“Boston Non-importation agreement”的意思、由来-开放百科全书

The Boston Non-importation agreement was a boycott which restricted importation of goods to the city of Boston. This agreement was signed on August 1, 1768, by more than sixty merchants and traders. After two weeks time, there were only sixteen traders who did not join the effort.

In the upcoming months and years, this non-importation initiative was adopted by other cities, New York had joined the very same year, Philadelphia followed a year later. Boston had, however, stayed the leader in forming an opposition to the mother country and its taxing policy.

This boycott lasted until the year of 1770 when the British Parliament was forced to repeal the acts against which the Boston Non-importation agreement was meant.

Historical context

Throughout the 1760s, the British Parliament was passing many acts which had significant implications on the colonial economy, causing problems in the industry, agriculture and commerce. This means that the Boston Non-importation agreement could not be the first such agreement which opposed the Parliament's behaviour.

The very first one was triggered by the Parliament's Stamp Act which required the Thirteen Colonies to pay a tax on every piece of paper used. This act had only one goal - raise the funds which would pay for a high debt of British crown, accumulated during the French and Indian War.

The first to protest this taxation were New Yorkers who had embargoed British imports until the Stamp Act was repealed. They were followed by Boston and Philadelphia. Stamp Act was repealed in March 1766 under the pressure from British exporters who were losing their businesses. British Parliament, however, passed many other disliked acts.

The act parade proceeded by passing the Townshend Revenue Act in June 1767. It imposed new duties on goods such as salt, glass, paper, tea, coal, oil and lead. The revenue from these duties would be used as a salary for colonial governors, judges and troops.

Accidentally, unlike the Stamp Act, the Townshend Revenue Act attracted significantly less attention and caused hardly any criticism or objection when it was implemented in the late November 1767. This lack of opposition was caused by the fact that only a few (merchants and traders) were affected by this act.

The opposition for the Townshend Act might have never appeared if it had not been of writings of John Dickinson. In his famous "Letters from a Farmer", he argued that these taxes are illegal because the Parliament lacked any authority to impose taxes upon the colonists. These twelve letters were originally published in the Pennsylvania Chronicle and later expanded to more than twenty-four other newspapers around the colonies. The letters, along with Thomas Paine's Common Sence, are considered to be the most popular pamphlets of the Revolutionary era.^[2] In these letters, Dickinson fears the loss of colonial independence, considers the recently established acts as an attack on colonial liberties and emphasises the need for colonial protest. In other words, Dickinson's letters boosted up the opposition to the Townshend Act.

Firstly, by addressing James Otis Jr., who advised the Massachusetts House of Representatives to petition the British king. This resulted in the Massachusetts Circular Letter, written by Samuel Adams and James Otis Jr., which was sent to other colonies and recommended collective action against the British Parliament and the Townshend Act.

Such colonial initiatives started a debate, whether the British Parliament has the right to impose taxes with the only intention in raising revenues. The colonial argument, also enforced by Dickinson, was that without elected representants they cannot be taxed ("no taxation without representation"^[3]). The counter-argument from the Parliament was a duty to protect their citizens and subjects. These colonial attempts to deny this British policy ended by dissolving New York and Massachusetts assemblies.

As the British government failed to recognize the reason of the colonial objections, a conflict between the mother country and the colony became unavoidable. In these complaints, the Parliament saw a clear attempt to weaken its authority, Navigation Acts, mercantile system and consequently whole empire.^[4]

Probably, the only peaceful means left for American colonies pushing through their demands for the British government were boycotts of British goods. These intentions formed into an initiative of Boston merchants and trader which resulted in the Boston Non-importation agreement.

The agreement

The main purpose of the Boston Non-importation agreement was to protest the Townshend Revenue Act and boycott the majority of British goods. It was signed by Boston merchants and traders on August 1, 1786, and was effective from January 1, the very next year.

As such, it is a brief and relatively straightforward business statement. Nevertheless, the authors did not avoid describing the economic situation and enumerating reasons which had led to the signing of the agreement. The merchants consider the taxes burdensome, frustrating and restrictive for the colonial trade. Moreover, some, led by John Dickinson, argued that the taxes were a violation of their rights. They also expressed a dilemma whether such taxes could be a potential threat to American liberty. Besides thoughts and doubts, the document also contained statements about the trade which the signed merchants agreed upon.

This agreement was aimed at the British Parliament, directly. Nonetheless, the Parliament was not the only one which formed a target of the agreement. Boston businessmen, rather, hoped that their English counterparts would create a pressure on the Parliament so as to avoid a damage, or even worse, a collapse, of the colonial trade which would consequently influence British economy and welfare.

As well as Englishmen, American colonists were an audience for the Boston agreement, too. On one hand, there were traders, merchants, craftsmen and shopkeepers who would enjoy the economic benefits of a successful boycott. On the other hand, in political spheres, it could serve as an example of triumphant opposition to the British. To achieve such a victory, it was crucial that the boycott had been joined by as many trades and merchants as possible, not only in Boston but throughout all the colonies of the New World.

Full text of the Boston Non-importation agreement

In witness whereof, we have hereunto set our hands, this first day of August 1768.

Contribution of the Daughters of Liberty

Even though the participation of Sons of Liberty is undeniable to the matters of non-importation agreements,^[5] they were not the only ones who opposed British rule.

During the period of time without British luxury products, tea or textile, there appeared to be an opportunity for patriotic women to play a role in public affairs.^[6] Even though they did not join the public protest they formed a strong group called Daughters of Liberty. Instead, they helped to manufacture goods when the non-importation agreements came into effect and caused deficits of British goods, especially textiles. They were spinning wool into yarn, knitting yarn into cloth.^[7]

They also decided to join the initiative of boycotting English tea, and instead of it, used different herbs and plants like mint or raspberry. Many times, these women run either a household or even a small shop. So they could make a choice of which goods to buy and which to boycott. Consequently, they had a huge impact on the non-importations and its effectiveness.

Impact of the agreement

As a reaction to the boycott, the British Parliament expressed an anger and frustration that the colonists denied British authority in taxing matters which was in direct contrast with the Declaratory Act, legislated by the Parliament on the ashes of the annulled Stamp Act.

The Boston merchants and traders reduced their imports of British goods by almost a half. Unfortunately, the other port cities and colonies themselves failed to adopt the non-importation policy of Boston merchants what consequently undermined the effort of their boycott. This failure in cooperation meant that the trade between England and the colonies was sufficient enough. British merchants had sensed no threat in this weak effort and did not lobby for dropping the Townshend Act.

It was not very far in history when an embargo against the Stamp Act, a very similar one to the Boston boycott was a success. The real threat of trade interruption made the English traders press on the Parialemnt and repeal the Stamp Act. Boston merchants might have hoped that such tactics would work out also this time.

Main reasons why the Boston boycott was not a success as they had probably expected were two.

All in all, the Boston Non-importation agreement cannot be considered a huge success. Firstly, not many colonies had signed up to this boycott. For example, southern colonies refused to take any part in this initiative. Secondly, self-interests, smuggling and breaches of the agreement by many merchants and traders also from Boston undermined the initiative even more.

One of such cheating importers was John Hancock, who was a merchant, statesman, and a patriot of the American Revolution. He had his captains' transport goods which were prohibited by the agreement. His ships carried cargo such as British linen or gunpowder. Another known smuggler was Samuel Adams, also a well known American statesman, who later became one of the organizers of Boston Tea Party. These smuggling practices were not only an effective means of resisting high taxes of Britain and weakening its policies but also a cheaper alternative for desired goods. The illegal goods were obtained, in particular, from the Dutch, French and Spanish traders and merchants.

By a change in Great Britain ministry's foreign policy, which wanted a promotion of trade, export and manufacturing, the Townshend Act was repeal, only partially, though. Subsequently, the colonists partially repealed their own non-importation policies.

The duties imposed on many goods were lowered, except for tea. The Parliament also maintained its right to tax the colonies.

The fact that the Townshend duty stayed in effect for tea, in addition to the Tea Act, which objected to reducing amounts of tea stored in London warehouses, resulted in the later so-called Boston Tea Party.

Economical impact

In the beginning, let's draw a table, displaying an average import of linens and cotton to Philadelphia.

These figures show how the state of affairs affected the trade. A great depression can be seen in the years of 1760s when the majority of non-importation and taxes battle struggled.

Nonetheless, it is suggested that the non-importation and connected depression was not caused only by the unpopular acts. In this period of time, the creditors and investor asked for their money back from the colonial importers who were unable to pay their debts.

To gather more money they made up the nonimportation so that they could sell their stock at the higher prices.

Not only had the non-importation agreements helped to repeal unwanted acts, but they also supported bring down in the exchange rates and clear the stuffed inventories of the importers.

Conclusion

All the struggle over the 1760s can be seen as a tough commitment of the Colonials for economic and political independence, an attempt to remove, what they considered, illegal taxes and duties.

One of such attempts was the Boston Non-importation agreement which, even though, not an enormous success, also contributed to this struggle which would later result in more escalated conflicts and later in the American Revolution itself.

One can also conclude that non-importations were also a means to clean the inventories, reset the economics and balance the exchange rates.

References

1. ^Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division
2. ^Marambaud, Pierre. “Dickenson’s Letters From a Farmer in Pennsylvania as Political Discourse: Ideology, Imagery, and Rhetoric.” Early American Literature, vol. 12, no. 1, Mar. 1977, p. 63. EBSCOhost
3. ^as stated the motto of Sons of Liberty
4. ^McCusker, JJ, Menard, RR & Institute of Early American History and Culture, WV. 1985, The Economy of British America, 1607-1789, Needs and Opportunities for Study Series, Omohundro Institute and University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill
5. ^RAMSBEY, THOMAS W. “THE SONS OF LIBERTY: THE EARLY INTER-COLONIAL ORGANIZATION.” International Review of Modern Sociology, vol. 17, no. 2, 1987, pp. 313–335. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/41420902
6. ^Roark, James L. and Michael P. Johnson, Patricia Cline Cohen, Sarah Stage, Alan Lawson, Susan M. Hartmann. Understanding the American Promise, Volume 2: From 1865. Bedford/St. Martin’s 2011.
7. ^Allison, Robert. The American Revolution: A Concise History. Oxford University Press, 2011.
8. ^MHS Collections Online: The Boston Chronicle, artifact number 364, Massachusetts Historical Society.
9. ^Egnal, Marc, and Joseph A. Ernst. “An Economic Interpretation of the American Revolution.” The William and Mary Quarterly, vol. 29, no. 1, 1972, pp. 4–32. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1921325