On April 18, 1906, an 7.9 magnitude earthquake hit the San Francisco Bay Area. The city was devastated, more than 3000 people were killed and over 80% of the city was destroyed. Shaking from the quake was felt from Oregon to Los Angeles and as far inland as central Nevada. Amazingly, just four days before, a ride down Market Street was recorded showing a busy, vibrant downtown. No-one could have known of the devastation to come. Fences, roads, and even buildings were offset as much as 20 feet in seconds.
Beyond the physical and human cost, almost 75% of the entire city population were left homeless. What many forget is that it was the subsequent fires in the city that caused even more damage. Fires burned for days, accounting for over 80% of the total destruction. The damage in today’s dollars was about $10 billion.
But the resilience of the citizens was clear – their “we will rebuild” optimism was prevalent, and the reconstruction led to new neighborhoods and buildings that stand today. Some of us at AHP experienced the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake and, while the damage was nothing like the 1906 quake, we witnessed people coming together in the same spirit to help the region recover. Natural disasters and national catastrophes tend to bring out the best in us and it did 119 years ago today.
Today marks the 235th anniversary of Ben Franklin’s death on April 17, 1790. How can anyone sum up the life of this giant of a man in just a few paragraphs? He is one of the most legendary men in American history, and deservedly so. The list of his accomplishments is a long one: inventor, printer, writer, humorist, philosopher, postmaster, diplomat, congressman, military leader, and— during his decades in England and France—a social butterfly who hobnobbed with the elites of European society, especially the ladies of the French aristocracy. He may be more famous for his inventions that for having helped write the Declaration of Independence—for two hundred years, it seems, our school children have learned about his experiments with electricity, and the famous episode of him flying a kite to draw lightning. Among his many inventions was the “Franklin stove,” which warmed the homes of countless Americans. He also was responsible for installing the first street lights in Philadelphia, his adopted home. His contributions to the betterment of all Americans are incalculable.
What of His Personal Life?
His family was of modest means, and could only afford 2 years of schooling for young Ben. At age 12 he went to work as an apprentice, and at age 17 he left home for Philadelphia, where he quickly distinguished himself for his skills as a printer and newspaperman. Also very quickly, he met 15 year old Deborah Read, who became his common law wife. They had two children, Frances and Sarah. On a sour note, Ben also had fathered an illegitimate son, William, who became part of the Franklin household and was raised by Deborah as her own. When Ben went to Europe for years at a time, Deborah did not go with him. She died in Philadelphia in 1774 while Ben was engaged in his ambassadorial duties abroad; although he knew she was sick, he chose to stay abroad. Ben never remarried, and he became estranged from his son William, who became a staunch Loyalist during the Revolution; they never reconciled.
Remembering Benjamin Franklin Today
Today, we have many daily reminders of Ben Franklin’s importance to our nation’s history. Since 1914, his face has graced our $100 bill. In 1948, the U.S. mint began minting a half-dollar coin with his image on it. And, of course, there are countless buildings, schools, roads, and other public places named after him. He remains one of the most revered figures in American history, and for that we honor him today.
As Americans commemorate the 250th anniversary of the start of our American Revolution in 1775— most memorably the anniversary of the Battle of Lexington and Concord next month– there are actually a number of key events the American people should be remembering and honoring. One of the most iconic moments in the Revolutionary War era took place in March 1775: a speech given by the famed Virginian, Patrick Henry, to a packed house at St. John’s Church in Richmond, Virginia. The day was March 23, and the occasion was a meeting of the Second Virginia Convention. It was the fourth day of the convention, and Henry was there to petition the Virginia Colony’s political leaders to make ready for war against Great Britain. This was one of the most important moments in the history of our country in the years leading up to the Revolution, which we’ll discuss in due course. But let us digress for a moment, and discuss Patrick Henry the man, and some of the main events that shaped his later thinking about liberty, justice, and independence.
Background
The story of Henry’s early years in Virginia is briefly summarized. He was born in 1736 on his family’s farm in Hanover County, Virginia. He was of Scottish descent, and his father John Henry was well educated; thus, Patrick was largely home-schooled. While engaged in various trades and business pursuits—including operating a tavern– Patrick studied law, and ultimately he received his law license in 1760 at the age of 24. His law practice brought him a good income, and good experience in public speaking before judges and juries. Over time, Henry became well-known for his oratorial skills, and his defense of individual liberties in various court cases. Soon, he became acquainted with several of the leading political leaders in Virginia, including Peyton Randolph, the future President of America’s First Continental Congress. It was through these relationships that his political career was launched.
1765: The Stamp Act Controversy
Henry’s political career began in earnest when he was elected to Virginia’s House of Burgesses in May 1765, representing Louisa County. This was just weeks after the English Parliament had passed the infamous Stamp Act, and the American colonies were in a rebellious mood. The timing of his election was propitious– Henry immediately threw himself into the political debates over the Stamp Act. When the House of Burgesses met in Williamsburg on May 29, he stood up and launched a full-throated attack on Parliament, and he strongly advocated that Virginians should refuse to abide by the Act. While no transcript of that speech survives, first-hand accounts confirm that Henry went far beyond a mere “remonstrance.” Indeed, he was quoted as saying “if this be treason, make the most of it!”
Henry’s speech made him a star. The resolutions he proposed in opposition to the Stamp Act were mostly approved by the Burgesses, setting an example for other colonies to follow. News of Virginia’s forceful rejection of the Stamp Act soon reached the other colonies, and by August the news had reached England, where Members of Parliament reacted with dismay; they repealed the Act the following Spring. Thus, a decade before the Revolutionary War commenced in 1775, Patrick Henry already had set the colonies on a course for independence through his provocative stance against the Stamp Act in 1765.
1774: Conflicts with Lord Dunmore
Over the ensuing years, Henry’s opposition to Britain’s attempt to regulate the colonies hardened, and by 1773-74, he had become part of a “Committee of Correspondence” in Virginia, the purpose of which was to communicate and share information with political leaders of the other colonies. After the Boston Tea Party in December 1773, and passage of the “Coercive Acts” of 1774, Henry became fully radicalized. He took the lead in bringing together a group of burgesses who pushed back against Virginia’s royal Governor, Lord Dunmore. In reaction, Dunmore abruptly dissolved the House of Burgesses in order to shut down any organized resistance. But Henry and his allies would not be deterred, and over the next three years (1774-76) they held five different conventions, including a few that took place after war broke out in April 1775.
Sept-Oct. 1774: The First Continental Congress
In the meantime, Henry was elected to be a delegate to the First Continental Congress that met in Philadelphia in 1774. Henry distinguished himself at the Convention, so much so that one of the leaders of the Congress, Silas Deane, described him as “the compleatest speaker I ever heard.” The First Continental Congress finished its work in October 1774, without reaching a consensus on the main question: should America seek a compromise, or seek independence? Instead, the Congress took a series of steps short of declaring independence: the delegates signed the “Continental Association,” part of its “Declaration and Resolves,” which included a boycott on British goods, as well as provisions for “non-exportation” of American goods. The Congress planned to resume in the Spring of 1775—a plan that was derailed by the outbreak of war in April 1775.
March 1775: The Second Virginia Convention
When the First Continental Congress adjourned, Henry returned to Virginia. In early 1775, Virginia held its Second Virginia Convention. Henry was among the most strident of the delegates to the Convention, and he pleaded with his fellow delegates to raise a militia, and prepare for war. “The war is inevitable and let it come,” he declared. “I repeat sir, let it come.”
So here are the concluding words to Henry’s speech to the Virginia Convention on March 23, words that have gone down in history as a clarion call to the American colonists to mobilize:
“There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free—if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending—if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained—we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! … Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”
Henry ended his famous speech with a flourish: he grabbed an ivory-handled paper cutter and, holding it like a knife, pretended to stab himself in the chest.
Some historians debate whether the after-the-fact accounts of Henry’s speech are accurate; there is no transcript of his exact words. Whether entirely correct or not, there is no doubt that Henry’s speech moved his audience: the delegates passed the legislation he was advancing, and Virginians now were authorized to prepare for armed resistance.
So, today we commemorate the 250th anniversary of Henry’s most famous moment, a moment that defined an era, and that persuaded many Americans that war was inevitable, and independence was the goal.
Looking back 400 years, we often read about events that were defining moments in the history of our earliest American settlements, be they the Plymouth Plantation founded by the Pilgrims, New Netherland founded by the Dutch, the Jamestowne Colony, founded by English “adventurers,” and other lesser-known settlements in the frontiers of New England, the Mid-Atlantic, and the Southern territories of North America. By the time of the American Revolution, the Virginia Colony had become the largest and most prosperous of our 13 original colonies—but its first few decades were punctuated by moments of terror, death and destruction that we can’t really comprehend today, much less understand how the Jamestowne Colony ever recovered. Most Americans know something about the “Starving Time” of the winter of 1609-10, when colonists resorted to cannibalism in order to survive. That defining event has gone down in history as one of the most sensational moments in early American history. During that horrific winter, most of the population of Jamestowne died, and the Colony was decimated by disease and starvation.
But the worst was yet to come. Over the next decade, the Virginia Company back in England, which held the royal charter to establish a settlement in North America, decided to continue its efforts despite the setback of the Starving Time. Over the next few years, the Company continued to send larger and larger numbers of settlers to the Jamestowne Colony, and those settlers began to take up residence in areas occupied by neighboring Native-American tribes. Tensions mounted as it became increasingly clear to the ruling Native-American tribes in the region, led by the Powhatans, that there would be no stopping the English colonists in their quest for more lands to settle and cultivate. For a time, the white settlers and Native-Americans were able to live in a semblance of peaceful co-existence, and they engaged in various forms of trade for their mutual benefit. Yet, the period from 1610 to 1622 was also a period of apprehension and mutual mistrust. Led by Chief Powhatan (father of the famous Indian princess Pocahontas), several of the neighboring tribes began to quietly prepare for war, and to build up an arsenal by trading their food & furs for the white man’s guns and ammunition.
(contemporaneous engraving of the Massacre of 1622)
By the end of 1621, the tribes were ready to make war, and so they did: in March 1622, they executed a well-orchestrated attack on Jamestowne settlements, killing hundreds of men, women and children, destroying buildings, burning crops, killing livestock and otherwise unleashing mayhem on the colonists. Historians have noted that the warriors were well-armed with muskets and other weapons acquired from the colonists—not just bows and arrows. As was typical of Indian warfare of that time and place, scalpings also occurred. It was a devastating day for the Jamestowne Colony—yet another defining event in the history of early Virginia. Time would tell if the Colony could recover, or whether new immigrants would be willing to sail to Virginia to join a Colony that has just been overrun by blood-thirsty “savages.” When news traveled back to England of the Massacre, many people viewed the situation was hopeless. But the investors in the Virginia Company did not give up: they continued to support the colonization effort, despite the many accusations that the Company’s alleged mismanagement and corrupt practices were somehow responsible for the disaster.
When demands for an investigation of the Virginia Company were made in 1622-23, the Crown decided to appoint a committee to conduct such an investigation. In the meantime, the surviving Jamestowne colonists began the slow effort to recover and rebuild. The scarcity of food and other needed provisions was a major stumbling block. Despite many pleas for assistance, the Virginia Company told the colonists that it was not in a position to help, having drained its financial resources over the course of the past decade, and having the dimmest of prospects of raising new funds from its investors (who had experienced nothing but losses on their investments). By now, the Company was on its last legs.
And so it was that the Jamestowne colonists decided to take stock of their situation, beginning with compiling lists of “the Livinge and Dead in Virginia.” While it’s unclear when the work began on the lists, it likely took some time, as a group of appointed persons painstakingly went from settlement to settlement along the James River, identify who were killed in the Massacre, who had died after the Massacre either as a result of injuries suffered in the attack or otherwise, and who were still living as of the time the lists were created.
The lists were finally issued on February 16, 1623, and they make for chilling reading. The List of the Dead in particular offers a vivid picture of the devastation caused by the Massacre, while the List of the Living gives a glimpse of what life was now like in the various settlements—new colonists who had arrived, new families started, new territories settled, and new plantations established. The List of the Living also reflects that a number of plantations had essentially disappeared—either destroyed or abandoned following the Massacre. To say the least, the colonists who survived and stayed at Jamestowne showed tremendous courage and perseverance. No doubt, one factor in the decision of some of those colonists to stay was that they had nowhere to go, no families to return to in England (some had been sent as young indentured servants, for example), and no hope of a better future back home. And so they stayed. Sadly, today, most of them are no more than names on a list, forgotten souls who lived through the mayhem of the Massacre of 1622, and perhaps died shortly thereafter anyway. Indeed, the death and destruction did not end with the Massacre: the events of 1622 were just the start of the Second Anglo-Powhatan War, which lasted for the next ten years.
Looking at the Lists of the Livinge and the Dead in Virginia,
one can see the vast scope of the killings that took place at various settlements in the Jamestowne Colony. The List of the Dead is arranged by the name of the plantation, settlement, or location of the killings, then the names of the individual settlers who were killed at that various locales. In some cases, there are just first names, or descriptive words such as “negro” (there were not a large number of enslaved persons at Jamestowne in 1622, however). Many of the settlements included families, so one can see husbands and wives, sons and daughters, and other family members listed. Depending on the size of the settlement, the list of names in some cases was quite long, and in others quite small. Below is an example of one of the longer lists of names, for the Martins-Hundred Plantation:
Persons slaine at Martins-Hundred, some seven miles from James-Citie: Lietuenant Rich: Kean, Master Tho: Boise & Mistris Boise, his wife & a sucking Childe, 4 of his men, A Maide, 2 Children, Nathanael Jefferies wife, Margaret Davies, 3 servants, Master John Boise, his wife, A Maide, 4 Men-servants Laurence Wats, his Wife, 2 Men servants Timothy Moise, his Man, Henry Bromage, his Wife, his Daughter, his Man, Edward How, his Wife, his Childe, A child of John Jackson, 4 Men servants, Josua Dary, his wife, Richard Staples, his wife and Childe, 2 Maides, 6 Men and Boyes, Walter Davies & his brother, Christopher Guillam, Thomas Combar, A Man, Ralphe Digginson, his Wife, Richard Cholser, George Jones, Cisby Cooke, his wife, Dauid Bons, John Benner, John Mason, William Pawmet, Thomas Bats, Peter Lighborrow, James Thorley, Robert Walden, Thomas Tolling, John Butler, Edward Rogers, Maximilian Russel, Henry, a Welchman
Note that in almost all cases, the “servants” are unnamed, perhaps reflecting the low value placed upon mere servants in the early years of the Colony. We know, however, that some of these indentured servants were teenage boys with some learning, and some with needed skills, not worthless human beings. Sadly, their names were not preserved, and they are truly forgotten.
What does this defining event mean for us today? First, that the settlement of early America was as much a story of death and destruction as it was a story of conquest. Second, that life was fraught with peril, and tragedy could be visited upon innocent people (Native-Americans included) at any moment. Third, that a clash of cultures was often a root cause of these tragedies, in this case, the clash of Indian and European cultures. Can we learn from this? One hopes that the Jamestowne example can teach us to seek common ground, and not resort to violence. This is certainly true in the case of our current American politics and culture.
So this month, we remember the tragedy of the Massacre of 1622 and its aftermath, as vividly captured in the Lists of the Livinge & Dead in Virginia. And we hope that all of us can pause for a moment in our busy lives and remember those forgotten people who died so violently, and so pointlessly, 400 years ago.
This month in 1863, in the midst of the Civil War, President Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, one of the most important Presidential acts in American history. Since the enactment of the United States Constitution in 1789, the country had wrestled with the issue of slavery, as the nation experienced decades of increasingly violent confrontations between slaver-holders (primarily in the Southern states), and Northern anti-slavery advocates. A flash point was the admission into the Union of Western states in the first half of the 19th century, where the legality of slavery was still an open question. In my prior blog posts, I’ve written about the infamous Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which gave new states the possibility of legalizing slavery (codifying the arguments of Stephen Douglas and other political leaders who espoused the concept of “popular sovereignty”). Immediately following the passage of that Act of Congress, a civil war of sorts broke out in Kansas, which came to be known as “Bleeding Kansas.” The secessionist fervor in the South increased over the next five years, culminating in the secession of South Carolina in December 1860, following Lincoln’s election to the presidency in November 1860. The Civil War had begun.
Up to the beginning of the war, President Lincoln had been conflicted on the issue of slavery, having witnessed its horrid reality first hand when he lived in Kentucky and Illinois, including the infamous slave markets in which husbands, wives and children were separated and sold to the highest bidder. Yet, Lincoln understood that slavery was a political morass that had plagued the nation for a century, and that had caused Congress to stop short of including any prohibition of slavery in the Constitution (Congress compromised by barring the slave trade commencing 20 years after the date the Constitution was enacted). Some of our Founding Fathers were similarly conflicted, as several of them were slaveholders themselves, but privately acknowledged that slavery needed to stop—perhaps gradually, on its own steam, without the need for any legislative action, and perhaps coupled with the forced removal of freed slaves to places outside of the United States, or to remote areas of the West. In one example, the Marquis de Lafayette proposed to George Washington that slaves be expatriated to French Guiana, an idea that received a lukewarm response from Washington. Similar ideas had been floated by Thomas Jefferson, who thought slavery would disappear of its own accord with the passage of time, as the slaveholders of the South acquired lands in the West where slavery was not practical—no cotton plantations were likely to be created in the territories west of the Mississippi, he surmised. In his wrongheaded thinking, the country could avoid the political fight over slavery if it just waited out the gradual disappearance of slavery with the passage of time. He was wrong, of course, as the political in-fighting over slavery began surfacing shortly after Jefferson consummated the Louisiana Purchase, and Lewis & Clark sent back glowing reports on the opportunities that lay ahead for Americans through settlement of the western territories.
As for Lincoln, in the famous Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858, and again during the 1860 campaign for the presidency, he avoided any explicit promise to end slavery if elected President. On the contrary, he expressed his willingness to leave matters as they stood—accepting slavery in the South, while holding the line on any future expansion of slavery in the West. He held to this position after being elected. During the first two years of the war, he and his allies adhered to the narrative that the Civil War was not about freeing the slaves, but about preserving the Union. On the other side, the Confederacy claimed that the Civil War was over “states’ rights,” not the perpetuation of slavery. In the end, both of these narratives were shelved: the Union, needing more troops, began recruiting freed and enslaved blacks to join the Union Army, on the promise of emancipation, while Southern politicians—including President Jefferson Davis—ultimately said that the Confederacy might concede the issue of slavery if the Union would otherwise leave the Southern states alone (and effectively independent). Lincoln would have nothing to do with such a compromise, and in several meetings with leaders of the Confederacy he and his advisors made clear that no peace could be agreed to that didn’t include the abolition of slavery, everywhere.
For the Union’s political leaders to declare that a main purpose of the Civil War was to free the slaves was a major turning point in the war. For Lincoln to announce such a position, he had hoped for popular support, and for proof that the Union was going to be able to win the war (some of his advisors having told him that it would look like desperation for Lincoln to declare his intent to end slavery while he was losing the war). During the first two years of the war, however, the Union couldn’t make that case: it was losing major battles in the East, and Lincoln was running through Generals who either refused to fight (General George McClellan), or were inept or weak military leaders (Generals Ambrose Burnside and John Pope, to name a few). The travesty of the Battle of Antietam in September 1862 is one example.
On September 22, 1862, Lincoln had “pre-announced” the Emancipation Proclamation, giving the Confederacy 100 days to cease warfare and return to the Union. His preliminary Proclamation of September 22 was short, but powerful. He said:
“That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free.”
What explains the timing of Lincoln’s issuance of the preliminary Proclamation? Not coincidentally, it was issued just five days after Antietam, in which over 22,000 soldiers were killed, wounded or were missing in action. A Library of Congress discussion surmises that the timing was “partly in response to the heavy losses inflicted in the Battle of Antietam.” Lincoln no doubt meant his preliminary Proclamation to enable the Union Army to establish black regiments comprised of freed or enslaved blacks, which would greatly help the Union Army in the Southern Campaign that was then under way. In the next few months, the first black regiments were recruited in South Carolina and Tennessee. Famed freedom fighter Frederick Douglass added momentum to the recruitment effort by publicly encouraging black men to enlist. By the end of the war, historians estimate that almost 180,000 black soldiers had served, or were serving, in the Union Army, and there is no doubt that the Union Army’s ultimate victory over the Confederate Army was significantly aided by these black regiments (the victory at Vicksburg being one example, where black troops played a role). After the preliminary Proclamation issued, the war increasingly became a numbers game, as the Union Army’s superior troop strength was taking its toll on the Confederate armies.
Yet, in the latter part of 1862, there were no signs that the Confederacy would stand down. Indeed, just 3 months after the preliminary Proclamation issued, Confederate troops under the command of General Robert E. Lee crushed the Union Army under the command of Ambrose Burnside at the Battle of Fredericksburg on December 11-15, 1862. Hearing of the slaughter of Union troops at Fredericksburg, Lincoln saw no basis not to make good on the preliminary Proclamation’s announcement that the complete abolition of slavery would become effective on January 1.
The final Emancipation Proclamation issued on January 1, 1863 first announced what states were still in active rebellion:
“I, Abraham Lincoln… do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days… order and designate as the States and parts of States therein are this day in rebellion against the United States:”—and he then named them.
Lincoln then recited these immortal words:
“I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within these designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free.”
The Proclamation also included several admonitions: first, that freed slaves should not resort to violence unless to defend themselves; second, that they should seek employment in some form; and third, that they should consider joining the Union’s armed services.
Lincoln ended the Proclamation with an invocation of God and country:
“And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind, and the gracious favor of Almighty God.”
Following the Emancipation Proclamation, the fortunes of war turned, as the Union Army successfully waged war in the Battle of Gettysburg in July 1863, and General Ulysses S. Grant was winning battle after battle in the West, culminating in Grant’s victory at the Battle of Vicksburg in July 1863. Several months later, in his famous Gettysburg Address delivered from a stage at the battlefield on November 19, 1863, Lincoln renewed his commitment to winning the war, and preserving the Union (interestingly, without mentioning the issue of slavery). The stage was now set for the final push to win the war, preserve the Union, and abolish slavery. This month, we celebrate one of the greatest events in American history. The Emancipation Proclamation re-defined what the Declaration of Independence meant when it said “We the People.” It would take another three years for the 13th Amendment to the Constitution to be ratified in December 1865. President Lincoln, assassinated in April 1865, did not live to see this final step taken to guarantee freedom to black persons, but it was his courageous act in signing the Emancipation Proclamation that made it all possible.
In the years leading up to the Revolutionary War, American colonists became increasingly incensed with Parliament’s attempts to tax them for goods shipped to the colonies. The Stamp Act of 1763 was just the first of many such tax-related disputes between Americans and their British overlords. By 1774, the colonists were ready to rebel, so they formed what they called the First Continental Congress. The first meeting convened in September 1774, and the Congress continued its work for the better part of two months. As part of that process, they drafted and approved the Continental Association, also called the Articles of Association. As the name implies, the document was intended as an agreement among the thirteen American colonies (an “association,” that is) to achieved certain unified goals, in the form of fourteen Articles spelling out those mutual agreements. The Continental Association was approved on October 20, 1774, but key provisions were not to become effective until December 1. This month’s blog focuses on the Articles in the Continental Association by which Congress approved the “non-importation” of British goods—not just a boycott, but the literal stoppage of British imports by land or by sea. Today, we celebrate the 250th anniversary of this critical moment in our American history.
The preamble of the Continental Association set the theme for the fourteen Articles to come:
“To obtain redress of [our] Grievances, which threaten the destruction to the Lives, Liberty, and Property of his Majesty’s subjects in North America, we are of opinion that a Non-Importation, Non-Consumption, and Non-Exportation Agreement, faithfully adhered to, will prove the most speedy, effectual and peaceable measure.”
Key Terms of the Continental Association
Proceeding to the specific terms of the Continental Association, Article 1 pronounced that:
“from and after the first day of December next, we will not import into British America, from Great Britain or Ireland, any Goods, Wares, or Merchandises whatsoever, or from any other place, any such Goods, Wares, or Merchandises as shall have been exported from Great Britain or Ireland; nor will we, after that day, import any East India Tea from any oparet of the World; nor any Molasses, Syrups, Paneles, Coffee, or Pimento, from the British Plantations or from Dominica; nor Wines from Madeira, or the Western Islands; not Foreign Indigo.”
What is striking about Article 1 is not only the sweeping scope of the non-importation edict—extending to all “Goods, Wares or Merchandises” — but also that Congress thought about all the ways Great Britain might try to achieve indirectly what it was barred from doing directly—hence the ban on importation “from any other place,” or via the East India Company, via the West Indies, or otherwise. Congress clearly intended to send the strongest possible signal to Parliament that English commerce to America was going to grind to a halt unless settlement terms could be agreed upon.
As we consider how treasonous Article 1 must have seemed when the Continental Association found its way to London and was read by members of Parliament, we must bear in mind that the beginning of the War was still six months in the future, and that in October 1774 the members of Congress were still British subjects—yet here they were, effectively establishing their own shadow government and dictating terms to Parliament. At the time, many members of Congress never thought that the Colonies would break free and declare their independence. Rather, they considered themselves (or at least some of them did) loyal subjects of King George III, and their goal was to persuade the Crown to accommodate its North American colonists, from whom the Crown derived huge profits from the importation of British goods to the Colonies. Congress was betting that the threat of a massive economic “hit” to the Crown’s purse would bring about a mutually acceptable peace.
The remaining thirteen Articles of the Continental Association included various provisions by which the Non-Importation Agreement would be enforced, not only against Great Britain, but also against the colonists themselves. For example, Article 3 set forth provisions stating that colonists were barred from purchasing any Goods, Wares or Merchandises “which we shall know, or have cause to suspect, were imported after the first day of December.” Likewise, Congress commanded that all Merchants must contact their “Factors, Agents and Correspondents” abroad, and make clear to them that they must not ship any goods to America, “as they cannot be received in America.” If any foreign merchant were to violate this provision, “it ought to be made publick; and on the same being so done, we will not from thenceforth have any commercial connection with such Merchant.” Further, ship captains would be dismissed from service if any goods prohibited under the Non-Importation Agreement were discovered on board their vessels. This manner of public shaming and shunning was a key means by which the Congress put “teeth” into the Non-Importation Agreement.
Congress clearly recognized that the Non-Importation Agreement would impose significant economic pain on British citizens engaged in trade with America. Importantly, it also realized that non-importation would inflict pain on American merchants, too. To lessen the pain, Congress included a few provisions that granted a certain amount of leniency for violations of the Non-importation Agreement during the first few months following Congress’ adoption of the Continental Association. Thus, if a Merchant was found to have imported goods after December 1, 1774 but before February 1, 1775, the goods could be sequestered once the goods were on American soil, and held for the benefit of the merchant until such time as the Non-Importation Agreement ended. Alternatively, if a town committee decided to sell the goods, rather than sequester them, the merchant would at least be “reimbursed out of the sales the first cost and charges.” As for goods that found their way to America after February 1, 1775, those goods were to be sent back whence they came, “without breaking any of the packages thereof.”
Other provisions in the Articles elaborated on the crimes and punishments to which colonists could be subjected, as well as colonies themselves. If a specific colony did not accede to the terms of the Association, for example, or otherwise violated the terms of the Association, then “we will have no Trade, Commerce, Dealings or Intercourse whatsoever” with such colony. Strong words, indeed.
What Happened After December 1, 1774
It would not be far off the mark to say that enforcement of the Association was heavily dependent on peer-group pressure, and it was very effective: no colonist wanted to be subjected to the derision of his or her neighbors, or be subjected to unwanted gossip and innuendo (or worse). Yet, peer-group pressure was not a complete solution, so enforcement “committees” were set up at the county and town levels in almost all the colonies. These committees were the precursors of the provincial governments that were established after America declared its independence in 1776. These committees operated autonomously, with little or no control by the British government; it was obvious to everyone that the enforcement committees were not about to take orders from Parliament, or from Parliament’s appointed representatives.
Ultimately, the Non-Importation Agreement was rendered irrelevant by the outbreak of the War in April 1775. While a minority of colonists remained loyal to the Crown throughout this period (“Loyalist” had become a derogatory term by this time), most colonists supported the Non-Importation Agreement, and took steps to police themselves through their local committees. More importantly, the colonists were learning how to operate their own governments, independent from British control. The five-month period before the Battle of Lexington and Concord was a proving-ground of sorts for these provincial governments. In the meantime, England was not blinking. In fact, despite the economic damage the Non-Importation Agreement was causing, Parliament doubled-down by passing the New England Restraining Act, by which it sought to starve New Englanders by banning trade by Americans with foreign countries. It was only a matter of time before England and America descended into armed conflict.
The Legacy of the Continental Association
When the First Continental Congress adopted the Association, it could not have known that it was launching America down the path towards independence, and to the creation of our founding documents: The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. But the Association’s importance was recognized a century later when Abraham Lincoln talked about it in his first inaugural address in 1861. President Lincoln declared that our Union was “formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774.” It was 250 years ago today that our journey towards independence began in earnest, when Americans in the thirteen colonies took the first steps to enforce the non-importation of “Goods, Wares and Merchandises” from the Mother Country. We honor them today for their courage, their tenacity, and their commitment to the cause of freedom.
