin –,
–.
Proposal in the Statement of Rights of the means to be pursued for securing re-
dress of the colonial grievances recited in the statement, same. Unlike the Stamp
Act Congress of , the First Continental Congress did not petition the Houses
of Parliament, apparently having given up hope of relief from Parliament except
under pressure from the King.
Debate in the Committee on the Statement of Rights by Lee, Duane, Jay, John
Rutledge, and other members of the committee Sept. , , as to ground or
grounds on which to base the claim of colonial rights, Adams’ notes for Sept. ,
Burnett Letters I –.
Duane’s leadership in securing some acknowledgment by the Congress of Parlia-
ment’s authority to regulate colonial trade, Duane’s “Propositions” Sept. –,
, and his “Notes of Debates” of about Oct. , same –, – and Adams’
“Notes of Debates’ of about Sept. , and his diary for Oct. , same , . (Duane’s
undated papers, same , , also suggest a proposal that the colonies offer to con-
tribute an annual sum toward support of the British navy if the restrictions on co-
lonial trade were removed. Undated notes of John Adams also mention this sug-
gestion, Adams Papers II .)
Duane’s motion (for an amendment) concerning recognition by the Congress of
Parliament’s limited authority to regulate colonial trade, Duane’s “Notes of De-
bates” Oct. and “Notes of Debates” of about Oct. , , Burnett Letters I ,
–; Adams’ diary for Oct. , same . (Adams’ diary entry suggests that Duane’s
motion was defeated only because it based the limited recognition of Parliament’s
authority to regulate colonial trade on “compact, acquiescence, necessity, protec-
tion,” rather than “merely on our consent,” same .)
Duane’s motion defeated by to vote, Adams’ diary for Oct. , , same .
The division in R.I. was between Hopkins supporting, and Ward opposing,
Duane’s proposal, Ward diary for Oct. , , Burnett Letters I . John Adams
supported Duane’s motion, Duane’s “Notes of Debates” Oct. , same , but
which one of the other three Mass. delegates stood with Adams is unknown to me.
( John Adams, in his Novanglus letters published a few months later, repeatedly
acknowledged Parliament’s authority “to regulate their [the colonies’] trade,” No-
vanglus , , , –, , , –, –, .)
Duane to Chase Dec. , , tends to imply that the N.Y. and Md. delegations
supported him, Burnett Letters I –, and Paine’s undated notes of debates, Paine
Papers (M.H.S.), indicate that Chase, Paca, and Johnson of Md., a majority of the
Md. delegates, favored Duane’s proposal. Chase’s support also is indicated by a
note of Adams in Burnett Letters I and a letter from Chase to Duane Feb. , ,
stating, “The right bona fide to regulate our Commerciel I would recognize in the
most clear and express terms,” Southern Hist. Assoc. Public. X () .
Passage quoted in the text as to Parliament’s regulation of colonial commerce,
Oct. , , Journals Cont. Cong. I . In his autobiography, John Adams says he
drafted this passage, Burnett Letters I n. I have found no contemporary evidence
of this, except possibly a letter of Dec. , , from him to an unidentified cor-
respondent, stating he “had more anxiety” about this passage in the Statement of
Rights “than all the rest,” same .
Benjamin Franklin’s statement to Lord Chatham March , , that “excluding
foreign Ships from our Ports...was as acceptable to us as it could be to Britain,”
Smyth Franklin VI , apparently was well founded. (Section of Geo. III ch.
[] prohibiting importation into the British colonies of foreign rum also was
little protested, probably because it protected rum distillers in British North
America, as well as those in the British West Indies.)
Galloway’s statement quoted in the text denouncing the Congress for its double-
talk concerning regulation of colonial trade in the Statement of Rights, Mutual
Claims .
The journals of the Congress dated Sept. , , state merely that the Suffolk
County resolutions “were laid before the congress,” Journals Cont. Cong. I –. My
statement that the Mass. delegation presented them is from a letter of Samuel
Adams to Charles Chauncey Sept. , reporting that “Last Friday [Sept. ] Mr.
[Paul] Revere brought us the spirited and patriotick Resolves of Your County of
Suffolk. We laid them before the Congress,” Burnett Letters I .
Resolution of the Congress, quoted in the text, approving the conduct of Mass.,
Journals Cont. Cong. I . (This resolution is dated in the journals “Saturday Sep-
tember , .” Saturday was the th. It is highly improbable that the Congress
sat on Sunday, and I therefore date the resolution Sept. .) The Suffolk Resolu-
tions are in same –.
The order for publication of the Suffolk County Resolutions, Sept. , ,
same . The Congress also voted to send to Boston a copy of its own resolution of
Sept. , and that this resolution, too, be published, same .
Referring to the action of the Congress on the Resolves, John Adams wrote in his
diary for Sept. , , “This day convinced me that America will support the
Massachusetts or perish with her,” and two days later Samuel Adams wrote
Charles Chauncy, “I think I may assure you that America will make a point of
supporting Boston to the utmost,” Burnett Letters I , .
A letter from the Suffolk County convention to Gage, Sept. , , protesting
against his military activities in and around Boston, also was presented to the
Congress, Journals Cont. Cong. I –, and was implicitly approved, same .
Boston Comm. of Corresp. to the Congress Sept. , , telling of Gage’s
menacing activities at Boston and requesting advice how to deal with them, same
–.
Resolution Oct. , , as to supporting Mass., same . The Congress adopted
supplementary resolutions on Oct. and advising the people of Boston to sub-
mit to a temporary “suspension of the administration of Justice” and to continue
“to conduct themselves peaceably” toward the troops in Boston “as far as can pos-
sibly be consistent with their immediate safety,” and a letter of Oct. to Gen.
Gage begging him to quiet the minds of the people of Boston by discontinuing for-
tifications in and about the town, same –.
My supposition that someone in the Va. delegation moved the important resolu-
tion of Oct. , , is based on the fact that the resolutions of the Va. convention
of Aug., , Force I , discussed in Chapter , called for “resistance and
reprisal” if Gage tried to enforce a proclamation of June , threatening punish-
ment to anyone signing the so-called Solemn League and Covenant promoted by
the Boston Comm. of Corresp., same –.
The resolution of Oct. , , concerning Mass. was not adopted unanimously,
Journals Cont. Cong. I .
Gov. Cadwallader Colden of N.Y., shortly after talking with Galloway and Duane,
wrote Dartmouth Dec. , , that they had told him “they Dissented from the
Proceedings of the Congress,” Colden , and, though Colden did not spec-
ify which of the proceedings they dissented from, later statements by them indi-
cate that they protested against the resolution of Oct. , Burnett Letters I and
Alexander Duane , .
Adams’ diary of Oct. , , records Henry’s denunciation of Galloway, Jay, and
the Rutledges, Burnett Letters I .
John Adams to William Tudor Oct. , , quoted in the text, Burnett Letters I .
Also Adams to Joseph Palmer Sept. , same . Adams himself apparently wished
the Congress to prepare for defense. He wrote James Warren July , “It may well
be expected that many Men of Sound Judgment will be of the Assembly. But what
avails Prudence, Wisdom . . . without Legions. When Demosthenes went Ambas-
sador from Athens to . . . excite a Confederacy against Phillip, he did not go to pro-
pose a Non-Importation or Non-Consumption Agreement!!!” Warren–Adams I .
Chapter
Resolution for a committee to bring in a plan for carrying into effect the non-
importation, non-consumption, and non-exportation resolved on, and names of
the members chosen, Sept. , , Journals Cont. Cong. I . I have not discovered
how this and other committees of Congress were chosen. Three of the committee,
Cushing, Low, and Mifflin, had been members of an earlier committee “to ex-
amine & report the several Statutes, which affect the trade and Manufactures of
the colonies,” which had brought in its report on Sept. , same , , .
The Association was submitted Oct. , , and adopted Oct. , same –.
The duties described in the text were imposed by the Acts of and (de-
scribed in Chapter ) and the Townshend Act of . The repeal of these duties
would leave only small duties levied by Chas. II ch. () on several colonial
products exported from one colony to another, which, as brought out in Knollen-
berg Origin , , , , had been levied primarily for commercial purposes,
rather than for revenue.
The extension of the jurisdiction of the colonial admiralty courts, indemnification
of the prosecutor on the judges’s certificate, and the requirement of oppressive se-
curity from claimants, referred to in the text, which were provided for by several
sections of the Act of , were discussed in Chapter .
The “act for the better administration of justice” was the act of Geo. III ch. ,
described in Chapter , authorizing trial in Great Britain or other colonies of sol-
diers or others charged with murder for acts committed in Mass. in alleged exe-
cution of duties of their office.
Article of the Association stated, “We will use our utmost endeavours to improve
the breed of sheep...,” Journals Cont. Cong. I . The provision doubtless was in-
tended to increase the supply of wool available for manufacture and mending of
woolen and linsey-woolsey cloth and clothing.
Article I of the Association states, “That from and after the first day of December
next, we will not import,” etc., same . Other articles of the Association (e.g., Ar-
ticles and ) connected with Article refer to importations “after” December
first, and I therefore construe “from and after” in Article to mean “after” this
date. This interpretation was adopted by the Philadelphia committee responsible
for enforcement of the Association there, Force I .
“Great Britain and Ireland” were defined in a resolution passed by the Second
Continental Congress Aug. , , as including “Jersey...and every [other] Eu-
ropean island and settlement within the British dominions...,” Journals Cont.
Cong. II .
I have found no evidence explaining the provision (same I ) banning importation
of tea even though not imported from Great Britain or Ireland or having any con-
nection with the British East India Company. If this sweeping ban was an aspect
of the program of “frugality” advocated in Article of the Association (same ),
why was the importation of coffee not also totally banned? Perhaps the fear of the
British Company tea being palmed off as Dutch tea was responsible for the ban
on all tea.
The banning of imports of “paneles” (raw sugar) from the British West Indies and
not other sugar is puzzling. A conceivable explanation is that the British Customs
Board did not classify paneles as “sugar,” within the meaning of Geo. III ch.
sec. () repealing the duty on “sugar” levied by Chas. II ch. sec. ().
If so, shipments of paneles from one British colony to another would still be tax-
able and a proper article to be included in the ban.
The language of the Association, Journals Cont. Cong. , is “from the British Plan-
tations or from Dominica.” Perhaps Dominica was named separately because,
though now British, unlike the other British colonies in the West Indies it had been
undisputably British only since the Treaty of Paris in .
Article of the Association banning imports from Great Britain, Ireland, and the
British West Indies. This article left open imports from elsewhere. But, as noted
in Chapter , importation of many commodities into the colonies except from
Great Britain was already forbidden by British acts, and an act of Geo. III ch.
, passed in , prohibited, on and after Sept. , , all imports into most of
the British continental colonies except from Great Britain, Ireland, or the British
West Indies.
Article of the Association banned importation of slaves and the engagement in
the slave trade, same . This ban is discussed later in this chapter.
The agreement not to purchase or use (the so-called non-consumption agree-
ment) quoted in the text is in Article of the Association, same . An earlier pas-
sage in this article stated that, “from this day [presumably meaning the day the
Association was signed] we will not purchase or use any tea, imported on account
of the East-India company, or any on which a duty hath been or shall be paid....”
The non-exportation provision of the Association, same , followed the non-
exportation resolution of Sept. , , quoted in Chapter , except for the ex-
emption of rice.
Article of the Association authorized the committee of inspection of the place
where banned goods were imported “after the first day of December, and before
the first day of February next” to permit the importer to store or sell the goods sub-
ject to the conditions stated in the text, same –. Presumably, “on or after,”
rather than “after,” December , was intended.
Statement in the Association of the proposed means of securing redress of colo-
nial grievances, same –.
Statement in the Association as to collateral matters described in the text, same –
. These follow rather closely the text of the Association adopted by the Va. con-
vention of Aug., (described in Chapter ), Force IV –.
Statement in the Association as to ban on imports, Journals Cont. Cong. I –.
My supposition that Lee made the motion for banning importation of all dutied
articles is based on Adams’ diary for Sept. , , stating, “Lee is for making the
repeal of every revenue law, the Boston Port Bill, the bill for altering the Massa-
chusetts constitution and the Quebec Bill and the removal of all the troops, the
end of the Congress, and an abstinence from all dutied articles, the means...,”
Burnett Letters I –, combined with Deane’s notes for Oct. , stating, “moved by
Col. Lee to take the Dutied Articles into Consideration,” “Deane Notes” .
I have found no copy of the motion to ban importation and consumption of for-
eign, as well as British West Indian, molasses and sugar; but the fact that such a
motion was made is deducible from Adams’ notes of debates [Oct. , ], Bur-
nett Letters I –. Mifflin, who, as brought out in Chapter , had earlier made
a similar motion, spoke on the present motion, same , but, whether for or against
it, is not clear.
Opposition of Pendleton and Chase to the motion, and Low’s remarks quoted in
the text, Adams’ notes of debates [Oct. , ], same .
The Va. convention of Aug. –, , adopted a resolution “We will neither our-
selves import, nor purchase any slave or slaves imported by any other person, af-
ter the first day of November, next, either from Africa, the West Indies, or any
other place,” Force I .
Motion made on Oct. , , by an unidentified member and supported by Ward
and Lynch that the export of flaxseed and lumber from the colonies be banned
effective immediately, Deane’s notes for Oct. and , “Deane Notes” , –.
(Deane refers to the discussion of the motion on Oct. , as “the motion for
Nonimportation of flaxseed,” but this is obviously a slip of the pen for “non-
exportation.”)
Ross’ objection as to singling out flaxseed; Sullivan’s objection as to singling out
lumber; and Galloway’s, Dyer’s, Johnson’s, and Harrison’s objections to singling
out any article or articles, Deane’s notes for Oct. and , , same , –. As to
export of flaxseed from Md., Conn., and Pa., statements of Mifflin, Johnson, and
Dyer, same . A number of other members spoke on this motion, same –, but
Deane’s notes are too confusing to enable one to say what stand they took.
The motion as to flaxseed and lumber “Negatived Nem. Con.,” i.e., without a call
for a vote, Deane’s notes for Oct. , , same .
The Association’s exemption of rice, Journals Cont. Cong. I . Drayton Memoirs of
the Revolution () I , reprinted in Burnett Letters I –, says Gadsden told the
S.C. provincial congress in Jan. , that the S.C. delegates other than himself had
refused to sign the Association unless rice were excepted, thereby forcing the
Congress to yield “for the sake of preserving the union of America.” Henry to
John Laurens Jan. , , confirms Drayton as to Gadsden’s stand, Clark Naval
Doc. I .
The difference between the export market for colonial rice and for other colonial
farm products was that most of the latter ordinarily was exported chiefly to for-
eign markets that were not banned by the Association, whereas two-thirds of the
rice exported ordinarily went “to the ports of the mother country,” which were
banned by the Association, statement of John Rutledge, Drayton Memoirs of the
Revolution I , quoted in Burnett Letters I –.
A supplement to the Dec. , , issue of the New-York Journal published the rea-
sons given by the S.C. delegates for exempting rice.
Edward Rutledge wrote Ralph Izard Dec. , , that he had been “totally
against yielding as to indigo,” Izard . See also an undated letter of around Oct.,
, from Rutledge to Thomas Bee apparently concerning his stand on this, Bur-
nett Letters I . The statement cited in note above gave the reason for not ex-
empting indigo. The S.C. provincial Congress voted Jan. , , that part of the
proceeds from exports of rice after Sept. , , be shared with producers of in-
digo and several other S.C. products, Force I –.
Gadsden’s proposal to stop remittances to Great Britain “after the th Sep
tr
” and support for this by Ward and Ross, Deane’s notes for Oct. and , ,
“Deane Notes” which correctly prints the entry in the manuscript at the Conn.
Hist. Society. But since Sept. , , already was past, I think “Sep
tr
” probably
was a slip of the pen for some later month.
Edward Rutledge and Galloway oppose Gadsden’s proposal, same.
Duane’s proposal of Oct. or , , as to excluding the Quebec Act, Duane’s
notes of debates, Burnett Letters I –. He gave other reasons in addition to those
quoted in the text, including, “Is it not a disputable point with respect to religion
whether more is granted to the Canadians than was solemnly promised by the ca-
pitulation [of Montreal in ].” The dating is based on entries in the journals of
the Congress recording debates over the Association on those days, Journals Cont.
Cong. I –.
Duane supported as to Quebec Act by Jay and opposed by Lee and McKean,
Duane’s notes of debates, Burnett Letters I . John Adams and Paine of Mass. and
Henry also joined the debate apparently against Duane, but the notes of their re-
marks are obscure.
Duane’s notes of debates contain the entry “Monday, th October . Resolved
that Quebec Bill be an article of the Grievances to be stood upon. I dissented, but
entered unanimously,” same . He had earlier objected to including the Quebec