USA > Connecticut > The trade of Revolutionary Connecticut > Part 20
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
.A
The pages of the Courant and other papers almost boiled over with the warm counsel of citizens who had the solution for the currency and price ills of the state. There was a fairly general agreement on the causes, especially the huge emission of unsupported paper money, and nature of the depreciation and wild inflation; but very varied cures were proposed. "A, B." advised complete freedom of buying and selling;
14 but "Cato" who wrote a long series of articles upon financial and commercial .
topios supported hoavy taxation. Cato furiously attacked the rich farmers, "those GREAT BUGS whose eyes stood out with fatness, and who have collops of fat on their flanks "Countryman," however, put
13 A. T. P. XX, Doc. 168.
c. C., May 12, 1777.
15 "December 30, 1777.
...
310.
the entire blame upon the foolish actions of legislative bodies and leaders. Ho concluded with this blasts
.
Let the members of the last assembly try to excuse themselves to their God and to their country for having seen public faith plodged for near five hundred thousand pounds, and totally neglecting to provide any means to furnish one half that sun to [rodeem] it."16 - He returned several weeks later to pay further respects to the legislators as men who voted with an eye only to the next election and blamed the mess upon a few traders. His positive program involved more equal and much greater taxation based upon property. 17
Another monymous writer joined the public debate in September by denying that the large depreciation was caused by improper steps by the general assembly. The general situation simply was such that the legislators could not lay taxes adequate to redeem all the paper money. 1º
One of the best contributions to appear in several years was made by a writer in the October 20, 1778, issue of the Courant. Quoting at length from a work on cammerce, he set forth the basic workings of the law of supply and demand, Ho sharply criticized the prevalent view that a very small class, called " jockeys and sharpers," had caused the tremendous price rise. Ho attributed the current situation tor (1) excessive demand for scarce articles; and (2) the huge amount of money in oiroulation.
This phase of the publio discussion of currency and price problems
16c. c., Angust 4, 1778.
17 August 25, 1778.
18 September 27, 1778.
311.
.
was climaxed by a stimulating article written by "Senex" who propounded a lengthy list of very pertinent questions, and answered them with the unsolicited help of "Honestus." Sonox asked whether justice was being done to the entire creditor class who were being paid off in cheap money. at present worth about ono-sixth the value of the debt at the time it was incurred. He gave information of interest on price levels too. Why, he asked, should the farmer who in 1775 got five or six shillings per bushel for wheat, in 1778 get five or six dollars? And, why had boef risen from sixteen to twenty shillings per hundred pounds in 1775 to five to six pounds in 1778? And, what about clergymen whose salaries now will buy one-sixth what they bought several years ago?19 "Honestus" replied that all of "Senex's" questions could be boiled down to one: "What ought to be done with regard to our paper medium!" To "Honestus" the only honest course was a full redemption of it. Not to do so meant "the prostitution of all publio honor" and "state suicide." He pointed out, incidentally, and very well, that Connecticut's large contribution of supplies to the Continental forces had caused an unusually large inflow of Continental bills into the State.20
A closer look at Connecticut's taxation system is useful. An important phase is the decline in assessed valuations which occurred during the war.
19 The impact of rising prices upon a clergyman and his family is vividly illustrated in Nehemiah Strong's letters to his parishioners in Hartford in 1779, in which he explained his dire financial straits because his salary had already fallen in true value to one-half what it was worth when voted. Unless speedy relief was given almost immediately, he would be forced to quit his position. Wyllys Papers, C.E.S.C., XXI, 465-466.
20 C. C., December 15, 22, 29, 1778. Articles upon the general topic continued to appear in the Courant in later years, as in the issues of July 17 and 31, and November 13, 1781.
312.'
Assessment of Representative Tos 21
Tom
Deo., 1775 Liat22 -
Jan., 1780
Jan., 1782
Per Cont
Change
1775-1782
Por Cont Population Chango 1774-1782
New Haven
£72,516
63,286
58,461
-19
-4
Hartford
51,007
45,836
42,846
-16
+8
Middletam
43,551
39,307
39,897
- 8
-6
New London
35,685
27,040
29,052
-19
-3
Killingly
29,148
24,037
23,734
-17
-3
Litchfield
27,061
29,087
26,887
-. 6
+30
Canaan
15,855
16,708
16,126
+ 2
+26
Windham
32,383
30,785
30,691
- 5
+1
Norwich
66,452
65,924
59,772
-10
0
Fairfield
51,472
46,325
41,771
-19
Totals
2425,130
£388,335
£369,237
-13
+2
Of interest, too, was the mode of assessing each individual for which the law of May, 1778 may be taken as a fair sample.
Mode of Assessing in Connecticut
May, 1778
Poll tax, 16-21 years of age
L18-0-0
Poll tax, 21-70 years of age
18-0-0
Quen, 4 years old
4-0-0
Cows, 3 years old
Steers, 3 years old
3-0-0
Steers and heifers, 2 years old
2-0-0
Steers and heifers, 1 year old
1-0-0
Horses, 3 years old
3-0-0
.
21 C. R. XV, 214-215; S. R. II, 467; S. R. IV, 59-60.
22
All assessment totals are to the nearest pound.
315.
May, 1778 (Cont.)
. Horses, 2 years old
2-0-0
Horse, 1 year old
1-0-0
Swine, 1 year old and more
1-0-0
Acres of plow land
0-10-0
Acres of upland mowing, olear pasture
0-8-0
Aores of boggy meadow, ummored boggy 0-5-0 ..
zeador
Acres of meadow land in Hartford County
0-15-0
Acres of other meadow land
0-7-6
Acres of bush pasturo
0-2-0
23
May, 1778
Dwelling Houses-first rate.
3-0-0
second rate
2-00
third rate
1-10-0
fourth rato
1-0-0
Tons of vessel, per ton
0-15-0
Chaise or curricle-covered
5-0-0
Chaise or ourriolo-open
3-0-0
Cattle let out-on just value
6 per cent
Sheep let out-on Just value
6 par cont
Money at interest
6 per cont
Traders, tradesmen, tavorners,
net profits24
attorneys, physicians, manufacturers, oto.
£50 added
Engrossers
It should be noted that, in general, soldiers on active duty were exempted from taxes,' 25 Several other features of Connecticut's taxation system are worthy of comment too. The heavy reliance placed upon the poll tax,
2SS. R. II, 14. The penalty for failure to report a taxable item was an assessment of four-fold its value. Sometimes the four-fold list for a town amounted to a large total. For example, Farmington was reported as having 22149:16:0 in four-fold assessments. S. R. I, 489. Appeal against excessive assessment was permissible. S. R. I, 471.
24s. R. 1, 365 (Lot of August, 1777).
25
C. R. XV, 313, 1, 471.
314,
a regressive tax, was obvious. Farmers wero heavily taxed, and had been for a long time, as it was easy to tax them because one could see their possessions very easily. What was essentially an income tax was passed in August, 1777 to tap the incomes of mamifacturers, merchants, and professional men. The taxation system was unscientific, and bore most 4 - heavily relatively upon the poorer classes who paid the same poll tax. -
To see how a typical merchant was "listed" one may examine William Ellery's assessments for 1780:
2 head [poll tax] 36-0-0
4 horses 12 ₺
4 Cows E2 24-0-0
1 Yoko oxon
8-0-0
23 Acres Meadow Land
15/ 17-5-0
4 d° upland 8
1-12-0
6 dº plor 10
20 Acres Bush pasturo 2/
2-0-0
22 Aores home lotta
1-0-0
1 house 15/
2-5-028
L95-2-0
His assessments totalled E112 14sh. in 1781, and most of the increase was due to an "upper mill" valued at 220. 27 -
The dizzy spiral of depreciation, meamwhile, had continued to accelerate after the Congressional devaluation. Ezra Stiles' report of 120 for 1 at New Haven in May, 1781 showed the absurdity of the whole situation. The final blow seems to have been delivered by southern merchants and brokers who threw a large quantity of paper money into New England, where it was worth more; and, as a result, the bills disappeared almost entirely from circulation. 28 The Courant advertisements substantiate
26 William Ellery's Account Book, p. 155.
27 Ibid., p. 177.
28 Bolles, p. 143.
315.
the trend as an increasing number of merchants asked for hard money. Jeremiah Wadsworth advertised in November, 1781 "A New And Fresh Assortment of English and India Goods" which must have quickened the hearts of many a Connecticut housewife. At the bottom of the advertisement, below the impressive list of fine goods, however, were the very pertinent words: "HARD CASH, or BILLS on FRANCE, will be received in payment for the above Goods."29
By and large, the effects of the financial measures taken, and of the currency depreciation, in particular, were very uneven as to classes and individuals. Some speculators in money, as always, did make great gains. Those who could adjust most quickly to the inflationary situation profited; but all classes on a fixed income suffered greatly. This included the soldiers, clergy, teachers, state and other public employees, and the like. In general, the farmers and merchants mostly were able to raise their prices so as to keep their heads above water, and in some casos to grow wealthy. The taxation system was not designed to tax away heavy war profits, sinco nothing beyond a small flat income tax was employed in this respect.
29
C. C., November 6, 20, 1781.
CHAPTER XIX
Interstate Economic Cooperation, 1776-1781
Particularism was the bane of the Americans in the Revolutionary struggle for freedom. Its evil influence was woll demonstrated in the reluctance for and ineffectiveness of attempts at real interstate economio action. Yet, in view of the rampant jealousies botusen States, the fact that Connecticut representatives participated in some nine interstate conventions to discuss military and economic matters is remarkable. Some of the interstate conventions ware concerned principally with military problems; and some, principally with economio problems. For this study only, the actions taken on such economie matters as prices, currency, and embargoes will be considered.
As a sort of preview of the interstate conventions, a brief tablo my
be useful.
- Placo
Dato
States Represented
Connecticut Delegate(s)
Providemoo
December 25, 1776- January 3, 1777
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Now Hampshire, Connectiout
Richard Law, Nathaniel Wales, Titus Hosmer
Springfield July 30-Aumst 6, 1777
New Hampshire, Massa- chusetts, Rhode Island, Huntington, Titus Connectiout, New York Hoswer
Roger Sherman, Samuel
Now Haven January 15- February 2, 1778
New Hampshire, Massa-
Roger Sherman, William chusetts, Rhode Island, Hillhouse, Benjamin Connecticut, New York, Huntington How Jersey, Pennsylvania
Hartford
October 20-
October 28, 1779
Now Hampshire, Massa- chusetts, Rhode Island, Benjamin Huntington, Connecticut, New York
Eliphalet Dyer,
Oliver Ellsworth, James Wadsworth
Philadelphia
January 29-
February 8, 1780
Now Hampshire, Massa- Roger Sherman, chusetts, Rhode Island, Olliver Ellsworth Connecticut, Porsylvania, Doluware, Maryland
317.
Placo
Dato
States Represented
Connectiout Delegate(s)
Boston
August 3-9, 1780
New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Commecticut
Josao Root
Hartford
November 8-22, 1780
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Now York
Eliphalet Dyer, William Williams
Provouonce (abortive)
April 12-17, 1781
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut
Jonathan Trumbull, Jr.
Providence
Juno 26-27, 1781
New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connectiout.
Henry Champion
The honor of initiating the proposal for the first convention of an interstate nature goes to Massachusetts in the fall of 1776. At first,
1 Connectiout declined the invitation to meet at Providence to join in measures for securing the bills of credit in the states against depreciation because Congress was considering the subject and it was feared that such a step by the New England States would produce jealousies in other States. 2 At nearly the eleventh hour, however, the general assembly voted in favor of sending delegates to Providence with the announced objectives of consulting upon (1) raising an army for the defence of New England and (2) regulations for supporting the currency, and preventing oppression of the soldiers and people "by extravagent prices." Four delegates were appointed of whom three actually attended, Richard Law, Nathaniel Wal os, and Titus Hosmor. 3
What action did the Convention take? Upon Rhode Island's suggestion the scope of the agenda was broadened. On the subject of currency, the
.
About twenty Massachusetts tom's had petitioned the Massachusetts legislature for relief. Morris, p. 95.
2Trumbull to Governor Cooke, December 4, 1776, American Archivos, 5th Ser., III, 1077.
5S. R. I, 587.
Morris, p. 95.
.
318.
Convention recommended no further emissions of paper money, but advocated the levying of taxes, the employment of borrowing if necessary, and the retirement of paper momy at the times scheduled. Due to the "unbounded avarice of many persons" and the alarming cost of labor, the Convention took very specific and detailed action. Farm labor was to be paid maximm of three shillings four pence per day; and the wages of mechanics and other labor was to be calculated in just proportion. Some of the price celings set were as follows:
Item
Unit
Connecticut
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
New Hampshire
Wheat
per bushel
6sh.
7zh. 6d.
78h. 6d.
7sh. 6d.
Rya
per bushel
3sh. 6d.
4sh. 6d.
4ah. 6d.
4sh. 6d.
Corn
per bushel
3sh.
3sh. 4d.
3sh. 6d.
3sh. 6d.
Wool
per pound
2 &h.
2sh.
2sh.
2sh. 2d.
Pork
per pound
3 1/2-3 3/4d.
4-4 1/2d.
3 1/2-4 1/2d.
4 1/2-5d.
Boof
per hundred
24sh.
25sh.
25sh.
25 sh.
pound
But ter
per pound
10d.
10d.
10d.
10d.
Coffee per pound
lah. 4d.
lsh. 4d.
1sh. 4d.
1sh. 4d.
In addition, maximm prices were established for hides, salt, rum, sugar, molasses, cheese, peas, beans, potatoes, stockings, shoes, salted pork, oats, flax, tallow, tow cloth, and flannels. Moreover, imported goods, upon which wholesale profits of five hundred and six mmdred per cent and retail profits of forty to fifty per cent more were reported, were to have only stated markups, which were less than half those in the practices cited. The Convention also recommended empowering suitable persons with authority to seize hoarded goods and pay for them at & reasonable price. Penalties were to be imposed for any sales at higher than the listed price ceiling, with twenty shillings, or the price sold (whichever the higher), to be the penalty. 5
s. R. I, 585-599. '
319.
/
Several features of this program stand out. One is its comprehensiveness; another, is the price differential which involved lower prices for Connecticut upon most articles. In part, this may have involved realization that these items were more plentiful in Connecticut, and hence cost less normally. To have implemented this vast program would have necessitated: (1) very close and smooth interstate cooperation; (2) a powerful and efficient administrative control and machinery in each state. As is well known, neither condition existed in the revolutionary period.
Thi's is not to say, however, that the recommendations were ignored. The four states responded fairly speedily with lars covering at least part of the program. 6 Connecticut enacted a wage and price scalo in which the scale for farm labor set the previous month at three shillings daily was lifted to three shillings four penos; and the other price recommendations were followed exactly. Previous price laws of May and November were repealed. 7 In general, public opinion seems to have strongly supported the Providence proposals. Publio meetings at Now Haven and Boston, for example, endorsed the program and set up special
committees to enforce it. 8 Congress studied the proposals; and, although . a few members thought they detected the odor of an embryonic New England 9 confederacy, the majority approved the proposals as a necessity.
-
The efforts of the Providence group apparently had little effect in .
6 Morris, p. 96.
's. R. I, 62-63, 97-100.
8, Morris, p. 103.
9 Esra Stiles Diary, II.
320.
.
checking rising prices of goods and labor. 10 In the following spring, Connecticut altered its price law and authorized higher prices upon many regulated items, and the other states did likewise. 11 Probably the Providenoe convention's chief significance for Connecticut was in stimulating public thought and expression of opinion upon the basio economic problems created by the war, and creating more awareness of the interstate nature of the problems and the consequent necessity for solutions based on interstate cooperation. Certainly there was no further example of Connecticut declining an invitation to such an interstate meeting .
The Springfield meeting of July 1777, the second in the series, was sponsored by Massachusetts, and met to consider currency, monopoly, and embargo problems. Connecticut presented in Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, and Titus Hosmer, an unusually strong delegation which spoko its mind frequently and positively. Sherzan believed that the war should be financed by fairly heavy taxation and foreign loans. He pointed to
the plentiful crops and the ability of the people to carry heavier taxes. 12 Again, strong and specific resolutions to retire the paper currency and to increase taxation were adopted. In regard to the price-fixing acts against "monopoly and oppression," the body advised their repeal. The delegates realized that this left the commissaries in a bad situation for procurement of supplies, to their problems were all-too-generously commanded to the several legislatures! In a like
10 Adams, p. 36.
11s. R. I, 230-231, Morris, p. 105.
12 Adams, p. ST.
321.
manner, the Convention dealt with food problems of the soldiers' 13 families. The repeal of the price fixing acts was tantamount to an admission that the earlier Providence proposals had failed dismally in practice. This failure, however, was largely attributed to the fact that
no price-fixing laws had been enacted outside of New England. 1 14
Commecticut again took the convention proposals seriously and in
. August repealed the various acts and alterations thereof relating to
prices and monopolies. 15 In no stato had it been possible to hold prices down or prevent depreciation of the paper bills, 16 so that the repeal of the act was considered wise.
Congress meanwhile had been considering the price problem and the actions of the Springfield Convention. On November 22 it divided the states into three groups ups17 and reo
and recommended that each group hold a convention in order to regulate prices of labor, manufactures, farm produce and imports, tavern rates, and impressment of supplies. The northern group convened on schedule at New Haven on January 15, 1778 and proceeded to work out the most elaborate and detailed program of wage and price control yet drawn up in the war period.
Connecticut's delegates played a leading role at the Convention.
13 S. R. I, 599-606.
14Simeon E. Paldrin, The New Haven Convention of 1778, Papers of the New Haven Colony Historical Society (How Haven, 1882), III, 38-39.
15s. R. I, 386.
16 Adams, p. 38.
17virginia, Maryland, and North Carolina delegates were to meet at Fredericksburg; South Carolina and Georgia delegates at Charleston. These conventions were not held, however. In fact, the southern states secmed thoroughly disinterested in any interstate or intrastate aotion on prices and currency. Samuel Huntington and Oliver Wolcott to Governor Trumbull, April 29, 1778, Jeremiah Wadsworth Letter Books, 1778-1783.
1
322.
After marly two weeks of general discussion, the convention appointed Roger Sherman, Benjamin Huntington, Robert Treat Paine (Massachusetts), and Nathaniel Peabody (New Hampshire) to prepare the official report for 18 the convention. The two Connecticut delegates must have been held in high regard to be chosen as one-half of the special committee when seven states had representatives in attendance.
$7
The report was so detailed that it can only be briefly summarized here. In general, the prices in effect in 1774 were taken as a guide. Prices for all types of labor wore fixed at a maximum of seventy-five per cent above the 1774 level, as were all manufactures not specifically set otherwise. Prices of other articles or services regulated included teaming, homp, flax, wool, cloth, hosiery, hats, wire and wool-cards, European goods, prize goods, tavern rates. Specific prices were listed for rum, sugar, molasses, coffee, whiskey, brandy, wheat, peas, flour, rye, corn, oats, pork, cheese, beef, hides, tallow, butter, leather.
1
19
shoes, calf skins, iron, and steel.
The Convention, therefore, carried out thoroughly the directions given it by Congress to establish propor price levels.
. The Connecticut legislature met a few days later to act upon these recommendations, among other things. Governor Trumbull, boing ill at home, wrote a letter to the general assembly in which he expressed doubts about the wisdom of regulating prices of articles immediately required by the Army. A low price for provisions and imported articles would deter the farmer from producing and the merchant from handling these items.20
18 Baldwin, III, 48.
19 Ibid. , pp. 52-54.
20mbid., p. 55.
323.
Despite the Governor's lukewarm attitude, the legislators at once framed a law embodying the recommendations of the Convention. Within a short 21 time Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania adopted similar aots. Congress, however, temporized in its consideration of the bill until June when the continued fall in value of Continental currency demonstrated that price-fixing in itself, and alone, was not the cure for the economic sickness of the United States. By a resolution of June 4, regulation of prices was given up and the States were advised to ropoal their lars. 22 The general assembly was in session when Congress' resolvo was received, whereupon the Connecticut price law was suspended until October, at which time it was repealed. 23
In the following year, 1779, the currency-price situation steadily became more chaotic throughout New England, and the other states. Massachusetts, therefore, proposed another convention to be held at Hartford in October to consider measures to prevent practices boosting prices, and the further depreciation of currency. Her invitation was accepted by the four states concerned, and the body convened on October 20, 1779. This body recommended a new attempt to fix prices which should be made by all states as far south as Virginia, and called for a meeting at Philadelphia in January. Also, Connectiout and New York
21 S. R. I, 524-528.
22 Journals of Congress, IV, 569-570. Washington laid before Congress letters from Champion, Wadsworth, and Reed. From their letters he judged that the measures adopted at Now Haven would "have a disagreeable effect upon our supplies of meat .... " Therefore, he thought that the proposals should be suspended for the time being. W. G. W. XI, 74,
25 S. R. II, 12-13, 134.
-
324.
were asked to enmot price control acts like those of their New England neighbors. 24 Furthermore, Massachusetts, Commectiout, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire were requested to repeal such embargo acts as they had in effect. 25 Congress endorsed the report, and on November 19 resolved that the States ought to pass laws holding prices to a level not over twenty times the usual rates in 1774. Thus, to such a sorry predicament had the currency price situation ocel
The convention at Philadelphia turned out to be a complete fiasco. Delegates did come from seven of the states, including Connecticut, but the New York and Virginia delegations failed to appear. The Convention took no positive action beyond adjourning to April 4, and it failed to reassemble then.
The next convention at Boston in August, 1780 consisted of only four men, Thomas Cushing and Nathaniel Gorham of Massachusetts Bay, John Langdon of New Hampshire, and Josse Root of Connecticut. Rhode Island was invited but failed to attend. The delegate from Connectiout was instructed to cooperate in adopting measures to forward the military campaigns and to supply the French allies. Various resolves wore adopted concerning supply problems. No specific recommendations were made regarding prices or embargoes beyond advising the States to prevent exorbitant prices being charged for provisions. Reference to these
24. 'No action was taken at the current October session. In January, 1780 a price fixing not was passed, which may be found in A. R. W., XVIII, Dos. 71. It was to lie unpublished until the other New England States and New York passed acts agreeable to the Congressional resolve of November 19. The act apparently was passed on February 15, 1780 according to the Journal of the lower house, but was neither recorded nor printed elsewhere. S. R. II, 568 ftn.
25g, P. II, 567-569. Connecticut newspapers gave full coverage to this convention. The November 16 issue of the Courant and the November 24 issue of the Connecticut Gazette carried the resolutions in full.
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.