USA > Connecticut > The trade of Revolutionary Connecticut > Part 21
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
325.
actions has been made elsewhere. Concerning currency the body asked the states to provide for sinking a substantial portion of their bills annually.26
Likewise, the seventh interstate convention involving Connecticut, that held at Hartford in November, 1780, was involved chiefly id th military and supply problems. Punctual compliance by the states with congressional requisitions for troops, money, and provisions was strongly urged. The sixth and seventh resolutions called for the States to effect Congressional action on adequato taxation to fund part of the continental debt, and for the States to sink their quotas of bills, too.27
The final two conventions were held in April and June, 1781 at Providence. The first, or abortive, Providence Convention resulted from the Hartford meeting at which the Governor of Connecticut had been empowered to set the time and place for the next meeting. This conference
was called to arrange the contracts for supplying the French forces; and, as already has been seen, upon the failure of New Hampshire, New York, and the French agents to come, it was adjourned without action.28
The final Providence Convention was convened on June 26, 1781 to deal with the matter of providing boef supplies for the Continental Army. Henry Champion ably handled Connecticut's end of the affair in which exact quotas were prescribed on a definite schedule for the New England States. 29 Thus the interstate war conventions ended. The favorable
26S. R. III, 561. See Chap. XVIII for further details.
27 S. R. III, 571-572.
28. S. R. III, 574-575. 29S. R. III, 575-576.
326.
turn in military events climaxed by the complete victory at Yorktam rendered unnecessary any further conventions. The occasional exchange of letters between Trumbull and other Governors constituted virtually the extent of interstate cooperation after June, 1781.
It would be easy to dismiss the conventions simply as the actions of patriotic men who proposed ambitious plans for controlling complicated problems of supply, troops, currency, prices, and embargoes -- plans which were almost entirely failures in practice. Yet actually, the Conventions did succeed in influencing greatly both Congress and the individual states, and in encouraging the weak but vital spirit of interstate cooperation. In fact, the recommendations of the Boston convention certainly looked toward a stronger central government. The courentions carmot, therefore, fairly be written off as complete failures. Connectiout's role in all of these conventions was a pivotal one-in part due to the excellence of her representatives, and in part due to her economio strength as to supplies and currency.
CHAPTER
Interstate Trade
A large amount of material concerning Connecticut's interstate trado has already been considered under such topics as supplies, finances, and interstate cooperation. An attempt will be made here to present and evaluate certain additional evidence as well as the general overall picture of interstate trade.
Again the official customs records of the port of Now Haven are invaluable in ascertaining the nature of the trade of revolutionary New Haven-in this case, the coasting trade. One may assume that other Connecticut ports closely followed Now Haven's pattern. Two sample periods are submitted below to recreate the picture.
1
328.
I. Coasters Inward at New Haven, Sept. 27-Nov. 30, 1776
Ship . Master
Tonnage
Crear
Where Registerod
From
Cargo (amounts omitted)
Independence
William Brom
30
3
Providence Providence
Wost India rum, brown sugar, coffee, chocolate
Betsey
Zophaniah 20 Peaso
2 Newport
Newport
rum, wine, coffee, brandy, claret, beor
Dolphin
John
[14] [?] 2
New York
Stamford
[in ballast]
Robinson
·
Pegro
Samuel Pond
10
2 Kowport
Newport
sugar, old copper, rum, coffee
Polly
David 01 ds
10
2
Now London Newport
rum, wine, sugar
Victory
Ben jamin Lindsey
20
3
Providence Newport
brown sugar, coffes, rum, English cheess, "oyl"
Freelove
Samuel Westoot
27
3
Providence
loaf sugar, brom sugar, rum, tobacco, pimento, coffee, codfish
Polly
Robert Olds
10
2
Now London Howport
salt, sugar
King of
Josephus Fitoh
7
2
Providence salt, prize toa"
Prus sia
II. Coasters Inward at New Haven, Jan. 8-July 2, 1779
Sun Flower
Capt. Price
15
3 Falmouth
Barnstable salt, liver oil, fish
Speedwoll
Thomas w[ro]son
15
2 How Haven
Nantucket
salt, fish
Dolphin
Solomon Godfrey
30
4 Mantucket
Barnstable
liver oil, codfish, salt, indigo, etc.
Polly
Nathan Brand
25
3
Norwalk
corn, rye, oats, wheat, flour, pork
.
District of New Haven, List of Coasters Inwards.
Whenco
329.
II. Coasters Imrard at Now Haven, Jan. 8-July 2, 1779 (Cont.)
Ship
Master
Tonnage
Crew
Where Registered
From
Whenco
Cargo (amounts omitted)
May Flower
Nicholas Webster
26
3
Providence rum, molasses, fish, limes, chocolate, sugar, iron hollow ware, pork, sheeps wool
Dolphin
Isaao Tyler
20
3
Speedwell
Thomas Wilson
20
3
New London
rice, sugar, rum, tar, sugar, coffee, molasses, old muskets
Speodwell
Ebenezer
20
3
New London
molasses, salt, sugar, coffee, mackerel2
-
The number of coasting ships entering from September 27, 1776 through July 2, 1779 varied as follows: in 1776 (three months )-9; 1777-17; 1778 -- 25; and 1779 (six months)-8. No pronounced trend is discerniblo; and the main feature seems to be the smallness of the total for every year. of this total of fifty nino ships, twenty-eight came from Massachusetts, eleven from Rhode Island, and twenty from other Connectiout ports. 3
Nathaniel Shaw's extensivo letters give valuable olues as to the interstate commercial relations typical of the leading Connecticut merchants. For a period of four months in 1776 Shaw had business dealings with the following, among otherss
2 District of Now Haven, List of Coasters Inwards.
3
Ibid.
[Fronsond]
Providence molasses, stoel, oysters, snuff, weavers' stays, salt
.
330.
I. In New England
Broom and Sears-Bedford Moses Bush -- Chatham
Chris Champlin-Kingston James Clarkson -- Newburyport
William Fostor -- Boston
Thomas Johnson- Chatham
James Keithe -- Portsmouth
Clark and Nightingale-Providence Joseph Lerrenco -- Providence
William Potter -- Rhode Island
David Ships-Providence
Daniel Tilinghast -- Providence
II. In Other States
Jean Baptiste -- Albany John Golston-Sag Harbor
John W. Stanley -- New Born (N.C.) N. and J. Wharton -- Philadelphia
Both the records of New Haven's coastal trade and the mercantile letters of Nathaniel Shaw emphasize the close and extensive nature of Connecticut's trade with her neighbors, Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Furthermore, as shortly will be demonstrated, an enormous amount of interstate trade involving the three states occurred under permits to export and or import despite the embargo lors. 5 In fact, the largest proportion of the wartime legitimate trade with Massachusetts and Rhode Island fell into this permit category. The State Records and Archives are filled with hundreds of these cases in which dire distress was reported and food was allowed to be exported by special permit.
The nature of the trade caused forebodings and suspicions-on both sides. General Silliman, for example, wrote Trumbull that some of his soldiers had mutinied due to a reduction in their allowance of provisions belar that of the Continental Army. The matter had been temporarily settled, but Silliman wanted a more generous supply. He felt certain that Connecticut had plenty of provisions because he observed boats going
"The exact period covered is August 9, 1776 through December 30, 1776. It is very probable that Shaw dealt with others too in this brief . period. Nathaniel Shaw, Letters, 1776.
5 Sos Chap. XXI.
-
331.
frequently and freely from Fairfield and nearby ports loaded with 6 provisions for Martha's Vineyard. As long as there were shortages, actual or feared, of any articles, many Connecticut citizens experienced misgivings about the large export of goods to the eastward under permit.
Likewise, certain doubts were experienced by many citizens of the neighboring states. At a town meeting in Boston on September 21, 1779 a comittee reported that the country people were "under apprehensions with respect to the consequences from such Quantities of Goods, being Stato."7 51. sent to Connecticut or sold to the Frooholders of that Stato. Sinco cash often was lacking, Massachusetts towns and merchants undoubtedly were hard put to it to procure attractive enough goods to exchange for the precious corn, rye, flour, etc. needed from Connecticut. One may note such concern in a petition of the selectmen of Plymouth to Governor Trumbull that two merchants of the town had loaded a schooner with "choice good rock salt, liver oyl, codfish, rum, &c." for the express 8 object of obtaining wheat, corn, rye, and flour from Connecticut.
A letter from John Proctor of Boston to Dudley Woodbridge of Norwich, in July, 1778 indicates something of the difficulties of interstate trade. In reply to Woodbridge's request for "Teneriffe," wino, Proctor declared that he located some at only one place, at a price of [150 per pipo. Wines ware growing scarcer and more expensive, but he could get Fayal wine at [120 per pipe. Meanwhile he expressed hope that the six barrels of flour reported on route would soon arrive, as Boston was in
6 Gold Sellick Silliman to Governor Trumbull, August 2, 1777. V.A.S.C., LXII, 99-100,
T Boston Town Records, p. 89.
v.a.s.c., LXII, 299-301. The petition's date was October 28, 1778.
332.
the "greatest want." In a letter of August 8 Proctor announced that the flour had arrived; and he suggested that he sell it on commission. 9
The Massachusetts trade, for geographical reasons, was confined .chiefly to these routes? (1) from the Connecticut Sound ports by boat; (2) from Northeastern Connecticut by land across the line (not very extensive apparently); (3) from Connecticut River towns upstream to Springfield and vicinity; and downstream by way of the Sound.10 It is probable that most of the trade was carried on by the water routes, and 1
that the Sound traffic was often seriously interrupted by British ships.
Practically all of what has just been said about trade with Massachusetts can be applied equally to that with Rhode Island. Here, too, mich evidence shortly will be adduced to show Rhode Island's serious plight and her desperate need of foodstuffs which were permitted to be imported from Connecticut. tieut.1 Trade with Rhode Island likewise 11 involved those districts of Connecticut most accessible. Those were: (1) the contiguous area in southeastern and eastern Connecticut; and (2) the port towns of the Sound and larger rivers which could ship goods easily by water.
Trade with New York was very greatly affected and altered by the tide of military events. In the first period of the War, in 1775-76, when the Boston area was the chief locale of fighting, trade with Now York meant chiefly trade with New York City and along fairly normal lines.
9 James Backus, Business Correspondence.
10William Ellery of Hartford, for example, dealt with Massachusetts merchants such as David Sexton of Deerfield and Benjamin Jepson of Boston, William Ellery Account Book, pp. 78, 102.
11see Chap. XXI.
.
333.
Ono finds Nathaniel Shar, for instance, asking Petor Vandervoort, prominent New York merchant, 12 to dispose of large shipments of molasses and cocoa which Shaw had on the sloop Macaronia. . In return, Shaw voted 500 weight of powder, 1500 flints, and 1800 weight of lead, 13
When the fighting shifted to the New York City area, and the British wrestod control of the city and its environs from the American Army, legal trade with the city stopped. As it will be shown later, however, muoh illicit trade went on between southwestern Connecticut and New York City. 14 The chief New York State-Connecticut trade from late 1776 to the end of the war was shifted northward to routes earlier referred to which ran from such Connecticut towns as Hartford, Middletom, and Danbury to Newburgh, Fishkill, Rhinebeck, and other Hudson River points. In fact, the inland routes for reasons of safety, became very important. Incidentally, many goods from Massachusetts, including tents and clothing, and from Rhode Island, including horses and salt, were shipped across Connecticut to New York. 15 Since Washington's army, or a part of it, was encamped on the Hudson for seven years or so, the business of sending supplies to it from Connecticut constituted, in a sense, a huge trade; which has already been considered. Apart from this, a considerable civilian trade did exist. Connecticut officials, as was mentioned earlier, were bombarded with appeals for ending the embargo; and when that
12 Vandervoort later moved to Hartford.
13 Rogers, p. 27.
14 See Chap. XXI.
16 East, pp. 80, 86.
334.
failed, with petitions for permita, which were widely granted. How York, in part,was able to send goods for Connecticut foodstuffs, but much cash had to be sent also. The balance of trade definitely favored Commecticut. 16
So much has been made of the desperation with which New Yorkers pleaded for permits to obtain Connecticut food that it is refreshing to discover that occasionally the shoe was on the other foot. For example, Nathaniel Shaw wrote Governor Clinton on November 30, 1778 and enclosed ·
a letter of Governor Trumbull requesting that Shaw be granted liberty to buy and bring out two hundred barrels of flour. 17
The legal routes of the trade of Connecticut and New York were all overland, and included: 0) from western Connecticut through Danbury and other points to lower and mid-Hudson Valley points and back; (2) from northwestern Comeoticut (Litchfield, Norfolk, Canaan, etc.) to middle and upper Hudson Valley points, including Albany. The illicit routes, also heavily traveled, fell into two chief categories: (1) from Connecticut Sound ports, inlets, and coves across the Sound to Long . Island; and (2) overland from Fairfield County into the environs of New York.
Commercial relations with New Hampshire were very slight, as night . be expected from the geographical relationship of the two states. Several embargo permits, such as those below, were granted to New Hampshire citizens, but the occurrence was raro.
.
16 Alexander Hamilton in 1782 estimated New York's imports from Now England at about 150,000 yearly, and New England's from New York at [30,000. New York paid the balance in gold obtained from military expenditures there. East, p. 81.
17 Clinton Papers, IV, 319.
....
335.
[1777] On motion &c. permitted James Underwood, of Litchfield in N. Hampshire, to purchase in Fairfield county &o. 2234 1b. flax. 18
[1777] A permit was given to Saml Coburn for 100 1b. wt of flax, and to George Coburn for 200 1b. wt of flax, and to one Blanchard for 200 1b. wt of flax, to be by them carried out of this Colony, to N. Hampshire, the embargo notwithstanding. 19
When some one hundred or so New Hampshire troops were quartered for a timo in 1779 at New London, the Council ordered that the State commissary "issue refreshments"to the men in order to allay discontent, 20 caused probably by the superior provisioning of the Connecticut soldiers. Nathaniel Shaw seems to have carried on business dealings in the revolutionary ora with at least one New Hampshire merchant, James Koithe of Portsmouth. 21 By and large, however, there is every indication that trade with New Hampshire was insignificant.
Trade with the states south of New York ranked as relatively umimportant in volume, frequency, and significance. New Jersey sooms to have had almost no commercial connections with Connecticut. 22 Pennsylvania had more contact, but not a large amount. Nathaniel Shaw occasionally dealt with Philadelphia merchants chiefly because some ships in which he was interested paid calls at Philadelphia while en route to or from more distant ports, especially in the West Indies. Thomas and Isaac Wharton
18s. R. I, 170.
19 Ibid., p. 177. 20S. R. II, 216. -
21Nathaniel Shaw. Letters, 1778.
22 In the Clinton Papers, III, 300, is a reference to a deal between some New Jersey people and Connecticut mon whereby the former would send wheat in return for salt from Connecticut.
336.
and Frances Lewis of Philadelphia handled goods for Shaw. 23
Only two of the southern states, North and South Carolina, had much commercial intercourse with Connecticut. From the Port of Roanoke (North Carolina ). records one finds evidence of occasional visits from Connecticut vessels. For example, in the period July 10, 1775 to July 5, 1776 these Connecticut ships cleared from the Port of Roanoke!
Date
Ship
Vastor
Ton- nage
Crew
Registered
Ormer (s)
Destination and Cargo
July 22, 1775
Sally
Allen [Naltets] [?]
45
5
Now London
Thomas Wilson
St. Croix -- corn,
peas, beans,
shingles, staves, headings, herring
July 31
Diamond
Peter Whitney
25
4 New Haven
Increase
Now York -- shingles
Bradley, J. Peter Whitney
Oct. 26
Grampus
Azor Booth
30
5 New Haven
David Lowis
Barbados -- beef, corn, herring
Apr. 17, 1776
Sibyl
James
40
4
New Haven
Samuel Bird
Dominica -- corn, peas, beans, shingles, staves, headings
June 5,
Lucretia E. Humphry 22
4 New Haven
Abel
1776
Buel
Antigua -- shingles, staves, headings24
Besides this evidence, the Connecticut Gazette at long intervals recorded news of ships to or from North Carolina. For instance, in 1778 Captain Egleston arrived at New London from Cape Fear, in February; Captain Fitch, from "North Carolina," in March; and Captain Anable, from New Bern, in
23 Rogers, p. 282. In 1776 Shaw had business correspondence with "N. & J. Wharton" of Philadelphia at least three times. Nathaniel Shaw Letters, 1776.
24.
Jemos Iredell, Sr., Port of Roanoke, 1771-1776.
Thomas
-
337.
November. Sometimes the cruise was abruptly terminated as was one in 1780 ± when Captain Joseph Bell, in a sloop from New London bound for North Carolina, was taken off the Carolina coast and carried into New York. 25
, There was a very limited trade, also, with South Carolina. These entries show something of its nature.
Capt. Thomas Chester of Groton, arrived here [New London] since our last, in a Sloop from So. Carolina, with a Cargo of Rice, indigo, &o.26
By Capt. Goff Phipps, of this place [New Haven], arrived at Stonington, a few days since, in 12 days from Charlestown, South Carolina .... 27
In 1779 Nehemiah Hubbard of Middletown organized a voyage to Charleston to obtain badly-needed rice. 28 By and large, however, the total trade with the Carolinas was quite small.
Connecticut's interstato trade assumed an important part in the economic life of the state during the Revolution. Much of this interstate commerce consisted of supplying the Continental forces stationed in other states, and of providing relief in foodstuffs for suffering inhabitants of neighboring states. Yet a considerable amount of private trado basically in the pre-war pattern persisted. Connecticut had a large interstate trade with only three states Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and 1 New York, and carried on a small, irregular, and insignificant trade with the other states. The trade by water with all states was fraught with
25 Gazette, February 27, March 13, November 20, 1778; April 21, 1780.
26 March 28, 1777.
27 Journal, May 19, 1779.
28 East, p. 97.
338.
great danger due to British naval preponderance, and much interstate trade was of necessity, therefore, diverted to land routes. Illicit trade with neighboring states was rather large, but there is no reason to believe that it compared on the average in volume with the legal trade.
1.
CHAPTER XXI
Economic Regulatory Legislation and Its Enforcement, 1776-1781
I. Embargoos
A surprisingly large amount of regulation of trade was attempted in Revolutionary Connecticut. Attention will be given here to the more important types of regulation; namely, embargoes, prevention of hoarding and profiteering, and price control; and to the enforcement of the various laws.
It has already been seen that the embargo, as an instrument for preventing shortages and making adequate supplies available for the civilians and the armed forces, was employed from early colonial times. 1
The first year and a half after the Declaration of Independence str & continuanoe of the embargo program with some expansion involved. Not only were a series of acts passed, but the Governor and Council were given blanket authority to impose an embargo upon the export of any
article during the recess of the legislature."
2
By legislative acts of
October and November, 1776 a long list of items could not be exported by land or water, including such basic things as wheat, rye, corn, pork, salt, peas, beans, flour, all kinds of linen and woolen oloth; and by water, boof, live cattle, sheep, butter, and cheese. Exempt from control was the export of clothing and provisions to soldiers in the army." In November, cats, wool, flax, bar iron, beef, fat cattle, sheep, and swine
I Soo pp. 179-181.
2s. R. I, 10, 72. S Ibid., p. 12.
340.
were added to the prohibited list; and, by a separate act, all West India goods, and How England rum." The latter acts were passed after a special legislative committee, under the chairmanship of Jabez Hamlin, had recommended such action.5 This general cycle of acts was completed by two acts in December, 1776. One laid an embargo upon all privateers and shipping except by individual permission from the Governor and -
Council. The other forbade the export of tanned leather and shoes, since a great scaroity of them had developed. 6 A moderate number of exemptions were granted to individuals. For example, in the month of February, 1777, about fifteen to twenty special permits were granted for export of embargoed goods. Most of the permits were given to persons from neighboring states. 7
The impact of the embargoes upon the shipowning class was severo. Early in the War a group of prominent shipowners, mostly from Hartford, petitioned the general assembly for exemption from taxes on their idle vessels. They pointed out that their ships had been laid up by the embargo even though large quantities of goods were on hand for export and had to be stored at great cost. The vessels would be a total loss if the war continued long. They asked, therefore, if it were reasonable for them to pay taxes upon said vessels which had "become useless Lumber." The list of signers comprised Samuel Oloott, John Chenavard, George Burr, William Bull, Samuel Marsh, Daniel Goodwin, Jeremiah Wadsworth, Samuel
4 S. R. I, 71.
5 Hinman, p. 574.
6S. R. I, 123-124.
Thirteen specific grants are listed; and on February 6 there were "Sundry granted," but no exact number was given. S. R. I, 166-186, passim.
341.
-
Filbourn, Robert Branthwaite, Peter Boyd, and Daniel Hinsdale. Despite the importance of these petitioners, their plea was rejected. 8
The embargo acts of 1776 caused much concern and resentment in neighboring states, especially New York. On December 24 the New York Committee of Safety wrote to Trumbull about the concern over the now acts. 9 About a month later, Philip Schuyler wrote Trumbull to the effect thata .
1
Great discontents prevail in every part of this State at a[n] [ embargo] law which is said to be past in Connecticut .... They consider such a law under the present situation of this State as one of the greatest misfortunes that could befal them .. .10
Governor Trumbull replied in a sympathetic but firm vein. He declared that the embargo aots had had a "very salutary effect," which would be even greater in the future. Price fixing, too, was helpful. He pointed out that it was very little trouble to get permits from the Governor. Moreover, the law did not prevent articles from being brought into or through Connecticut. 11 In other words, Connecticut fully intended to stick by its embargo and price laws. Schuyler's reaction was interesting. Eo noted that New Yorkers held no objections to the price control bill, but the "clamours" against the embargo continued very pronounced. C felt that the embargo law would produce worse disorders than the evile
8 A. R. W., I, Doo. 255.
American Archives, Ser. III, 1407.
10V.H.S.c., LXII, 15. The people of the Mohawk and Hudson Valleys were cut off from their normal source of supplies at New York and were forced to rely upon New Haven and vicinity for West India goods and salt. Andrew K. Davis, "Trials of a Governor in the Revolution," Proceedings of Massachusetts Historical Society, XLVII, 151-141.
11A. T. P., XXVI, 111-112.
-
342.
it was aimed at correcting. 12 Connecticut did stand firm, however, and New Yorkers were forced to apply for permits. In a letter of March 16, Schuyler told Trumbull that the flood of complaints continued, and that . the time and expense involved in getting permits constituted the largest grievance.13 One just could not satisfy those New Yorkers, so Trumbull and fellow Connecticut leaders must have thoughti
The Springfield Convention of July, 1777, recommended to the respective states that they fashion their laws so as not "to prevent the froo transportation of any articles that can be spared from their respective States to supply the inhabitants of any of the other States. . 14
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.