"For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world."

“ For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world.”

Sometimes keeping it short says it all. At only 11 words, this grievance is the second shortest of the 27 listed in the Declaration of Independence (the shortest being the next one in the list, “For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent”). Jefferson and his fellow editors seem to have noticed that the shorter, the better, since these two grievances remained untouched(1) throughout all of the revisions during the summer of 1776.

This complaint about trade is driven by two groups of Acts by Parliament: The Navigation Acts, stretching back into the mid 1600s, and the Intolerable (or Coercive) Acts, passed in 1774 as a response to the Boston Tea Party.

Revolutionary-era waterboarding.
Colonial merchants weren't big fans of tax collectors. Here they are depicted tarring and
feathering one and forcing him to drink tea. 

The Navigation Acts, unlike many of the Acts and Proclamations we learn about as part of Revolutionary reasons, is more an example of death by 1,000 paper cuts.  Dating back to the 1650s, the acts sought to keep the British mercantile system humming like a well oiled machine while also challenging Dutch international trade. For instance, the first act established that any ship carrying goods to England be transported in English vessels. Fair enough -- such laws were a) largely unenforced and b) benefitted the colonies anyway.

But politics, after all, is a study in the effect of unintended consequences. The next Navigation Act, passed in 1660, forbade the importing into or exporting from the colonies of specific items (tobacco, sugar, cotton, wool among them), unless it was carried on a British ship. Eventually, in 1672, this rule was even applied to trade between colonies. The colonies were now in a situation where even trade amongst friendly colonies started to become difficult. That is, if it were enforced.

It isn’t until 1733 that we start to see some annoyance. That year Parliament passed the Molasses Act, placing high duties on molasses and sugar from the French West Indies. Britain was doing what Britain normally did in the colonial era -- protecting their sugar plantations in the British West Indies. And colonial merchants, they did what was normal for them in promoting their self interest -- they bribed customs officials to look the other way. Even so, it was still a thorn in a merchant’s side. “You hint to me that the molasses affair will soon be settled, which will certainly give me great pleasure,” wrote Boston merchant John Rowe to his brother, Jacob, later complaining the the high duty prohibits him from paying back loans.(2)

By the time John Rowe wrote his letter in 1761, Britain had moved beyond just protecting a trade system -- the country was actively looking for sources of revenue. Thinking that colonists would be more agreeable to a tax were it lower, Parliament decided to cut the tax on molasses in half, from six pence to three. Yet merchants had been paying less just by bribing officials for three decades - Britain was going to need to do much better than that! Even Ben Franklin was in conversation to lower the duty to 1 pence.(3) Further, by this time Britain had moved from passive to aggressive in enforcement: in 1756 a British governor broke into Philadelphia warehouses trying to find smuggled contraband, and in 1760 the British navy seized molasses cargo worth 100,000 pounds.

Truth be told, the impact of the Navigation Acts on the country as a whole were not significant. Some industries, such as indigo in South Carolina or lumber from North Carolina, even benefitted thanks to the high duties placed on foreign imports that competed with colonial industries. But by the 1760s, the colonial economy was in recession, and merchants were looking for ways to make money. The Navigation Acts forced 3/4s of colonial exports to go through Britain. Shipping costs to international markets were higher, and colonists could not do business with neighboring Spanish or French colonies (at least, not legally).

By the 1770s, the Navigation Acts and Coercive Acts set up so many rules and restrictions on commerce that merchants were vocal in the opinion that Britain wanted to ruin colonial business completely. “Nothing will save us but an entire stopping of trade, to both England and the West Indies… and that must be determined both speedily and absolutely,” John Andrews, a Boston merchant, wrote in May 1774. “I sincerely believe [Parliament] intend to carry out their threats, which are to make the town a desolate wilderness and the grass to grow in our streets.”(4)

1. Jefferson, Thomas, Julian Parks Boyd, Lyman H. Butterfield, Mina R. Bryan, Alfred L. Bush, and Lucius Wilmerding. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson. Vol. 1. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950.

2. Rowe, John, and Edward Lillie Pierce. Letters and Diary of John Rowe: Boston Merchant, 1759-1762, 1764-1779. WB Clarke Company, 1903. 217.

3. To Benjamin Franklin from Richard Jackson, 12 November 1763,” Founders Online, National Archives, last modified July 12, 2016, http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-10-02-0198.

4. Charles Sellers, et al., A Synopsis of American History: Through Reconstruction Chicago: Ivan R Dee, 1992.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

Life in the Revolutionary era was rough. One quarter of children born in this era died before the age of nine. Deaths during childbirth were extremely common. War, a highly prolific factory of death in its own right thanks to advancing weaponry, also rapidly spread disease, even more potent thanks to lack of a proper diet, exposure to the elements, and fatigue. One cannot read many diaries of travels during this era without tales of various harsh deaths meeting colonists of all income levels at an alarming rate. For every American soldier who died as the result of a British or Hessian weapon during the Revolution, nine others died of disease. Even George Washington did not escape the touch of mortality among family, losing step-daughter Patcy Custis to an epileptic seizure at 17 and step-son John to camp fever at 23.

All the while, the overall population of the colonies kept increasingvia high birth rates and, more importantly, immigration. Workers were needed to farm the fields, to fish, to build ships and tools and houses and hats and all types of products for the growing colonial interests. Besides opportunity, religious tolerance was also drawing many European settlers to America. England, crowing itself to be the champion of Protestantism for the world, issued an official invitation to persecuted Protestants in any nation welcoming them to the shores of America, virtually guaranteeing they would be welcome and have freedom of worship.

It was understood in North America, and certainly by King George and Parliament, that immigration was critical to the economy of the colonies.  With the passing of the Royal Proclamation Act of 1763, Britain thought it was promoting the benefits of the entire British empire by keeping the American population closer to the shoreline, which meant more business centered on ports and trade with the mother land. This act not only prevented colonial settlers from expanding westward, but it hemmed the colonies in from the north (Canada), south (East and West Florida) and even the Caribbean (Grenadines).  The Proclamation allowed the new governors to bequeath land to soldiers who participated in the Seven Year’s War.

So, you might be thinking, if you’re a colonist -- what’s the big deal, right? So what if there is are new colonial governments to the north, to your south, and in the Caribbean? It’s all one big, happy, British family, so what does this have to do with your own well being? How does the Proclamation impact your self interest and pursuit of happiness?

One of the most critical things for a new colonial government is to promote immigration. The granting of large tracts of land to former British soldiers, along with the sale of land at cheap prices, can change immigration patterns significantly. Suddenly, a potential immigrant looks at the American Atlantic colonies and sees most land already spoken for, and little opportunity to expand, while seeing opportunity to the north and south. Fewer immigrants means lower population, which means smaller markets in the immediate trading area.

Of course, the wealthy still had the ability to seek out opportunities, even with this new colonial arrangement. George Washington tried to jump on the opportunity by reaching out to William Cawford, voicing urgency because “ nothing is more certain than that the Lands cannot remain long ungranted when once it is known that Rights are to be had for them.”

The gentry of colonial America had the means and connections to ignore the new boundaries and try to establish footholds west of the Appalachians. Yet the middling class lacked the same. On the rare occasions British troops enforced the borders, forcing some to move back east, it was settlers who suffered, not the wealthy. Whereas the gentry looked at the westward lands as a means to increase wealth, the middle and poorer classes looked at it as an opportunity for survival, or to practice religion freely.

They also looked at it as a reward for fighting in the Seven Years’ War for the British, as the British. And with the economy in recession, there were few other opportunities, and colonists did not take well to sitting idle.  “If we are industrious we shall never starve; for, as Poor Richard says, at the working man's house hunger looks in, but dares not enter,” wrote Ben Franklin. Indeed, the very essence of America was a reward to those who worked hard, who were industrious, who were “bred to labor” and punished those with “genteel pretensions and fallacious expectations.”

It is clear, with these points, that the British decision to restrict immigration by rerouting it to new colonies and by giving land to other subjects but preventing American colonial subjects the same access, that the impact on the middling class was felt harshly. It struck at the heart of the new American opportunity for hard work and advancement, and sought to shackle (at least, temporarily) its growth in return for a quieter western frontier. This proclamation, unlike many others, not only restricted the pursuit of happiness, it practically forbade it.

1. Burnaby, Andrew, and Francis Fauquier. Burnaby's Travels Through North America. Edited by Rufus Rockwell Wilson. A. Wessels Company, 1904.

2. Thompson, Mary V. "The Lowest Ebb of Misery: Death and Mourning in the Family of George Washington." Historic Alexandria Quarterly (Spring 2001)(2001): 1-14.

3. Joseph E. Fields, “Worthy Partner”: The Papers of Martha Washington. (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1994), p.174. November 18, 1777.

4. Proclamation of Queen Anne to the Protestants of Germany. Rupp’s Collections, 5.

5. Narvey, Kenneth M. "Royal Proclamation of 7 October 1763-The Common Law, and Native Rights to Land within the Territory Granted to the Hudson's Bay Company, The." Sask. L. Rev. 38 (1974): 123.

6. George Washington to William Crawford, September 21, 1767. Washington, George, William Wright Abbot, Dorothy Twohig, Philander D. Chase, Beverly H. Runge, and Frank E. Grizzard. The Papers of George Washington. Vol. 1. University Press of Virginia, 1983.

7. Franklin, Benjamin. The way to wealth. London, 1790.

8. Miller, Kerby A., Arnold Schrier, Bruce D. Boling, and David N. Doyle, eds.Irish immigrants in the land of Canaan: Letters and memoirs from colonial and revolutionary America, 1675-1815. Oxford University Press, 2003.

"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance."

"No taxation without representation!" is the cry we most remember, partly because of its simply rhyme but also because "No new bureaucrats without our consent!" doesn't quite have as powerful a ring.

For more than 250 years, the United States of America has been fairly consistent in a desire to avoid too much government regulation and bureaucracy. In many ways that sense of resistance to governmental meddling can be traced to this one grievance from the Declaration of Independence. Sandwiched near the middle of the list of 27 grievances in the Declaration (#10, to be exact), most readers would likely parse over this statement and give it a back seat to other, more prominent complaints.

Still, one might argue that the presence of new tax collectors and inspectors and all sorts of British government officials was far more a thorn in the side of colonial business than taxation without a representative in Parliament. After all, when money is tight, unemployment is high, and people are losing house and home, it is very easy to think there is something defective with the economic system.

The colonies found themselves in a recession after the end of the Seven Year's War. The Stamp Act of 1765 heightened colonial sensitivity to taxation without a direct elected representative in Parliament. But it was the series of acts known as the Townshend Duties that really rankled their feathers. The Townshend Duties were really a series of acts --  the Revenue Act of 1767, the Indemnity Act (1767), the Commissioners of Customs Act (1767), the Vice Admiralty Court Act (1768), and the New York Restraining Act.

Among these acts, the Commissioners of Customs Act has the most direct connection to the complaint about too many British officials in the colonies. The preamble to the law sums up its intent clearly:

An Act to Enable His Majesty to Put the Customs, and Other Duties, in the British Dominions in America, and the Execution of the Laws Relating to Trade There, under the Management of Commissioners to be Appointed for that Purpose, and to be Resident in the Said Dominions.

The best that can be said is that this is a rare occasion where the British were unsubtle.

Reaction among colonists to the Commissioners Act was not subtle, however. “The excessive use of foreign superfluities is the chief cause of the present distressed state of this town, as it is thereby drained of its money,” declared Nathaniel Ames at a freeholders meeting in Boston on October 28, 1767. “Misfortune is likely to be increased by means of the late additional Burthens and Impositions on the trade of the Province.”

While Ames was arguing in support of the (passed) vote to boycott British goods, he provides perhaps the best example connecting the additional red tape from British customs officials to the economic conditions in the colony of Massachusetts. Plainly put, more British officials are keeping us broke.

By this time, more than 40 colonial newspapers existed along the Atlantic colonies. Despite a lack of formal education structure, the colonists did boast an 85% literacy rate between 1760 and 1770 (literacy was high among whites and far lower among slaves and Native Americans). This high rate of reading, combined with the proliferation of newspapers and, to be fair -- a sexy topic of rebellion, steered newspapers to being the voice of the people. As an author in the Pennsylvania Gazette said, “However little some may think of common News-Papers, to a wise man they appear the ark of God, for the safety of the people."

Newspapers like the Pennsylvania Gazette helped spread ideas to an American readership that was more literate than other parts of the British empire. 

One of the things to keep in mind with the customs duties levied and enforced by these “swarms of offices” is the commonly held British view of what constituted a fair tax at the time. British politician Thomas Sheridan reasoned “That no Taxes can be just or safe, which are not equal. All subjects as well the meanest, as the greatest, are alike concerned in the common safety; and therefore, should according to their respective Interests of Riches or Enjoyments, bear the Charge in equal Proportions."

David Hume expanded on the idea of fairness by saying taxes on luxury items and imports are the most fair and equitable. “The best taxes are such as are levied upon consumptions, especially those of luxury, because such taxes are least felt by the people,” he wrote.  “They seem in some measure, voluntary; since a man may choose how far he will use the commodity which is taxed…”

The taxes imposed by Britain and enforced by these swarms of offices were anything but voluntary. They were mandatory, inasmuch that if a person wanted to do business, they needed to be paid, or at least worked around by bribing a corrupt customs official. Still struggling with a poor economy driven by low demand, the colonists were now seeing business further restricted by various taxes on items that could probably be considered anything but luxury -- the Townshend Duties imposed taxes on glass, lead, paints, paper, and tea, among other items. These were everyday items, used by merchants, printers, blacksmiths, lawyers, and dozens of other specialty jobs. And, worse -- the taxes were being used to pay the salaries of the British officials charged with upholding the duties.

if the duties passed upon luxury goods imported back to the colonies, like Thomas Jefferson’s massive wine collection or Martha Washington’s handmade Moroccan leather slippers, it’s probable that the middling class would give something less of a hoot about these taxes. Instead, Parliament roped the entire middle class into the fray, whipped into action by American newspapers.

Martha Washington would have loved Jimmy Choo. 

The Declaration of Independence and the pursuit of self-interest

The Declaration of Independence has gained a revered place in world history. Although it was not the first time a document declared men to be equals (George Mason and James Madison had declared as much to be true in the first article of the Virginia Declaration of Rights), the Declaration did eloquently summarize the ideals of the Revolution in a succinct document and represented a high point of Enlightenment thought. In other words, it was a proverbial shot across the bow of the ship of hereditary governments around the world, a signal to all that a new representative world awaits those who would embrace it.

Many people remember sections of the first two paragraphs of the Declaration ("when in the course of human events," and "we hold these truths to be self evident," are perhaps the two most recognizable phrases in American history), we often forget that the beginning of the Declaration is, simply, a preamble. It explains the logic and philosophy of the break from Great Britain, taken from John Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government written almost a full century before the Declaration.

Philosophy is all well and good, but what are the reasons? The less seldom thought about section of the Declaration, listing the particular grievances the colonists had with the British government, occupies a much larger section of the document than the beginning. At 650 words, it is almost double the size of the first two paragraphs combined.

There are 27 grievances in all, arranged in a literature sense, all directed against King George; there is a mild beginning to set the stage ("He has refused his Assent to Laws,") and eventually the accusations rise in fervor. It is probably easier to look at the grievances in a grouping and not in order of the original writing. When viewed in this sense, the grievances mostly deal with governmental operation, ruling without consent of the governed, failure to sign laws, failing to respect an independent court system, for instance.

All good and sound arguments, to be sure, but probably not enough to sway a large middling class of farmers, tradesmen, and merchants to risk life and limb in a bloody revolution against the world's largest army and navy.

Yet, if one looks closer, there are three grievances that strike to the heart of colonial support. These grievances argue that the King is not only disobeying the law, but he is deliberately interfering with colonial free enterprise, settlement, and bureaucracy.

•  He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.  
• He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. 
•  For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world.

In short, the King is interfering with self-interest, with the American desire to pursue happiness.

In this series of blog posts, I will explore how each of these three grievances were interpreted and supported by the colonial middle class during the revolutionary era.