USA > Connecticut > The trade of Revolutionary Connecticut > Part 13
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26
. works as to render the same unfit for, bread ....
The penalty for violation was set at four times the value of "such grain to distilled." This act was extended by the general assembly in October, 1777 for mother year; and in October, 1778 for an additional year. 19 No further action on the original measure seems to have been taken either in October, 1779 or later.
In August, 1777 a loophole in the prohibitory act of December, 1776 was closed up. It was "justly apprehended that the distilling of brandy from eyder will occasion a scarcity of that drink, so comfortable and
11 A. R. W., V, Doc. 285.
12 S. R. I, 104-105.
18g. R. I, 416; II, 154.
193,
useful in this State, and in a great measure deprive the inhabitants, especially the poorer sort, of the benefit and use of cyder.". Hence, the distilling of brandy was absolutely enjoined with a possible penalty of fourfold the value of the oider used. 14
The prohibitary legislation in cold fast did not produce a "drought' in Connectlout. - What it signified in reality was the taking over of the distilleries by the State, and the use of one or more of them to produce liquor, chiefly rum, for the Connecticut militia and Continental troops. .. . That was what happened, for example, to the distillery of Josuinios Erkolens, Mary Alsop, and Nathaniel Shaler." 15 In July, 1778 Erkolens was given an export permit to take two hogsheads of spirits and other things to Albany "to exchange for grain to carry on the distillery of 17 Geneva. "16 At lator dates quantities of molasses held in the state
wore ordered made into run for use of the troops. 18 An interesting entry under the heading "Genova Distillery" casts some light upon operation of a distillery for the State. 19
14 S. R. I, 366.
15 C. R. V, 227. The distillery was taken over by the State in October, 1777 for the purpose of "Distilling Geneva for Public Use." The State neglected to pay the amers for its use according to a petition of Mary Alsop in October, 1783 for just payment.
16C. R. II, 98.
- Probably the molasses was seized by Connecticut's activo privatoors.
18c. R. II, 167 (probably at a Horwich distillery in December 1780); III, 448 (ten hogsheads to be distilled at Erkelens' distillery; the same amount at Forwich -- all in June 1781).
19A. R. W. XXXV, Doo. 229.
,
.
194.
1778 May.
"Ginn Distillery To 39 Bushols Ry @ 10/
Dr. ₡ 19
1
25 17 0
13 Tierces Brot of Eben Whitmen 80 Dashel Ryo Bot of Levi Churchell @ 15 40 Bushels DO San- Smith
7 16 0
60 0 0
30
0
157
16
.
,
Sept. 26 [1778]
338 Bashel Rye of Capt. Smith [@] 15/ To Expences & Time in Buying
253 10 0
10 0 O
263 10 0
..
,
Oct. 20th [1778]
To 240 Bushels D Bot of Moss's Bort and Colo [@] 15/. To paid Do for purchasing Do
180 0 0
4 10 0
₺ 631 13 0
1
To Carting Do from Cheshire To Expance of Purchasing &o. paid Maj Bradley
195.
3. Glass
An important product out off by the war was glass, formerly imported from England. In October, 1779 Elijah Hubbard, Isaac Mosoley, William .
Little, Jr., and Picket Latimer asked for encouragement in erecting a .; à' glass factory and carrying on the manufacture. The general assembly granted them the exclusive right during its pleasure.20
The enterprise apparently was rather transitory as another group of petitioners asked for exclusive privileges in January, 1783. William. ; Pitkin, Semuel Bishop, and Elisha Pitkin won a generous grantı twenty-five years' monopoly for making glass and ten years' freedom from taxation .... -
Although one cannot judge accurately as to the amount of glass made during the Revolution, it seems safe to asmme that the output was very
0
..
.
20 Arch., Industry, II, Doos. 168-169. Also in S. R. II, 428-429. 21Tbid., Doos. 179-180. Also in S. R. V. 67.
-
1
195.
One of the most serious problems created by the outbreak of war and the increasingly effective British blockade was the shortage of the " ;mort vital necessity, salt. In peacetime, Connecticut imported a substantial proportion of the salt used in the Colony. Honce, the shortage very quickly beomme critical. On October 2, 1776 the Council. of Safety took action: "Whereas the great ery and want of the necessary artielo. . of salt threatens to disturb the publiek peace and safety of the State," It was voted to dispatch, at publie expense, a suitable member of ships. under the direction of Captain John Deshon of New London to procuro salt. 22 This action, however, afforded only temporary relief. The fundamental solution, as Connecticut's leaders soon realized, lay in increased production at home.
To provide an incentive to production, the legislature established a bounty system in May, 1776. One hundred pounds was offered to .the first person, or persons, to ereot salt works and to manufacture five hundred bushels of salt. Rewards of eighty, sixty, and forty pounds were stipulated for the second, third, and fourth persons, respectively. The deadline was October 1, 1777." On the basis of the location of most of the salt works, one could assume that it was made chiofly from
There was some response, although it was inadequate. Captain Joseph Trowbridge, Thomas Trowbridge, David Trowbridge, Rutherford Trowbridge, ind Willisa Shermen, all of How Haven, petitioned the general assembly
22 c. R. XV, 529.
¢
2ºC. R. XV, 290-291.
197.
for the one hundred pounds bounty. They presented an account for 502 1/2 bushels of salt made at their plant from August, 1776 to March 10, 1777. Their case apparently was bona fide, because the legislature voted payment of the bounty.24
- To spur lagging production, the general assembly .in October, 1776 voted a bounty of one shilling per bushel of salt produced before November 1, 1777.25 At the November 19 special session the legislators dissented to a proposed increase in bounty of me shilling per bushel;20 but, in December, they reversed their opinion by establishing the bounty at two shillings per bushel, effective for two years beginning January 1, 1777.27 This schedule seems to have remained in force despite farther 4 attempts to increase the bounty. 28
Meanwhile, at the November session, town officials were anthorised by the legislature to issue warrants and seize the, atores of "any engrosser or monopoliser" of salt, and distribute it at the standard prise to those needy people who applied.29 Tras a combination of incentives and threats was employed by the State in an effort to solve
2
24 A. R. W., VII, Doos. 363, 364, 367. The second five hamndred pounds were made by three Branford men who completed the task in Angust, 1777 and were voted the 280 bounty in May, 1778. 8. R. II, 54. .
25. 3. R. I, 10%. 25A. R. W., VII, Doo. 856. 4
27 8. R. I, 103.
28 The upper house passed a bill for an additional six shillings per bushel bounty in May 1777, but the lower house negatived it twice. A. R. W., VII, Dos. 368a.
29g. R. 1, 65 ..
.
198.
the salt shortage.""i the ale Lui. TPA
.. Despite these official actions, the soaroity of salt continued to 4 plague the people of the State.' In May, 1777 the general assembly' i: passed a resolution calling upon the Governor and his Council to dotiso an equitable rule for distribution of the salt imported at the : das. .. government's expense .. . That spring the Council authorised Captain" Jabes Perkins to dispose of 500 bushels of state salt by selling one-half bushel or less to each family in nosd. 81 :
As far as practicable, salt was imported from every possible sourde. Permission was given to export embargoed articles if the ship would return with salt. For example, John MoClave was allowed to transport specified quantities of flax, rye flour, and Indian corn on the schooner Ceorre' to Massachusetts in order to buy salt there to bring back home. 82 .4 similar fashion, Massachusetts shippers were permitted to bring in salt and take out embargood items. 83
In November, 1777 the Commeil of Safety gave Governor Trumbull virtual carte blanche to permit out-of-staters who brought in salt and other necessities to take away such produce of Connecticut as ha deemed wise.34 In March, 1778, Nathaniel Sher as State agent, was directed to :
30 S. R. I. 260.
8. R. I, 203. Later the minimum wes increased to one bushel. 8. R. I, 217. 5 -
. . 1
: : 32 S. R. I, 850. See 8. R. 1, 350, 352 for other examples.
35 S. R. I, 861. Seth Mayo of Eentuotet in exchange for his salt could purchase 300 bushels of rye and corn and transport the same to Hantuaist.
, 84g. R. I, 456.
199.
buy of Captain Michel of the ship Lyon, recently arrived from France, 750 bushels of salt for State use."
Another aspect of the problem imrobred the investment required in equipping a plant for making salt. Jonathan Osborne and Jonathan Brera .. of New Haven presented an interesting request before the general assembly in October, 1776. : They related how they had spent considerable money in procuring a mitable site for mit works and buying large pans, ete. But, they were in constant danger of losing everything by mnemy action. Therefore, they asked that in case of such loss they should be guaranteed indemnification by the State. The legislature answered with a desisivo negativa, So
1 · In the manufacturing process for salt, large pans were needed, but . they were difficult to obtain. Esnoe the Council advised the Salisbury farnaos overseers to fill all orders for salt pans as rapidly possible.37
.
No further general legislation upon the salt problem was enacted, and instead the matter passed largely into the hands of the Governor and Council from 1778 on. In September, 1779 they noted that the scareity of salt remained equally as great as it had been two years earlier. Moreover, they considered that the resent embargo act had
"S. R. I, 574.
A. R. W., VII, Doo. 554. This polisy seems to have been followed consistently as other New Haven and Branford potiticaers were likewise disappointed. A. R. W., VII, Doc. 353.
3. R. I, 322, 324. Apparently the pens were not always well made. Colonel John Chester and others of Wethersfield paid 2320 18s. for pans which were found to be useless. They asked and received an order for raimbursaun' in full for parebase and transportation costs. 8. R. I. 670.
200.
vitiated the effect of the act of October, 1777 which had allowed shipments of produce for the express purpose of purchasing salt. Therefore, the Council voted to permit any person to ship his produoo outside the State in return for salt provided he filed the required bond, obtained a certificate from the town authority, and later submitted vouchers ."
covering the transaction. 38 Unfortunately, this generous action was widely abused, so that the Council revoked it on February 14, 1780.
For the last two or three years of the war the records reveal *": + frequent mention of salt, but no major legislation. In April, 1780' Congress called for 1011 pounds of salt.' of salt.40' Again and again, the toms were asked for salt to use in preserving the meat for the army; or the state salt was distributed among specified towns. Directions were given 41 - for packing meats in salt, buying it locally or in nearby states, and many other details. 42 One may assume from the constant attention given to the problem that the shortage of salt harassed the people of the state throughout the Revolution.
S. R. II, 397-398.
.
39 - S. R. II, 504. € S. R. II, 521, ftn.
A1s. R. III, 183, 251, 260, 281, 522.
42 S. R. III, 183. 222, 231, 248, 278, 2802., 285f .. 315, 346ff, 350, 554, 385, 431, 461, 479, 502, 522, 524, 544f., 550r., 553 ?. , 576.
201.
6. Paper
Paper-making continued through the Revolution as a small but highly significant industry .. If anything, the market for good paper inercased during the war years as there was need for printing many copies of mergency legislative sets and proclamations and for other, governmental business. writ. " lange eregler mit
The paper mills active before the War continued to serve throughout the emergency. Ebenezer Watson and Anstin Ledyard at East Hartford kept very busy supplying the paper for the Connecticut Courant (8000 copies weekly) as well as most of the writing paper used in Connecticut, and. part of that for the Continental Army.43
This mill had been erected in 1775 by Watson and Ledyard especially. to assure ample paper for The Courant. Prior to that. Watson could not obtain enough paper .:
"The utter impossibility of obtaining a Supply of Paper for the Connecticut Courant, obliges the Printer to discontinue the Publication of it, till he can be furnished with that Article from the Mill erecting in this Place, which he can with pleasure assure his Customers, will not exceed Two Weeks."44
-
Unfortunately, the new paper mill did not solve the problem entirely, although it alleviated it. Again and again the Courent's editor advertised for rags. The Courant normally consisted of a four-page weekly ismo. Late in November, 1777 the editor noted that "the difficulty of procuring Rags has sundry times of late reduced the Connecticut Courant to a half
45 Bishop, I, 205; Lyman H. Weeks, History of Paper-Mamfeaturing in the United States (New York, 1916), pp. 69-90.
c. C., December 11, 1776. The next issue actually appeared on January 16, 1776.
.
202.
sheet." Therefore, three pemce per pound, instead of two pense, was x offered and the diligence of the ladies in collecting rags was earnestly besought. 15 Despite this plee, more than a few issues of The Courant were issued either reduced in sise or en very poor paper, or bothes of 1 ... On January 27, 1778 the paper mill of Watson and Ledyard burned to the ground along with a large stook of rags, paper, and other items." .... The widows of the founders, Hannah Watson and Sarah Ledyard, immediately petitioned the general assembly, which happened to be in session then, for a substantial loan, as they claimed lesses of 16000. They emphasized the important contribution made by the mill to the comamity, state, and Continental Ammy. Permission was granted them to set up a lottery for" .... not over Esco.47 Since the Courant continued publication throughout the Ver, and since no other adequate source of supply existed in the State, ": on my safely conclude that the Watson-Ledyard mill was quickly rebuilt and resumed full operations. 48
The mill at Norwich continued full blast through the War. It, too, served the war effort in various ways. For example, the edition of The Connecticut Gazette which contained the account of the engagements at Lexington and Concord was printed on paper from this mill. In 1776 Christopher Leffingwell's son-in-law, Thomas Hubbard, became associated with him in operation of the mill.49
45 C. C., November 4, 1777.
ASThe fire may have been an act of arson, rather than an accident. Joseph O. Goodwin, East Hartford (Hartford, 1879), p. 158.
"Arch., Industry, 1708-1789, II, Does. 159-161. Also, S. R. I. 603. 4 Sas pp. 82-83.
"Weeks, p. 57.
1
203.
Several other mills were started in the revolutionary period. One was erected at Westville near How Haven in 1776 by David Banco. Undoubtedly the proprietors found a ready demand in the busy town of New Haven, for a few years later another mill was built at the base of Wort Rock in Now Heren. 50. ...
The peper shortage was reflected in Eira Stiles' complaint that he could not even find a blank notebook until after a search d' several ' months. He was forced, moreover, to do his writing on very coarse paper, and to curtail the amount of the writing."- To a man of such literary proclivities, this was a marked hardship.
By and large, it appears that paper production in Commeetiout during the War was carried on probably by only four mills which turned out barely encut'a paper for the essential needs of the press and the State, and very inadequate amounts for private needs.
4
-
..
2ª
--
John W. Barkor and Lemmel 8. Punderson, History and Antiquities of New Haven, Connecticut (New Haven, 1870), p. 58. Weeks, p. 90.
51
Ezra Stiles, Diary, 1770-1790, vol. II, preface.
204.
6. Iron, Steel, and Cannon
The Salisbury iron district offered very promising possibilities for development as the leading arms manufacturing center of Connecticut. Hor well. these possibilities would be realized depended largely upon the energy with which the task was tackled,., . once the that! At the outbreak of the War the Salisbury furnace was owned by. Richard Smith, a merchant of Boston, who had acquired the property in 1768 from Charles Caldwell of Hartford and George Caldwell of Salisbury. Smith also had taken over interests in the iron works at Colebrook where "refined" iron, or stool, was produced. The tools for boring eannon, .. . among other things, were manufactured at Colebrook. At the opening of hostilities, Smith returned to England upon business and left his Connecticut properties in charge of Jacob Ogden, who directly supervised, however, only the Colebrook works. 52
During the first few months of the conflict, Connecticut relied upon certain temporary expedients to build up her canon and arms supply .. In first place, the daring seizure of Ticonderoga and Crom Point in May, 1775 made available some cannon and other lesser arms.19 In second place, in May, 1775, some sixty-six small cannon were obtained upon loan 54 fras the New York merchants, Isaac Sears and Thomas Ivers. In November, 1775 and March, 1776 the Governor and Council of Connecticut sought further loans of cannon from New York, which fact represented very clearly
Louis F. Middlebrook, Salisbury Connecticut Caroni (Salem," Massachusetts, 1935), pp. 12-13. Ths Colebrook works burned on August 50, 1781. Ibid., p. 13.
53 Ibid., pp. 3-5. In April, 1776, Commodore Hopkins landed at How London with eighty-one caron and accessories, captured at Now Providence. Ibid., p. 5. C. R. XV, 110, 127.
Tid., p. 110 ftn.
-
4
205.
an early failure to grasp the fundamentals of the situation.' 55 Connecticut had no business borrowing cannon from New York, but instead should have been considering ways and means of producing cannon for its neighbors and itself. **!!
.Fortunately, the Commectiout leaders did recognize the true naturo of the situation early in 1776, end they then quickly took steps tochost reorganizo the Salisbury works for war production. The Governor " and"t"a Council were informed on January 9, 1776 that the Salisbury Furnace was "in good repair and capable of being improved to great advantage for the public, by manufacturing iron, casting cannon, sammen ball &o." Colonel Jedediah Elderkin of Windham was appointed a one-man committee to repair to the area for a thorough examination to be followed by specifie .. " recommendations for resuming production. 56 On January 29 Eldorkin
reported back to the Council. The nature of his report must have been favorable to the project, for the Council on February 2 stated that no other method could be found to obtain cannon for New Haven, Stonington, Groton, and other coastal tams except to use Smith's furnace, and that" there was a "probability of success." Elderkin was appointed to return to Salisbury to get things started. 57 . -
The next few months were filled with the :tasks involved in ..
organizing the Salisbury works for production. Governor frusbull, himself, loaned Elderkin E100 to use for necessary preliminary expenses. 58
65 C. R. XV, 178, 248.
86C. R. XV, 224.
57 To1d., p. 234. . 58 Tbid., p. 236. 4
.
208.
Fran Massachusetts Lemuel Bryant, a cannon founder, was hired; and other experts, mostly from the Salisbury arsa, were seenred. On March 18 the . Council formally appointed Colonel Joshua Porter as overseer of the ... *.
4
furnace with ample powers to prosecute active production of cannon and related items.". The costs of omnon production were high. Large appropriations for Porter rocurred with monotonous regularity throughout the year 1776. For example, in April, E500, and in May, E800, was voted for Forter's use. 60 .. . . -
As far as New York was concerned, the shoe was soon on the other foot. In July, 1776 John Jay applied to Connecticut for a loan of brenty camon from Salisbury, and adequate shot for them, The Commeil. graciously granted the request.º1 . The making of shot also took much time of the Salisbury workers. For example, on June 20, 1776 the : c. Council ordered that six tons of nine-pound shot be cast, and also two and coe-half tous of one and one-half pound shot.82 1
The project at Salisbury involved many persons and a considerable establishment. Besides the blast furnace, there was a "molding house," a "boring mill," a barn, a "bridge house; and a "mard house." Charcoal had to be brought in large quentities from much neighboring tams as Cormarall, Sharon, Canaan, and Sheffield (Nass. ). The ore cam from the nearby mines, as did the limestone. Some sixty man, or so,- usually worked at the establishment, and in addition several score moro
-
59 C. R. XV, 249.
60 Ibid., pp. 258; 529.
62 Tbid., p. 490%
82 "C. R. XV, 456.
207.
out and dragged wood or served in the transportation of supplies inward and of finished products outward. Poor roads, hilly country, and long hard winters provided serious obstacles to high production. Occasionally, the furnaces were completely stopped for part of the winter, 63 de to 'line such factors as impassable roads and failure to receive wood from nearby localities. Governor Trumbull and his Council maintained general control" of the project throughout the war. Trumbull considered the project so vital that a special express-rider, William Wheeler, was kept in almost constant service on the Lebanon-Salisbury route.+
The first important act of the general assembly dealing with the cannon foundry did not omme until the December, 1776 session. Previously, the legislature (apparently) had been content to let the Governor and Council set the policies and procedures, and Forter handle the direct" . management. The Salisbury cannon up to that time had been used for protection of Connecticut coastal toms, for loans to New York, and for aring several ships.8% How, however, a new and greater need had -
arison -- a request by the Continental Congress for cannon to be sent to the northern forts and to Continental ships. The Salisbury foundry was . asked, therefore, to make a much enlarged contribution -- one to the' Continental cause as a whole. 66 In place of a single manager for the
.
Middlebrook, Salisbury. Connecticut Caron, pp. 17-21.
Ibid., p. 17.
C. R. IV, 526, an example.
66. Same cannon already had been made available to the Continental forees. Governor Trumbull reported to Washington in July, 1776 that there had been cast at Salisbury fourteen six-pounders, eighteen nine- pounders, and eighttwelvs-pounders, all of which would be aufable to Washington if bo nooded them. Trumbull to Washington, July 17, 1776, A. T. P., XXII, Dos. 502.
.
200.
foundry, a committee composed of Joshua Porter, Benjamin : Henshaw, and !on William Whiting was set up to oversee the works, and to take care of incidental necessities such as ram and salt for the workers." Wide :o discretionary powers were assigned to the Governor and Council in handling , all problems which might arise between sessions. ..... The significance
os." That of these and the: related resolves lay. not so much in the exact particulars which were of a piece with the earlier pattern, but in the clear and.ouret expressed realization that cannon production must be greatly increased to meet Continental as well as stato-wido demande. their Porytali., .. Production of cannon and of small arms reached fairly impressive- proportions due to the redoubled efforts made. The general assembly's special.committee of October, 1776 had recommended that every effort bo" made to keep the furnace going through the winter under Porter's direction, but they rejected the idea of building a new furnace. 68 In January, 1777, the Council veted to supply General Schuyler with thirty nine cannon in sizes ranging from four-pounders to eightem-pounders, and with shot for then. 69 In April four small cannon were ordered sent to the tam of Groemrich. 70 In the same month Jedediah Elderkin was asked to "make all . due enquiry" at Boston and elsewhere concerning the newest and best . designs for cannon, sad for boring and other steps in the process of manufacture. 71 2
1
67 8. R. I, 130-132. OUA. R. W., VII, Does. 376, 377 ... 69S. R. I, 169.
5575
10g. R. I, 216.
713. R. I. 204-200.
1
209.
Although the drafting of men for military service in the Revolution was not at all strict as compared to that in the World Wars of the twentieth century, it did catch a sizeable member of men including some of these at the iron works. In May, 1777 Henshaw and Whiting pointed. out to the legislature that some of the foundry workers at Salisbury and Cornwall already had been drafted, and the others had become very uneasy over the prospect of drafting, or fines. Therefore, the men thought "it reasonable they should be exempted therefran so long as they are engaged in the Business aforesaid, conceiving that their respective Services will candace more to forward the warlike operations for their : State in that ompacity then in any other .... " Therefore, the managers asked for exemption of forty mon from service. The legislature showed a cooperative spirit, and even raised the member to be exempted from forty to fifty. 72
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.