USA > Connecticut > The trade of Revolutionary Connecticut > Part 22
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
No further important embargo legislation was undertaken, however, until May, 1778.15
From May, 1778 through May, 1780 several significant embargo laws were put into effect; and, in general, the principle of the embargo was tenaciously supported, officially. 16 Perhaps the chief innovation of this period came in the Act of April, 1779 which authorized the removal
12Schuyler to Trumbull, February 17, 1777, A. T. P., XXVI, 113-114.
13. Ibid.
14s. R. I, 604-605.
15 An alteration was made in October, 1777 to cover . transportation of goods through the State and to liberalize exports when salt was to be imported. S. R. I, 414-415.
16 The Way, 1778 act was almost the same as the acts of October and November, 1776. S. R. II, 17. There is evidence that Governor Trumbull disliked the embargo policy. In his opening speech to the general assembly at the Way, 1778 session the Governor declared "It appears to me reasonable to think it operates in a manner that is not salutary to the State, altho it is easy to mention some difficulties which may arise from setting it altogether free." A. T. P., XX, Doo. 178. The statement is somewhat ambiguous, however, and may have been motivated largely by political considerations.
343.
to a secure place of any stores of goods wherever located which appeared to be destined for illegal export. All costs involved in the process . wore to be assessed upon the owner. Any person who nevertheless exported goods illegally was liable to punishment by confiscation of all articles involved in the transaction, including the team and wagon. 17
In May, a very detailed act covering the bonding, inspection, and general oversight of goods exported under permits was made law." 1xx.18 ₸ This
was followed by an act whereby the towns were directed to appoint "suitable mumber of active, vigilent and discreet men, who should be called Inspectors of Provisions" whose duty it was to intercept any embargoed goods being transported illegally through the town. Special notice was taken of the inhabitants living near Greenwich, between the American and British lines, who customarily purchased embargoed provisions in Connecticut, and later conveyed these goods from their dwelling to the British. A strict licensing system was set up to stop this evil."
The final act of importance in the 1778-80 period was that of May, 1780 which took cognizance of the abuse of the permit system and of the more presaing need of the army for supplies. All old permits were abrogated, and all new permits issued by the Governor were to contain moro restricted time limits. 20 1 Ats. 20 This This and the preceding acts of this period represented attempts to bolster the embargo and to render it more
17 S. R. II, 222-223.
18 Ibid., pp. 267-271.
19 Thid., pp. 450-452.
ºS. R. III, 13-14.
344.
effective by eliminating various abuses. The very passing of these acts, however, betrayed the growing and serious attempts to evade the embargo.
The steady rain of protest against the Connecticut embargo by neighboring states continued to pour down through 1778, 1779, and 1780. From Rhode Island came frequent and more vigorous demands for discontinuance of the embargo. Rhode Island apparently had a genuine hardship situation which was worsened by her neighbor's embargoos. 21 A letter from Governor Greene of Rhode Island to the Connecticut general assembly forcefully outlined the situation in January, 1779. He referred to the repeated requests made to Governor Trumbull for repeal of the embargo aots, which had been without effect. If Connecticut legislators were aware of the great distress of Rhode Islanders, it would not be necessary to trouble Connecticut with petitions. According to Groene, Rhode Island "at no period ever growed grain sufficient for [its] consumption." For two years the British had occupied one-third of the best lands. In addition, many farmers had been called frequently for military service. During the past July, one-half the available men were on duty so that much of the grain crop was entirely lost. In addition, there were some 2000 refugees from the British-occupied arsa encamped in the patriot-held part of the state. Truly it was a desperate situation! Two spokesman, Jabez Bowen and President Manning, were being sent to describe further the "deplorable circumstances" and to ask for, immediate export of needed goods from Connectiout to Rhode Island under
21 A. A. Giesicke, American Commercial Legislation before 1789 (Now York, 1910), p. 124. In January, 1779 Greene reiterated in another letter to Trumbull, "And if the embargo in Commecticut is still continued against us we are under the melancholy apprehension of having numbers of our people perish for want of necessarios of life." M.E.S.C., LXII, 344.
+
345.
·
such restrictions as seemed necessary. 22 Rhode Island also filed a strong protest against Connecticut's embargo with the Continental Congress and a Congressional resolve was passed upon the subject. 23 In addition, Rhode Island prohibited the taking of livestock or produce into Connecticut in order to cut off the Connecticut engrosser. 24
Commecticut's willingness to help her neighbor was evinced in the prompt passage of a resolution providing that 7000 bushels of grain (rye and corn) could be purchased by Rhode Islanders in specified amounts in each of five counties. 25
The Records of the State reveal that a large number of petitions for export cf embargoed goods to nearby states were granted from 1776 on. One has to turn, however, to the Archives to ascertain what proportion of petitions were denied. The following are fairly complete for the periods indicated, 26
22 A. T. P., IX, 16.
23 Eliphalet Dyer, Oliver Ellsworth and Jesse Root to Governor Trumbull, February 11, 1779, M.H.S.C., LXII, 347. Journals Congress, XIII, 130-152.
24 Samuel G. Arnold, History of the State Rhode Island (Now York, 1860), II, 445.
25 S. R. II, 187. Now London County was the one omitted. The special legislative committee upon this problem considered requests from both Rhode Island and Massachusetts and recommended 7000 bushels for Rhode Island and 3000 for Massachusetts. The upper house conourred, but the lower house dissented. A. R. W., XIV, Doo. 19.
201. R. W., XIII, index; XIX, index; XXI, index, XXIV, index. -
348.
Period
Type of Petition 27 Number Considered
Granted Partially Rejected Action
Granted
Deferred
228
Oct., 1778
To export goods
22
13
2
Apr .- Deo., 1780
Export goods
24
5
4
15
Mar .- Dec., 1780
To import goods
13
10
3
Kay-Deo., 1780
To transport goods through the Stato.
5
1
4
Feb .- May, 1781
To export goods
8
1
5
2
Feb .- l'ay, 1781
To import goods
5
3
2
Feb. yl'ay, 1781
To transport goods through the State
1
Jan .- Feb., 1783
To export goods
4
4
June-Feb., 1783 To import goods
13
9
2
2
.
In May, 1779 the general assembly granted thirty nine petitions for exception from the embargo in order to export goods to Massachusetts. This constitutes the largest single group granted at one session by either the general assembly or the Council. An analysis of these petitions reveals that nineteen Massachusetts towns or localities were represented, of which Martha's Vineyard, Rochester, Boston, Barnstable, Dartmouth, and Nantucket led in the mmber of petitions. The products to be purchased in and exported from Connecticut reveal eloquently what was critically short in 4 Massachusetts and in surplus in Connecticut. These items were: corn and
29
-- 36 requests; pork -- 20; flour -- 6; beef-3; wheat -- 2; oats -- 1; flax -- 1;
ryo
27 In classification some cases are unclear. Where a person wished to import and export both, as in a few cases, whichever was to ocour first is given as the determinant types.
28Several of the most tragic cases were rejected. There was a tendency to deny all the unusual cases, however tragic.
29 Several petitions were granted for "rye and indian corn," or for "indian corn or ryo," while others indicated one of the two. Hence all have been lumpod together.
F
4
347.
and "meslin" -. 1. 30 One can understand the process better by noting several grants.
This Assembly do grant liberty to John Ferguson, of Marthas Vineyard in the State of Massachusetts Bay, to purchase and export from this State to Marthas Vineyard aforesaid by water 45 bushels indian corn and two barrels of pork. 31
This Assembly do grant liberty to James Church to purchase in this State forty bushels of indian corn and rye for Henderson Inches, Esqr, and others of Boston committee for supplying the poor of that tom, and transport the same, together with forty bushels of indian corn and eighteen bushels of rye already purchased for said committee, and ten bushels of indian corn purchased for Joseph Norrell, from this State to the State of the Massachusetts Bay for the persons and purpose aforesaid.32
The fact that this entire group of petitions came from Massachusetts' sources indicated the grave situation in eastern Massachusetts in 1779. This held for the next year or two, as the coming of French troops to Newport caused a heavy drain upon supplies, 33
as already has been shown. 34
Much evidence exists that the embargo lans were violated frequently, despite the fact that nearly all embargo petitions of a legitimate sort were granted. One can assume that most of those disobeying the law did so deliberately, and that their cases would not have been considered worthy of exception to the law(s). Of course, there were also some cases of ignorance of the law. In any event, Governor Trumbull deemed it necessary to issue a proclamation. He asserted that despite the laws
50s. R. II, 324-328. lost petitioners asked for two or more products.
31Ibid., p. 325. 32 Ibid., p. 326. 33 Davis, XLVII, 139. 34Seo pp. 284-285.
348.
which prohibited export of provisions out of Connecticut without special permit, many violated them.
I DO therefore hereby, and at the special desire of the general assembly, order and enjoin all persons that they strictly observe the laws aforesaid. AND I DO in the most peremptory manner require all officers whose duty it is to see that the said lams are strictly observed and kept, and to punish with the utmost severity all persons that they shall have violated the same."
These · strong words, however, probably reflected better the feelings of the legislature than those of Trumbull personally. And even among the legislators there existed a predisposition toward free trade among the states. This came out in a resolve of May, 1780 which requested the Governor and Council "to correspond and agree with the governments of the neighboring States on terms of opening a free trade and transportation by land from one State to another" and empowered him to grant a general permission to export provisions by land to neighboring states from August 1 on, any embargo notwithstanding. 36 Apparently Governor Trumbull did issue a proclamation in favor of free trade, but there is no evidence that it was implemented by any immediate aotion in Connecticut or the other states involved, 38
The opposite, in fact, seems to have been the case as an embargo was clamped upon export of butter, cheese, and all vegetables in July 1780, effective until twenty days after the next session of the general
35 Gazette, March 1, 1780.
36s. R. III, 39.
37 Clinton Papers, VI, 174-176.
38 A resolve adopted at the Boston interstate convention of August, 1780 called for the repeal of all embargoes upon export of goods by land from one state to another. S. R. III, 562.
349.
assembly. 39 This produced a sharp reaction in Wethersfield, the "onion capital" of the State. A petition signed by two justices, two selectmen, and twenty-six other inhabitants of the town stated that more onions were then growing in the vicinity than the American and French armies could possibly eat in twelve months! Moreover, under the present system only commissaries could purchase; and a Mr. Bunce, local storekeeper and commissary agent of the French, had set ruinously low prices. The onion growers, therefore, were caught in an unfair "squeeze" as all necessities were high priced. They asked for an end of this embargo and a fairer system of supplying the French Army.40 The petition accomplished its purpose, at least in part; for the Governor, at the beginning of August, discontinued tho embargo upon all vegetables. 41
Export permits were sought for many reasons, of which one was in order to get clothing for the army. Windsor, for example, at the town meeting of March 27, 1781 voted to ask the Governor and Council for permission to export 1000 bushels of corn to Rhode Island for the purpose of obtaining hard money with which to obtain the town's quota of clothing for the Connecticut Line. Apparently the petition met with favor, for on April 3 the town appointed two men to go ahead in accord with the pormit granted by the Governor and Council, and transport the 1000 bushels to Rhode Island, and procure there the hard money to buy linen cloth for frocks, shirts, and overalls to be delivered to Elijah Hubbard
39 S. R. III, 129. 40A. T. P., XII, Doc. 106. 41 Gazetto, August 4, 1780.
350.
.
by May 10.42
2. Hoarding, Profiteering, and Price Control
The problems of hoarding of scarce articles, charging excessive prices for them, trading with the enemy, and enforcing the acts concerning these practices caused Connecticut leaders untold amounts of effort, .worry, unpopularity, and discouragement. Many aspects of these persistent problems already have been discussed, so that attention will be centered upon the overall picture and upon some lesser points not previously mentioned.
The preamble to the first act (1776) directed against engrossers or hoarders very nicely described public feeling against that class.
Whereas many are so abandoned and lost to all the feelings of humanity as to prey upon the bowels of their country in this day of public distress and struggle by endeavouring to engross many of the necessary articles of life, especially of such as are more immediately wanted for the comfort and support of our armies, whereby much extortion and oppression arises upon the poor and the soldiery .... "43
Therefore, the legislature empowered the Governor and Council to seize whatever was needed by the army from the hands of the engrosser, and pay a just price as affixed by two appraisers.14 This was only the first of a long series of acts concerning hoarding and profiteering.
For convenience of reference, the more important later aots dealing, chiefly or partially, with these problems are listed here.
42 Stiles, p. 403.
43g. R. I, 9.
44. Ibi d.
351.
General Assembly Session
Shortened Title of Act
Leading Provision(s) and Comments
November, 1776 Act to prevent monopolies and depression 45
Set prices on labor, basio foodstuffs. Provided for penalties and enforcement.
November, 1776
Addition to act to prevent engrossing
Gave local authorities power to zeizo hoarded goods for use of Army.
November, 1776
Act to prevent engrossing of salt
Seizure and sale of hoarded salt authorized. 1
December, 1776
Act to prevent monopolies by excessive prices46
Set prices upon even more items than November act, and provided for penalties and enforcement.
May, 1777
Addition to and alteration of act to prevent monopolies and oppressions
New and higher prices set for West Indies goods and other items.
August, 1777
Repeal of (all acts to prevent monopolies and oppression
Price control abandoned.
October, 1777
Act to encourage fair deal ing and to restrain sharpors
Purchase of large quantities of specified articles without license prohibited. Sale also regulated.
February, 1778
Act to regulate prices of "labour, produce, manufactures and commodities"
Very comprehensive price-fixing of nearly all important items, as based on recommendations of New Haven (interstate) Convention.
February, 1778
Act to prevent illicit trade
Permit required to go to enomy territory. Procedure for seizure and condemnation of illegally imported goods describe
Kay, 1778
Act reviving two early acts to punish and prevent oppression
Those acts repealed in December, 1776.
May, 1778
Act to regulate prices (of February, 1778) repealed
45, Directed against "monopolizers, the great pest of society, who prefer their own private gain to the interest and safety of their country," S. R. I, 62.
40 Based on recommendations of Providence Convention. S. R. I, 97-100, 593-596.
352.
General Assembly Session
Shortened Title of Act
Loading Provision (s) and Comments
October, 1778
Act repealing act for regula- tion of prices
Repealed Act of February, 1778.
October, 1778
Act to prevent monopolies and provide supplies
Elaborate rules for impressment of hoarded goods
April, 1779
Act altering act to prevent illicit trado
Since Long Island licenses abused, power of towns to issue licenses abrogated.
.. May, 1779
Act to prevent sharping and engrossing - - -
Buying of pork, boof, grain, meal, and flour restricted to make supplies cheaper and more available.
May, 1779
Aot in addition to act to prevent illicit trade
Libellød goods defined very liberally for benefit of the "libellants.
January, 1780
Act against enhancing prices and destroying public credit
Heavy penalties prescribed.
January, 1780
Act of October, 1778 for preventing monopolies and providing supplies continued
May, 1780
Act in addition to and altering Detailed provisions concerning act to prevent illicit trade
inspectors, seizure and condemnation of illicit goods, especially those from Long Island.
Way, 1780
Act to commission armed boats to cruise against the enemy and suppress illicit trado
Up to twelve boats to cruise on the Sound
November, 1780
Act respecting appeals on act to prevent illicit trade
No appeals allowed from decision of County courts.
.
May, 1782
Act in addition to act to prevent illicit trade
Total prohibition of import of any goods manufactured in Great Britain. Procedure for trials of such cases described."
47 3. R. 1, 62-63, 65, 97-100, 230-231, 413-414, 524-528; 528-5301 11, 12-13, 222-223, 266-267, 270, 480; III, 15-18, 34, 233; IV, 161-162.
353.
The policies of the general assembly were influenced by a variety of factors, and sharp changes occurred as may be seen from the table above. The sudden shifts in policy were caused in large part by recommendations from Congress or from interstate conventions, although the obvious failure of certain laws also hastened their abandonment.
The impetus for the regulatory actions came, fundamentally, from the toms of the State. An early example of this was afforded by the tavern-keepers and other retailers of rum. In an open letter of June 1, 1776 to the editor of the Courant,a spokesman for the group . stated, in part: -
Among the many exorbitant prices for the most necessary articles among us, none at present seem to appear with so threatening an aspect as the enormous rise of the article of rum, within the compass of a few months ....
To discuss the situation, the inn-keepers and rum retailers of Hartford County were asked to meet at Ward Woodbridge's home in East Hartford. The meeting did take place, and the group voted not to purchase any rum at the present excessive prices for a period of four months, nor to sell any liquors at higher prices than usual. usual. A similar step was taken in 49 New Hartford where specifio maximum prices to be paid for rum were set.
In the town records one ray find many resolves to abide by and enforce the various regulatory acts. Farmington at a regular tom meeting on March 26, 1777 resolved to obey the law "for resisting Oppression" [of December, 1776] and to take effectual steps to bring
violators "to condig Punishment. .50 Near the end of the War, in 1782,
48 c. c., June 10, 24, 1776.
49 July 8, 1778.
Extracts, Farmington Revolutionary Records, Fp. 11-12.
354.
Farmington enthusiastically supported the idea of a county meeting to further measures to break up illicit trade. The meeting was held, as & to meeting of August 26, 1782 heartily approved of the proceedings of a County meeting held at Hartford on August 13. This included some very strong statements against illicit trade, and the appointment of a committee of inspection to detect and bring to justice those guilty of illicit trade.51 rade.51 Nor Norwich, New London, and Hartford town records likewise attest to a loyal spirit of cooperation on the part of most citizens and a desire to see the laws strictly enforced, 52
3. Public Opinion and Reactions
Public opinion on the subject of engrossing and profiteering was very pronounced, if the newspaper columns provided a fair index. In an article upon "monopolists" an anonymous writer declared, "Monopolists are of so base and duty a character that they deserve no place of publio trust .... " He observed that tea was supposed to be sold at 4sh. 6d. por pound, yet some merchants charged 10 shillings. For these profitoors he prescribed repentance and reformation.53 Another writer, "MOBILITY," sent a curt note on the bread and flour shortage.
THIS country has been reduced to the brink of ruin by the infamous practices of Monopolizers and Forestallers. They have lately monopolized the STAFF of LIFE.
51 Extrasts, Farmington Revolutionary Records, pp. 37-39. The Courant for August 20, 1782 gives the official report of the County meeting which was signed by Samuel Talcott, chairman, and Benjamin Henshan, clerk.
SZExtracts, New London Revolutionary Records, p. 22; Extracts, Norwich, Revolutionary Records, pp. 29, 31; Extracts, Hartford Revolutionary Records, p. 15; Caulkins, Norwich, pp. 395, 398-399.
53 c. c., August 12, 1776.
355.
In France and Great Britain the people had sometimes resorted to violence to obtain bread, and the same thing could happen here, he warned.54
The soldiers, particularly, often felt bitter about the high prices and the hoarding. A writer, who was either a soldier or a strong sympathizer with the soldiers, protested against the five- or six-fold increase in prices.
I ask the question, will your army continue to defend you in the field, when their wives and their children are famishing and crying for bread at home, through your intolerable oppressions ?55
A letter from "A Soldier" to the editor attacked the class, generally bachelors, who traveled about purchasing necessities and luxuries and "sell them at a most exorbitant price, thereby amassing more in a. month than they ever honestly earned in a year, in the business to which they were bred."56
Perhaps the most searching and comprehensive examination of the economic situation to appear in the papers was that of "Cato" whose articles ran through a number of weeks at the end of 1778. He believed that engrossing rather than a real shortage of foodstuffs had caused exorbitant prices. The harvest in 1776 had been generally good though not heavy. The profiteering, as Cato saw it, was confined to a few engrossing farmers; while the "midling farmers, tradesmen and day laborers" faced a bad economic future. The depreciation of the money
54 Packet, April 13, 1779.
55 C. C., November 25, 1777.
56 April 14, 1777. In an "officer's Address to Farmers," the officer, a major, declared "that as sure as there was a God he would leave the services if matters did not take a different turn; for his conscience forbid him to fight for those people who would stand by and see his family starve." C. C., January 20, 1778.
/
356.
would inevitably fall chiefly upon the farmers who did not raise a substantial surplus-a remarkably accurate observation. Cato estimated that there were in Connecticut about one hundred to two hundred "engrossers" or "rum jookies" whose weekly profits sometimes ran to E200 or E300 weekly. He believed that a real scarcity of such items as iron, cattle, and leather existed; while army service had out production of food considerably. Because of the slight margin of the small farmers and the high prices of necessities many of them might lose their farms to the "great bugs." Cato felt that the number of necessities which Connecticut could not supply was small. Ho was sorry to see the ladies "pine and grieve for the want of a little gauze, lace, [and] ... ribbons ... " but their mothers should have taught them the use of the spinning wheel. In conclusion, Cato expressed the view that the credit of the money still could be saved by a "large taxation" which would not greatly distress any ono class. He advocated, also, a fair system of seizing goods from the Withholder."57
On January 12, 1778 Thomas Hilldrup, silversmith and jeweler of Hartford, gave notice in a sarcastic vein of his intentions to give up selling at reasonable prices as the practice was hurting his family and himself.
The public will be pleased to notice that for the future he shall fall in with their (at present) established maxim of three hundred per cent gentlemen in the Army and farmers excepted; from the first of which he will take but half and to prevent the last being offended by his unfashionable mode to count in dollars instead of shillings until their HIGH MIGHTINESS shall launch out their produce ... .
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.