USA > Connecticut > The trade of Revolutionary Connecticut > Part 23
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
This notice reflected only too well the bitterness of an honest merohant
57 C. C., December 2, 9, 16, 23, 30, 1777.
-
357.
who was being pushed to the wall because he had kept his prices low. Hilldrup referred to the six-fold rise in prices whereby a dollar was charged for what formerly cost a shilling. 58 Moreover, the farmers were hoarding their produce, according to Hilldrup. 59
Another writer, "T.K." presented some very suggestive observations upon the price-fixing lars. He pointed out that three-fourths of the members of the legislature were farmers, and three-fourths of the remainder, lawyers and doctors. Honce, very high prices were set for corn, beef, and pork; but the merchant was limited to a tiny profit (46. on a hogshead of rum retailing at 7sh. 8p. ). T.V. asked in conclusion whether the act was not one of the majority farmors against the minority group of laborers, mechanics, and traders.60 The laborer and mechanic certainly was put in a difficult spot, but most traders made good profits. As a matter of fact, many of the legislators had mercantile connections along with their agricultural activities. Yet "T.N's" question was a good one, and its inferences deserved attention.
Dissatisfaction with public officials grow during the later years of the war. Evidence of this feeling can be seen in the fact that even - Governor Trumbull himself was charged with illicit trade. A story circulated about the State and received widespread credonce. It stated that?
58 At that time six shillings were counted equal to one dollar.
59c. c., January 13, 1778. Along, this line is the protest of Barnabas Deane of Wethersfield who declared that the zealous enforcement of the illicit trade laws chiefly hurt the "Fair Trader." Estates of Tory merchants were confiscated, and the State sued patriot merchants who owed those Tories debts. This procedure caused Joseph Webb of Wethersfield, an honest and patriotio merchant, to go bankrupt. Martin, pp. 39-40.
60c. c., May 26, 1777.
358.
A Vessell that belongs to his Excellency the Governor, and, which was imployed in Carrying on the illicit trade with the Enemy, had been then lately taken coming from the Enemy, loaded with Goods, and that she was brought into One of our Ports for Condemmation.
The story became so widespread and embarrassing that Trumbull in January, 1782 demanded a full investigation. A special legislative committee thoroughly investigated the whole affair and discovered that a stranger had first told the story at Enfield tavern. After careful study, they concluded that there was not the least basis for any reports of illicit trade, and that the story probably was spread by "partisans and emissaries" of the enemy. enemy.61 The 0 The charges deoply hurt the Governor, and he referred to them in a speech to the general assembly on January 2, 1783. He asserted that he had not had one shilling's worth of English [pods on hand since before the start of the War, and that he had ignored his private trade and neglected the cultivation of his lands. 52 -
The efficient and able commissary, Henry Champion, was also the target of attacks. It was charged that in the course of his work he had aided forestalling friends to make money and, in addition, had made excessive profits himself. Petor Bulkley of Colchester preferred the charges which were heard by the general assembly. Some twenty witnesses wore heard, and their evidence was conflicting. Joseph Trumbull, one of the witnesses, strongly affirmed his belief in Champion's honesty, which may have influenced the verdict. In any case, the legislature found Champion not guilty of the charges.º3
61 A. R. W., XXII, Docs. 85-86. C. C., March 26, 1782. The committee consisted of Messrs. Silliman, Canfield, Southworth and Talcott of the lower house, and Oliver Ellsworth of the upper house.
62 A. T. P., IX, Doc. 342.
63 A. R. W., TV, Docs. 193-215.
359.
The significanoo of the impressive array of regulatory laws cannot be assessed without a consideration of the enforcements efforts and their success. The enforcement burden fell chiefly upon the town constables, the selectmen, and the local and county courts, although the general supervision and surveillance of the Governor and his Council assumed great importance too.
4. Form of the Violations
The violations of the laws took various forms. The embargo laws sometimes were disobeyed accidentally due to misinformation or lack of any information, and in such cases the violator usually was not punished. In more cases, though, the violation was deliberate. The largest amount of illicit trade apparently was made up of shipments of goods to and from Long Island and the New York City area. The job of preventing this rested chiefly upon the local constables and other officials of the toms on the Sound such as Greemrich, Stamford, and New Baren. The second chief violation involved the charging of excessive prices, often accompanied or preceded by hoarding of scarce goods.
A better conception of the nature of the illicit trade may be obtained from such data as the following.
[1777] A Mr. Fernandez, an Officer just released from Captivity by an exchange, informs me, that large and weekly supplies of fresh Provisions are brought into [New] York, which he was told by a Friend of ours, came from Connectiont .... It is most probable, the most Common mode of Convoyance is by Water, and that the Supplies are from those, who live on the Sound. 64
[1779] There are many Complaints against the Armed Whale Boats for plundering or carrying on Illicite Trade ... .65
64 Washington to Trumbull, April 12, 1777, W. G. W., VII, 402-403.
65T. Trumbull to Brig. Gen. Tyler, August 27, 1779. A. T. P., XX, Doc. 212.
360.
[1780] While our Army in experiencing almost daily want, that of the enemy at New York is deriving ample supplies from a trade with the adjacent States of New York, New Jersey and Commecticut, which has, by degrees, become so common, that it is hardly thought a Crime.66
[1780] The Trade to Long-Island, has been much talk'd of -- it is now in every Body's Youth .... The Legislature of this State ... have enacted severe penal Laws to suppress it .... I am sorry to say, the diabolical Trade still stalks on with gigantic Paco .. The men who are pursuing the illicit Trade are well known. .. 67
This anonymous writer goes on to say that some men posing as refugees from Long Island also smuggled illicit goods back and forth. In fact, there existed a Long Island-New York City group on one side, obviously loyalists, and a Connecticut group on the other which cooperated closely. Lloyd's Neck, a British post on Long Island, became a rendezvous for Connecticut Loyalists and illicit traders. Even some Connecticut officials were in collusion. Other dodges included the procurement of permits from Congress to bring out goods under false pretenses, and the -
misuse of whaleboats for illicit trading. 68 .
Long Island Sound was the center of the illicit or so-called "London" trade, which extended from the Thames River to the Shrewsbury River in New Jersey. The trade generally followed this pattern. British goods
toWashington to the President of Congress, November 7, 1780, W. G. W., XX, 314.
67 Gazette, September 15, 1780.
68Ibid. It must be borne in mind that officially the British Government strongly opposed the illicit trade between Americans and British, or British Tory sympathizers. The British position for enforcement of Navigation and other regulatory acts had helped precipitate the War. Hence, in consistency, the British felt compelled to try to enforce the Prohibitory Act. A real effort was made despite the collusive activities of somo British officers. Oscar T. Barck, Jr., New York City during the War for Independence (New York, 1931), p. 135 ..
361.
were purchased in New York City, often ostensibly for Loyalists. The goods were carrisd to Long Island, smuggled across the Sound to Connecticut, and exchanged for badly-wanted provisions. -
All kinds of devices were employed to expedite the illicit trado. Some refugees from Long Island misused their special permits to return to Long Island to take or get specified articles, and did business "on the side." Sometimes, also, they were robbed by predatory marauders - who then sold the loot at high prices. Various forms of collusion bocame highly developed. For example, owners of Long Island stores "planned" to be robbed, and owners of boats often "permitted" themselves to be captured. The whaleboat men might be considered the chief villains of the whole play as they often used their intimate knowledge of the Sound and its people to grow wealthy on illicit trading although they were supposed to be enforcing the law. Port Jefferson, Long Island, was a favorite base of operations for illicit traders.69
Some of the illioit trade followed roundabout routes. Governor Trumbull wrote Governor Bowdoin of Massachusetts that some of the boats coming from Martha's Vineyard and other l'assachusetts points under pretense of getting supplies were actually trading Connecticut goods with the enemy. 70
Not all the illegal trade was done by water routes as an important portion of it went overland to and from New York. Colonel John Mead, of Greenwich, in a letter to Andrew Adams, Speaker of the lower house,
69 Frederio G. Lather, The Refugees of 1776 from Long Island to Connecticut (Albany, 1913), pp. 202, 209-214.
70 A. T. P., XX, Doo. 272.
-
362.
gave a very detailed picture of operations along the border in the winter of 1779-1780. He assorted that more fat cattle had been driven out of the State in the past two or three months than in any similar period of the War, although our scouts had seized many. When the local farmers near the lines were questioned, they reported that some cattle had been stolen; but they did not seem at all worried. Despite their frequent "losses", the farmers had hard money to buy more stock. Although the circumstantial evidence against them was strong, the local courts could get narhere in prosecuting them. The procedure employed to outwit the town authorities was to hire as intermediaries "worthless persons' who would drive the cattle across the lines. Since in some places it required only twenty minutes to drive the cattle within British lines, the pernicious trade was extremely difficult to break up. L'ead had a . report from a reliable friend that the markets at New York were crammed with sheep and cattle from the Greenwich area. Yet, in Greenwich where many citizens were clamoring for enforcement of the law, almost nobody would accept responsibility as a law-enforcement official. 71
The situation along the New York-Connecticut line was complicated by the depredations of the "cowboys" and the "skinners." The former group was made up of British refugees who especially busied themselves stealing cattle fror. farmers of the vicinity and driving the cattle to New York. Hence, the nickname "cowboys," The "skinners," although theoretically American sympathizers, were actually unscrupulous marauders who robbed and looted partisans of both sides, 72
71 A. R .. W., IV, Doc. 272.
·
72 Lydia and Margaret Holland, Greenwich Old and New (Greemrich, 1935), pp. 77-78.
.
363.
-
5. Problems and Extent of Enforcement
The enforcement of the regulatory laws became increasingly difficult because so many groups were engaged in illicit trade. Tories, somo Patriots, British soldiers, American soldiers, and camp followers of both armies, all violated the laws. 73 When investigations were pushed, friends of the enforcement officials frequently were found to be involved. Eence, a thorough execution of the law would "step on too many toes. 74 -
The extent of illicit trade and of profiteering was great, yet constant attempts were being made to prevent these offenses, and to punish those guilty of them. Jabez Fitch, for example, who was in charge of several boats cruising on the Sound against the British and illicit trade, reported to the Governor in the summer of 1782 that the patrol boats had seized so many illicit trading boats with their owners and crews that the trade had nearly stopped. The culprits were bound over to their own town to be held for trial. 75
The proceedings of the county courts provide as good a source as is available as to what punishment was meted out to offenders against the . regulatory laws. Windhan County may serve as a sample.
73, These groups would be classified in modern terms as the "blaok marketeers."
74 Barck, pp. 134-135. l'any "would-be" patriots undoubtedly thought of their trade rerely as "turning an honest penny," and utterly failed to grasp the serious implications of it.
75 V. H.S.C., LXIII, 372. Benjamin Tallmadge, in command of light infantry in the same area reported taking strict measures to guard the coast and "prevent the frequent & growing Commercial Intercourse with Long Island." Already his men had taken several boats returning from Long Island. Tallmadge to Washington, January 4, 1789. Tallmadre Papers, 4, Doc. 43.
364.
Windham County Cases, 1777-1782 76
Session
Dofondant
Charge
Judgment
Dec., 1777
Peter Chandler
Twice drove out of the State fat cattle, hogs, and sheep and sold in enemy territory
lio further action
Dec., 1777
Nehemiah How
Violating act to encourage fair dealing and restrain sharpers and oppressors
Guilty (December session). Given review. Not Guilty (February, 1779). Ordered pay costs of [179:2:4.
Dec., 1777 and Feb., 1778
Ben jamin Hayward (of Woodstock )
Purchasing 80 fat hogs contrary to law
Guilty. Ordered pay fine E120 (twice value) plus costs. Allowed review at next session. To further action found in records.
Feb., 1778
James Flint (of Windham)
Violating "law against oppression"
l'ot guilty
Doc., 1779
Jacob Dresser, Jr. Violation of law to (of Killingly)
prevent sharping
Dec., 1779
Samuel Chandler (of Ponfret)
Violation of law to prevent sharping
Guilty. Ordered pay fino £82 10sh. plus costs. Allowed review. No further record found.
Aug., 1780
Amasa Sessions (of Pomfret)
Driving sundry hogs and oxen out of state
Not guilty
Dec., 1780
John Boardman
-. Export of two hogsheads wheat contrary law
Guilty. Fined 242. Allowed review. No further record of action.
Dec., 1780
Levi Johnson (of Windham)
Driving 60 sheep out of State
Guilty. Fined £9 plus costs. Allowed review. l'o further record of action.
Dec., 1782
Archibal Dorrance (of Voluntamm)
Violation of embargo act. Drove out 26 "fat swing."
Not guilty. Ordered pay costs of [19:14:3. .
Continued. No further record of action.
-
76 Windham County Court Records, Vol. IV. Trials. June 1777-December, 1782, pp. 25, 31, 39, 47, 119, 176, 200, 202, 204, 235, 236, 529.
365.
It is obvious, in first place, that the total of ten cases for a five-year period is small. Not one of the ton defendants suffered imprisonment, and only five were found guilty and fined. Moreover, there are reasonable grounds for doubt that all of those adjudged guilty actually paid the fines levied. Violation of the embargo laws made up the largest category of cases, five out of ton.
In Now London County Court, also, very few cases of violation of regulatory laws were presented -- only five in the period from November, 1781 through June, 1783. Every case involved illicit trade with the enemy. Two of the defendants were found not guilty, and dismissed on payment of costs. Another was judged guilty at the June, 1782 session; but, upon a review in June, 1783, decision was reversed. The fourth case, involving the prominent Nathaniel Wales of Norwich, saw a judgment of "guilty," but no further record of any action can be found. Only in one caso did the law show its tooth. At the June, 1782 sessions Abner Ely of Lyme was found guilty of importing British goods from Long Island. His case was continued, and in February, 1783 he again was declared "guilty." He failed to appear for sentence so a writ was issued against him and his bond of E300 was declared forfeited. 77
By and large, the county courts could not have exerted any largo deterrent influence upon future violators of regulatory acts. Even when
77 New London County. Record of Trials, XXV, November 1781-August, 1784, November, term, 1781, case 114; June, 1782, cases 183, 184, 187, 191; February, 1783, cases 61, 234; Juno, 1783, case 72.
366.
punishment was inflicted, it was relatively mild. 78
Tho maritime courts, however, displayed much more activity and severity in dealing with such cases as fell within their jurisdiction. The Courant contained scores of notices of "libels," or intents of confiscation, of goods and boats seized in illicit trade. A typical notice went as follows:
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Hartford County, September 18, 1782 Public Notice is hereby given to all concerned, That a Libel is filed before the Hon. Jabez Hamlin, Esq, Judge of the Maritime Court for the county of Hartford, by Goorge Stanley, of Wethersfield, in said county, against a Sloop called the Black Joke, of about 40 tons burthen, her tackle, apparel and cargo, consisting of Onions and Salt, seized at said Wethersfield, and said to be bound to New York, or other place within the enemy's possession, against the laws of this Stato. For the trial of the Justice of said tenure a Maritimo Court will be held at the Court House in Hartford, on the 8th day of October next, when and where all persons concerned may appear and show reason why the said Sloop, her tackle, apparel and cargo, should not be condemned.
By order of the Judge, GEORGE WYLLYS, Register
The libel notices were most nummerous in 1781 and 1782, although a number may be found in earlier years. A glance at the "libels" published in a single month, August ,1781, gives an excellent outline of the problem.
.
In the August 14 issue four libels were listed all from East Haddams
(1) wheat flour about to be sent to enemy, seized; (2) the same; (3) tea and cloth illegally imported; (4) the same. For August 21 one
78 Severe punishment was occasionally inflicted, however. John Clark of New Haven was imprisoned in Newgate Prison for over a year for importing goods from Long Island. Upon the petition of the selectmen of New Haven he was ordered released. A. R. W., XXI, Doos. 338-540. George Munro of Brookhaven, Long Island, was convicted by the New Haven County Court of importing illegally from Long Island a piece of cloth and a small amount of salt and was sentenced to eighteen months. After six months imprisonment he petitioned for release and upon payment of costs he was ordered released. S. R. V, 156.
367.
case in Hartford County involving European goods from Long Island was included. On August 28 the reader would have come across two notices: (1) a case from Colchester of English goods from enemy territory; (2) a case from Hartford County of European goods from Long Island. There is good reason for believing that most of the goods "libelled" were condemned and confiscated according to law. Of course many of the "libels" did not involve "illioit" trade at all, but rather "prize" goods seized upon the seas by patriot privateers. Even so, a large number were plainly seized fram violators of the embargo laws and reflect a triumph of lær enforcement.
The general picture, however, came down to a widespread violation in all parts of the State of the various regulatory laws, and a spotty and mild enforcement of the laws. The basic reasons for the poor enforcement were weak central government, inadequate machinery of enforcement, and a sizeable hostile segment of public opinion. 79 The extent of disobedience cannot be exactly measured, but it definitely increased in the last year and a half of the war, say from the spring of 1782 to the spring of 1783. Nearly everybody felt that the war was over anyway so that they considered that the continuation of trade restrictions was unnecessary. After the signing of the preliminary articles of peace in 1782, Connecticut boats often were admitted to New York even without /
"Governor Trumbull, for example, referred to a "Great Division of Sentiment ... in both Houses" upon the price fixing recommendations before them in January, 1780. < Trumbull to Samuel Huntington, January 27, 1780, A. T. P., XI, Doc. 45. As is well mam, Trumbull himself had little use for most of the regulatory laws. He stated this frankly to Washington in a reference to the "total difference of my sentiments" with those of the great majority of the assembly over the regulating act of 1778 being discussed at the May session. Trumbull to Washington, May 5, 1778, A. T. P., XXIX, Doo. 520. Oliver Wolcott believed such laws were foolish, and "a most hearty contempt" was felt toward the regulating acts by many Connecticut people. East, p. 205.
.
368.
flags of truce, and British goods were sold openly twice weekly at Norwich. 80
1
80 Barck, p. 135, based upon the London Chronicle of September 12-14, 1732 and Gaines, Mercury, April 16, 1783. It is possible that many of the goods were prize goods.
CHAPTER XXII
Revolutionary Foreign Trade
Although it is not the intention of this study to consider Connecticut's foreign trade in detail, brief attention will be devoted to it here.
The general pattern of Conrecticut's foreign trade has already been
sketched. 1 This pattern was viclently dislocated by the impact of the war, and it never recovered its exact prewar shape. The vigorous British blockade was the main instrument in upsetting the normal course of foreign commerce, as was shown earlier. In fact, foreign trade became 2 largely a matter of blockade-running in which the risks were high. This letter of 1776 from Thomas Burch and Company of St. Eustatius, popular West India island destination of Connecticut vessels, to a Connecticut merchant, Thomas Mumford of Groton, vividly revealed the dangers at soas
This and the neighbouring Islands are so infested with Ken of War, that it is next to an impossibility for a Vessel coming here to avoid falling in with one or more of them; and we have the greatest anxiety for the fate of Capt. Munro.
Poor Jabez Perkins [of Norwich] bound for Demerara sprung his mast coming off the coast, and was obliged to bear away for these Island[s] and near Guadeloupe was taken by the Pamona man of War and carried into Antigua where we hear his Vessel and Cargo are condemned.
Nathaniel Shaw, who had been very actively engaged in the colonial West Indian trade, in a letter to Colonel Joseph Trumbull, relayed a report
-See Chaps. X and I.
2 See pp. 239-240.
SAsa Martin, p. 701.
370.
from a Captain Chapman, who had just arrived from Guadeloupe, to the effect that many American ships already had been seized and carried into ..
Antigua. 4
These entries from the columns of the Courant reflect the ever-present risks of wartime commerce.
[June 1, 1779]
Last Sunday evening, Capt. Bunnel in a Schooner belonging to New Haven, arrived here in 10 days from St. Thomas's with a Cargo of Rum and Sugar .... Capt. bunnel informs that Captain John Bulkley, belonging to Wethersfield, Capt. French from the western part of this State, and Capt. Brintual in the Sloop Wooster, from New Haven, are taken and carried into the West Indies.
[February 27, 1781]
Capt. Asa Benton, in a Schooner from this town, for the West Indies, is taken and carried into Bermuda.
Among Norwich foreign traders the losses also mounted high. In addition to Jabez Perkins, Elisha Lathrop, Jabez Lord, Hezekiah Perkins, Thomas King, Ebenezer Lester, and William Loring were captured. 5
In an earlier chapter it was pointed out that privateering largely replaced the ordinary foreign commercial activities of Connecticut merchants. Where the line could be drawn between privateering and foreign trade, however, was difficult to say. 6 L'oreover, the privateers, through
4 Josoph Trumbull Correspondence, L'arch 4, 1776. An idea of the losses involved in a capture may be seen in an affidavit filed by Michael Todd and John l'cCleave of New Haven, ommers of the sloop Polly which was captured with 21 oxen, 3 horses, hoops and staves, 2000 bunches of onions, and some hay, com, oats and provisions. The lost ship and cargo were valued at [806:19sh. 3d. Continental Congress 6€, I, 105, 106, 109. Tathaniel Shax reported naval lossos of [1237:15:5 in 1776, and Titus Hommer, £3034:19:2. Ibid., pp. 133, 144-145.
5caulkins, Norwich, p. 406.
6 Albion and Popo in Sea Lanos in Wartime, pp. 24-25 make a distinction between "letters of marque" ships and privateers. The former were armod merchantmon whose main business was normal foreign trade, but who were licensed to take prizes on the side. The privatoer, however, had as its objective only the seizure of prize ships and goods.
)
371.
their captures, brought to Connecticut markets many of the European goods so desperately wanted and, thus in part, performed the function of ordinary traders. lio attempt will be made to differentiate sharply between privateers and traders; but rather, emphasis will be placed upon the routes traversed and the products exchanged.
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.