Conceived in Liberty (223 page)

*
On Admiral Howe’s failure to establish an effective blockade of the Americans after 1776, despite orders to do so, see Gruber, “Richard Lord Howe,” in Billias, ed.,
George Washington’s Opponents,
pp. 235–43.

Before the war, Great Britain had been the principal exporter to, and importer from, the American colonies. America had been particularly dependent upon Britain for supplies of high-grade manufactured goods, including textiles and ammunition. Now the outbreak of war suddenly cut off these supplies, necessary for the American economy and more acutely for the American army. The total imports from England to the American colonies were 2.6 million pounds sterling in 1774, plummeting to less than 200,000 pounds sterling in 1775, and 50,000 pounds sterling the following year. Apart from privateering, the Americans would have to make up the gap by shifting to other sources of trade.

The major obstacle to this vital shift in trade patterns faced by the Americans was paradoxically enough self-imposed. The Continental Association, an intelligent method of putting pressure on England before Lexington and Concord, was now simply a destructive, self-imposed barrier on importing supplies. The pressure policy had failed, war had begun, and now the desideratum was to obtain supplies. Already in July 1775, John Adams, Richard Henry Lee, and other radical delegates to the Congress had recommended that American ports be thrown open to all countries except Great Britain. Throwing American ports open to imports from all other nations, however, would mean open and outright defiance of the time-honored Navigation Acts, and hence a long step toward outright proclamation of independence from Britain, a step which the conservative and timorous in the colonies were not yet prepared to take.

Despite the drastic change of conditions, the American rebels, suffering from a “cultural lag,” continued to enforce even the nonimportation
provisions of the Continental Association, and Congress, in effect, reaffirmed the association in May and July of 1775. By mid-July, rationality began to break through, and Congress authorized, for a period of nine months, the importation of munitions from anywhere in exchange for American produce, the Continental Association notwithstanding; merchants were specially licensed by the Congress to receive these imports. So shamefaced were the delegates about this arrangement, that it was not revealed to the public until late October.

American foreign trade had been further gravely crippled by the approach of the date set by the Continental Association for nonexportation (September 10) and by its zealous enforcement by the local committees of safety. At the end of October, further breaches were made by Congress’ recommendation to the provincial governments—and to its own newly created Secret Committee—to license ships to export produce to the West Indies in exchange for munitions. Moreover, export of food to Bermuda in exchange for salt and munitions was now officially allowed.

It also began to dawn on some colonists that Britain’s exemption of four of the less revolutionary colonies (New York, Delaware, North Carolina, Georgia) after April 1775 was now a boon rather than a bane. The conservative Whig, Thomas Willing of Pennsylvania, a merchant and shipowner, argued in October that it was absurd to “act like the dog in the manger—not suffer [the four colonies] to export because we can’t. We may get salt and ammunition by those ports.” But on November 1, Congress decided not to allow this major breach, and by the end of 1775 this particular matter had become academic as a result of Britain’s anathematizing all American trade with the Prohibitory Act.

November 1, indeed, was a black day for rationality as well as for the Revolutionary War effort, for Congress staunchly reaffirmed the nonimportation pact, with the exception of the specifically licensed shipments for munitions. Those aptly called “fools” by Adams in July had prevailed then, and they tightened their grip in November.

Nonexportation would expire on March 1, 1776, and this fact, as well as the increasing strangulation of foreign trade, reopened the debate on open or closed ports at the beginning of that year. This time Willing, eager enough to import goods into American ports, was hardly eager to throw open American importation to the ships of all nations. Typically, the conservative faction in Congress chose to place protection of the state-granted privileges above success for the Revolutionary War effort. Thomas Johnson of Maryland wailed that the merchants and shipbuilders would suffer if foreign nations enjoyed the carrying trade to America. Samuel Chase of Maryland and John Joachim Zubly of Georgia opined that opening of the ports smacked too much of American independence.

Spearheading the fight for free trade with the rest of the world were the
radicals: Richard Henry Lee and George Wythe of Virginia, Christopher Gadsden of South Carolina, and John and Sam Adams of Massachusetts. They pointed to the growing scarcity of goods and the consequent distresses of the poor. They also shrewdly noted that admitting the ships of foreign nations would be likely to bring in its wake foreign warships to protect the merchant vessels, thus aiding in the American struggle against the British navy. The Virginia Provincial Convention urged Congress to open the ports, as did the Philadelphia Committee of Inspection.

The British Prohibitory Act proved to be the decisive means of radicalizing Congress on this issue, and on April 6, they provided that imports and exports of all goods to and from all parts of the world, except Great Britain and her possessions, would henceforth be free. The onerous Acts of Trade and Navigation were at last no more, and Sam Adams exulted that we have “torn into shivers their Acts of Trade, by allowing commerce subject to regulation to be made by
ourselves
with the people of all countries....” Here was a momentous step indeed toward American independence from Great Britain.

Although the restrictions of the Continental Association on trade with Britain remained, the freeing of all other trade greatly reduced their crippling impact, and they were soon relaxed still further. One of the most onerous provisions of the association, in effect since March 1, 1775, imposed total nonconsumption of tea. Zealous enforcement by local radical committees understandably alienated many citizens from the radical cause. Also understandably, merchants put pressure on Congress to relax what had now become absurd as well as tyrannical regulation. Despite the opposition of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Lynch of South Carolina, and Richard Henry Lee, Congress agreed on April 13, 1776, to permit at least the sale and consumption of all tea imported before December 1, 1774, when the nonimportation clauses of the Continental Association had gone into effect. Since it was difficult to distinguish between tea imported before and after that date, this measure proved another advance toward freedom of trade.

Still another important advance toward free trade was the liquidation of the economically absurd provisions of the Continental Association for fixing the prices of imported goods at their previous levels. Since the association and then the war were bound to make these goods far more scarce and therefore raise their prices, enforcement of such provisions could only lead to drastic shortages of the goods and dislocation of the economy, shortages and dislocation later aggravated by the still higher prices necessarily brought about by the paper-money inflation financing the war effort.

In the North, the price regulations caused a great deal of trouble from the beginning of the nonimportation, particularly in New York and Philadelphia
and their tributary markets. Most foodstuffs were grown in America rather than imported, and hence remained abundant during the war; the important exceptions were salt, tea, and the West Indies products sugar and molasses. The dearth and consequent high prices of previously abundant West Indies commodities (in contrast to the more stable prices of home products) were the particular irritants in the North and hence were the special objects of zeal in enforcement by the radical local committees. During the winter of 1775–76, the Philadelphia committee continually harassed the merchants. In December 1775 the committee fixed detailed wholesale and retail prices for oil, following this up on March 6 with a comprehensive schedule of fixed prices for such West Indian trade products as salt, molasses, rum, coffee, cocoa, and sugar. Violators would be advertised as “sordid vultures who are preying on the vitals of their country in a time of general distress.” This petulant deed was quickly imitated by the New York committee, which had previously harassed merchants for alleged overcharging in the price of pins. The Newark committee followed with similar schedules for West Indian commodities on March 15, and other imitators were the joint Committees of Inspection of the towns of New London County, and the joint committees of Hartford County, Connecticut. The New Hampshire Provincial Congress and the Providence, Rhode Island, committee also issued frequent warnings and outcries against the rise of prices.

In the south, the major scarce imported commodity was salt. Salt was essential for the preservation of meat and fish, and the bulk of colonial supplies of salt had come from Turks Island in the British West Indies, now closed to American shipping. Local committees in the south, particularly in Virginia and Maryland, tried desperately and unavailingly to stop the rise in the price of salt, efforts which could only aggravate the shortage. People in the Virginia uplands went so far as to join in looting raids against the salt stocks of tidewater merchants, raids which only intensified the shortage still more.

Congress was finally moved at the end of December 1775 to relieve the salt shortage by opening Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina to the import of salt from any foreign country and to the export of any produce in exchange. Thus salt, at least in the upper south, won free trade before other commodities.

Having watched the colonies struggle unavailingly against price increases for scarce commodities, Congress decided to complete its great free trade program of April 1776 by completely scrapping the price-control provisions of the Continental Association. Wisely asserting that merchants should be encouraged to import from abroad by a prospect of profits proportionate to the risks incurred, Congress resolved on April 30 to end the powers of committees of observation and inspection to “regulate
the prices of goods.” Domestic trade immediately flourished again with the sweeping away of the restrictions, and the merchants happily ignored the exemption the Congress had tried to make for green tea.

The breaking of this logjam of course allowed prices to rise to their free-market levels, thereby clearing supply and demand. Unfortunately, Congress soon partially backtracked on its free-market policy and on May 30 it advised the local committees once again to fix the price of salt. Most of the provinces and local committees were quick to adopt this advice, thereby perpetuating a salt shortage. The New Jersey Committee of Safety, on the other hand, displayed better sense. When, in various sections of the province, angry mobs formed to coerce merchants into lowering their prices, the New Jersey Committee warned the people that any forced reduction of prices would merely discourage importation and end by injuring the mass of the poor.

The gravest commodity shortage for the American war effort was ammunition, especially gunpowder, the great bulk of which had formerly been imported from England. Without ammunition, of course, the war would be over promptly. The Americans made determined efforts to encourage and subsidize domestic manufacturing of powder, but with little success. America, after all, was not a manufacturing country, and there was no reason why it should have been. Agriculture was its
metier,
and over 90 percent of the population lived on farms (including plantations). Cities were far more important as centers for commerce—trading in and for American agricultural products—than for manufacturing. What manufacturing took place was on a small scale indeed; there were artisans in urban centers and the more prevalent household manufacturers (e.g., of the family’s chief clothing) in the rural areas. The exception to the paucity of manufacturing for the market was Philadelphia, the largest city in British America. Wood from nearby forests and hides from neighboring farms provided raw material for numerous types of manufacturing, and local iron, zinc, and copper mines supplied the material for manufacture of arms.

Seeing that the powder shortage was critical, the Continental Congress as early as June 10, 1775, urged the provincial governments to subsidize or engage themselves in the manufacture of gunpowder. In Philadelphia and environs, with its tradition of manufacturing, six powder mills were soon producing several thousand pounds of powder a week. The Virginia convention also passed a bill subsidizing powder mills, but with little success. Many Virginians attempted powder manufacture, but they soon found that the heavy capital requirements and costly operations forced them to abandon the field. As the powder shortage accelerated throughout the colonies, and subsidized private manufacture proved hopelessly
uneconomic, Virginia turned in January 1776 to consider the establishment of public powder mills at government expense. But despite the active support of the powerful John Page, the attempt was blocked by a majority of the Virginia Committee of Safety and especially by the president of the convention, Edmund Pendleton.

At any rate, it was rapidly becoming clear that domestic powder production could supply only a negligible amount of the needs of the American forces; even Philadelphia’s contribution could only be a drop in the bucket and was inferior in quality to European powder besides. In short, the great bulk of American powder still had to be imported. The obvious source was the West Indies, and this meant that tobacco, the great staple demanded in Europe, would be the main source of funds to pay for the imported powder. And tobacco meant Virginia, the great center of tobacco production and export.

The first attempt to expand the import of powder came in Virginia during 1775 when the merchant and planter John Goodrich was sent by the Committee of Safety to negotiate the purchase of powder in the West Indies. Goodrich, however, through no fault of his own, was soon in trouble on all sides. The British discovered his mission and arrested him, and after his release, Virginians, led by the Isle of Wight Committee of Safety, denounced him for daring to consider buying ammunition from the
British
West Indies. Few Americans, indeed, seemed to realize that purchase of war supplies from the British would be a boon, not a living shame, for the American war effort. After all, there was no mystical taint attached to
British
ammunition. Goodrich, in understandable disgust at his persecution, abandoned the struggle and joined the British cause.