‘ "w'~' "_-_—————r—-

.l .'..
v
0 ' '
a
o

 

at ._

COLOMAL REACHON TO THE
sosrouitpom Btu.

The§is fér thg Dggreé of M. A.
MICHIGAN STATE COLLEGE
Warren Wilber Erikson

1.950

 

 

0-169

IWMWW

3 1293 01057 2919

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

Colonial Reaction to the'
Boston Port. B111

presented by
Iarren lilber Erikson

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

MOAO degree in HiStOE!

Major professor

 

Date May 191 1950

 

 

 

 

 

COLONIAL REACTION TO THE BOSTON PORT BILL

BF

warren Wilber Erikaon
“M

A THESIS
Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan
State College of Agriculture and Applied Science
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS

Department of History
1950

THESIS

Preface

One of the generally accepted interpretations of the
American Revolution is the view that Americans were far from.
unanimous in their opposition to Great Britain. Estimates as
to the seriousness of the split vary somewhat, but the idea
prevails that a large number of Americans supported the British
cause. Sometimes the statement is made that the Revolution
was engineered by a small group of "radicals," under the leader-
ship of Samuel Adams, who used various propaganda techniques
to put over their program. Often the statement of John Adams-4
that a third of the people were patriots, a third were loyalists,
and a third were indifferent-~is used as evidence of popular
feeling at the time. Whatever the e stimate, the impression
remains that those whowere opposed to revolution or were at
least indifferent constituted a large segment of the American
population.

The problem.in this paper is to examine this interpre-
tation as it applies to the Boston Port Bill of 1774 and the
background of events leading up to and following directly from.
the Bill itself. What do these incidents reveal in the way of
popular support for the American cause? was there a siaZable .
portion of the population actively opposed to patriot policies
or at best apathetic? Or do reactions to the Port Bill indicate
a great degree of unanimity among the people in their Opposi-
tion to Great Britain?

The direct quotations used within these pages have been

fares , .
’g'v‘??.‘.,‘,~

ma
- a
W
L”

modernized in spelling and capitalization. There are several
reasons for this. One reason is purely mechanical--the abbre-
viations used so liberally during the eighteenth.century are
particularly difficult to reproduce with a.typewriter. Many
writers abbreviated by cutting a word down and placing the last
few letters in the f cm of an exponent. Capitalizationw as
markedly different from.the modern ferme Spelling also varied
considerably: not onlywas there a difference in the use of
abbreviations,«zapitalization, and spelling from.today's accep-
ted manner, but there was absolutely no degree of agreement
among the contemporaries in.that period. This also makes fer
difficult reading. Modernizing these factors does notcietract
from.the meaning or historical significance of the quote. The
only exception to the modernizations of the quotes has been

made in the Appendixes.

iii

Acknowle dgment

I wish to express my thanks to Professor
Robert E. Brown for his helpful suggestions and
constructive criticism in both the research and
writing done in this study. Any display of
knowledge of the fundamentals of literary compo-
sition contained in these pages is a result of
his kind efforts. I also wish to thank my wife,
Marjorie, for the typing and proofreading of the
manuscript, and for her many useful suggestions

during the preparation of this thesis.

Chapter

I.

II.
III.

IV.

V.

Table of Contents

Background of the
Boston Port Bill . . .

Reactions in New England .

Reactions in the

Middle Colonies . . .
Reactions in the

Southern Colonies . .
00110111810113 0 e e e e e 0
Appendix A

Boston Port Bill . . .
Appendix B

List of Donations . .

36

58
85

91

101

Chapter I
Background of the Boston Port Bill

In March, 1774, Parliament passed the Boston Port Bill
closing the port of Boston to all trade until Boston come
plied with.some specific requirements laid down'by Parliament.
The Act stated that certain persons had fomented dangerous
commotions and insurrections in Boston, that these commotions
had subverted the king's government and destroyed public
peace and good order in the town, and that during the trouble
valuable cargoes of East India Company tea had been destroyed.
Since commerce could no longer be carried on safely and since
the customs could not be collected, Parliament declared that
all commerce in Boston.should cease after June 1, 1774. The
ban was to continue until Boston had given full satisfaction
to the East India Company for the tea which had beend estroyed.1

The Boston Port Bill had direct roots extending back to
the Townshend Acts of 1767, and particularly to relations be-
tween the British government and the East India Company. Until
1767, the East India Company had exercised ride political and
economic powers over the vast territory and wealth.of India.
Because of its control, it was able to draw immense wealth
from.India, but through corruption, mismanagement, and oppres~
sion, the Company found itself in difficulties with.Parliament.

 

1. See Appendix A for full text of the Bill. An abbre-
viated version may be found in Henry Steel Commager, ed.,
Documents g§_American Histor , fourth ed.,(New York, 1948),
pp. 71-72.

There was a move in Parliament to divest the Company of its
territorial revenues, which would strengthen the financial
position of the British government,tind a desire on the part

of London merchants to break the Company monopoly in India,

for which.they were Idlling to pay a substantial sum. “nth

the aid of friends in Parliament, however, the Company was

able for awhile to thwart both.the British government and the
London merchants. In exchange for possession of its terri-
torial revenues and trade profits, the East India.Company agreed
to pay the government $400,000 a year and to submit to restric-

tions on its dividends.2

It was at this point that East
India Company affairs became closely interwoven.with colonial
affairs.

The particular event was the passage in 1767 of the
Townshend Revenue Acts, designed by Parliament to raise a
revenue in the American colonies. The purposes of the revenue,
as expressed by the act itself, were "for more effectively
preventing the clandestine running of goods in the said colonies
and plantations,...for making a more certain and adequate pro-
vision for defraying the charge of the administration of Jus-
tice, and the support of civil government, in such.provinces
as it shall be found necessary,...and towards the further de-

fraying the expenses of defending, protecting and securing
the said dominions...." The act placed duties on glass, red

 

2. John C. Miller, Origins g£_the American Revolution,

and white lead, paper, painters colors and tea, the duties to
be collected in America after November {50, 1767. Any money
collected was to be kept in a separate fund to be used for
the administration of the colonies and writs of assistance
were legalized as an aid for enforcing the act.3
Of particular interest was the tax on tea. Four of the
dutied articles were products of British manufacturing, but
tea was an East India Company commodity. This article was
to be taxed three pence a pound instead of the former tax of
a shilling which had been collected in England. This meant
a loss of nine pence a pound in revenue for the government,
but the expectation was that a greatly increased sale of
Company tea in America would still produce as much or more
in total revenue. If this failed to materialize, the Company
bound itself to compensate the government for any loss of
revenue incurred, in addition, of course, to its fixed pay-
ment of a? 400,000 a year. At the same time, the lower duty
on tea was expected to expand the tea market in America for the
benefit of the Company, since Company tea would now‘ be cheap
enough, it was hoped, to compete with smuggled Dutch tea.4
In other words, the financial future of the East India Company
was tobe tied to the collection of a tea tax in America.
Like the Stamp Act of 1765, however, the Townshend Tax

 

3. Commager, Documents ppct65-64.
4. Miller, Origins p__f the American Revolution, p. 264.

failed to accomplish its purpose--in fact, it too resulted
in strenuous opposition frum.the colonists. In Massachusetts
the protests took the form of letters to British ministers
and a circular letter to the other colonies soliciting sup-
port. In these letters, the Massachusetts legislature main-
tained that there were fundamental rules of the constitution
which.neither the supreme legislature nor the supreme execu-
tive could alter. Colonists, being British subjects,*were by
the rules of equity entitled to all the rights of the consti-
tution. This particularly applied to a man's own possessions,
which could not be taken from him.without his consent.5

The circular letter of February 11, 1768, elaborated on
these arguments and made an even stronger case for the colonies.
The letter stated that the Townshend Tax'was passed for the
sole and eXpress purpose of raising a revenue which infringed
colonial constitutionalirights. For not only were the colonists
not represented in.Parliament, which had levied the tax, but
because of circumstances and distance, thetcolonies could never
be represented in Parliament. Since the colonies were not, and
could not be, represented in Parliament, Parliament could never
pass acts taking colonial property» Only a colonial legisla-
ture could do this. The Massachusetts assembly particularly
protested the avowed purpose of the Townshend Tax which was to
provide a Britishrcontrolled fund for paying the salaries of
British colonial officials. Said the assembly:

 

5. Commager, Documents, p. 65.

 

4

They have also submitted to consideration whether any people
can be said to enjoy any degree of freedom.if the Crown in ad-
dition to its undoubted authority of constituting a governor;
should appoint him such a stipend as it may Judge proper, with-
out the Consent of the people a at their expense; & Whether,
ihile the judges of the land & other civil officers hold not
their Commissions during good behavior, their having salarys
appointed for them by the Crown independent of the people

hath not a tendency to subvert the principles of Equity &
endanger the happiness and security of the subject....

The protests were not confined to Massachusetts, however,
for from.Pennsylvania came support from.John Dickinson in.the
form.of the Farmer's Letters. Dickinson annihilated any dis-
tinction between internal and external taxes. He admitted
that Britaintiould regulate trade in the interest of the amp
pire, but the preamble of the Townshend Tax, he declared,
showed that Britain's purpose was to raise revenue for the
administration of Justice and the support of civil government
in.America. A tax in thatever form was a tax, and he<ienied
that Parliament had any power whatever to lay taxes in America.7

Protests proving unavailing, the colonists began to resort
to a more concrete form.of opposition. Boston led the way
on March, 1768, with a noneimportation agreement, followed by
New York in April. In August, Boston.rosstated its position
with another agreement not to order additional goods from
Great Britain during the coming fall, and to stop all trade
from.January, l762,to January, 1770, with the exception of a

few necessities. Philadelphia merchants fell in line with

 

6. Samuel Adams, The Writin s 2§_Samuel Adams, 4 vols.,
Harry Alonzo Cushing, ed., (New York, 1904-19075,I, 184.

7. John Dickinson, The writi s g£_John Dickinson, 1764-1774,
Paul Leicester Ford, ed.,mH‘edeiphia, 155mm pp. 5 -s ;
528-355. -

these measures in March, 1769, but only after being subjected
to much.pressure from.the populace and from the other towns.
Further south, the Virginia burgesses met privately, after
the governor had dissolved the assembly, and agreed not to
import dutied articles, British luxuries, or slaves. Because
of popular pressure, Charleston followed the other ports.8
This colonial opposition was something of a forecast of events
which followed the passage of the Boston Port Bill.

For two years Britain and her colonies faced each other
in a stubborn deadlock over the Townshend Tax. The colonists
feared a situation inwhich British colonial officials would
no longer be restrained by an assembly's control over salaries.
Dissolution of the New York legislature for failure to provide
for British troops in no way diminished this fear. In Mas-
sachusetts, the assembly came under attack for its circular
letter of February, 1768, and when a newlybelected assembly
refused to rescind the action of its predecessor, it, too, was
dissolved on orders from.the colonial sedretary Hillsborough.
Fearing violence in Boston because of non-importation, the
British sent troops to preserve order, only to provide the
occasion for clashes between the civil-and the military ending
in the Boston Massacre of 1770. The stationing of a board of
customs commissioners in Boston to collect the Townshend and

other duties simply increased the difficulties.9

 

8. Commager, Documents, 67-68; Annual Register l768,
p. 255; Curtis P. Nettels, Roots 2£_AmerIcan GItIIIEEtion,
(New York, 1945), p. 635.
9. Miller, Origins 2f the American Revolution, 255-267.

6

Again it was Britain rather than the colonies that
finally backed down. The situation eased when Parliament re-
pealed the Townshend Tax in 1770, Just about the time of the
Boston Massacre. In the repeal, however, there was one signi-
ficant omission-~the tax on tea--which Parliament kept as
an emblem.of British authority over the colonies, and perhaps
also because of the commitment with the East India Company.
It was this tax which contributed to later events leading
directly to the Boston Port Bill.

The most important of these events Ins the passage in
1773 of the Tea Act which thrust the East India Company into
the limelight of American affairs. By this time the Company
was in dire financial straits, its debts had increased, its
stock had fallen, and its warehouses contained some 17,000,000
pounds of unsold tea. Part of its trouble came from.the re-
fusal of Americans to consume taxed East India tea. Instead
of expanding the tea market in America for the Company, the
Townshend Tax had practically stopped all consumption of anyb
thing but smuggled Dutch tea. At the same time the Company
had been faced.with its annual payment of d5400,000 to the
government, without receiving the financial benefit of an en-
larged American market.10 This marketwas no mean considera-
tion, for Governor Thomas Hutchinson estimated the annual

consumption in the colonies at about 6,528,000 pounds.11

 

10. Ibid., 337-338.

11. For an interesting analysis of the Tea Act, its
background and its consequences for America, see Arthur Meier
Schlesinger, "The Uprising Against the East India Company,"
Political Science Quarterly, XXXII, (March, 1917), 60-79.

7

The Tea Act was designed to free the East India Company
from its dilemma. In the first place, the government loaned
the Company f 1,400,000 renounced the $400,000 annual pay-
ment, and cancelled the requirement that the Company should
reimburse the government for any loss in total revenue as
stipulated by the agreement in 1767. At the same time, the
Company could ship tea directly to America without putting it
up for sale in England, thus cutting out middlemen and enabl-
ing the dompany to undersell tea smugglers. The tea, however,
still carried the three pence tax imposed in 1767 and kept
when Parliament repealed the Townshend Act in 1770.12

Trouble came when the Company attempted to market its
tea under the provisions of the Tea Act. Apparently with some
misgivings about the venture, the Company dispatched cargoes
of tea to Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Charleston, there
to be sold by consignees appointed by the Company. But even
before the tea arrived, there was evidence of mounting colonial
opposition. Some of this was doubtless due to the tea monopoly
conferred by the Tea Act, a fact which aroused fears of other
monopolies. Perhaps also tea smugglers, who stood to lose a
lucrative business, helped to foment opposition. But undoubtedly
the foremost reasonfor colonial reaction was the threat to
political freedom if the tea tax were collected}:5 Having

fought the idea of Parliamentary taxation successfully on

 

12. Miller, Ori ins 2f; the American Revolution, p. 339.
13. Ibid., 0' 440

previous occasions, the Americans could not afford to admit
the principle even though it was obscured by the camouflage
of cheap tea.

Boston proved to be the focal point of opposition. New
York and Philadelphia forced the captains of the tea ships to
return their cargoes to England; Charleston permitted the tea
to be landed and stored; but in Boston, circumstances dictated
different action. There Governor Hutchinson, whose sons were
consignees, took a determined stand to enforce the Tea Act.
Mien the tea ships arrived, the peeple of Boston refused to
permit the landing of the tea, and the consignees, backed by
the governor, refused to send the ships back to England. The
culmination of this deadlock was the Boston Tea Party. On
December 16, 1773, just a day before the cargoes were liable
to seizure by customs authorities for nonpayment of duties, 0.
group of men disguised as Indians, dumped 342 chests of tea
into Boston harbor.14 An indication that principle rather than
mob violence was the motive for this act is evident from the
care taken not to harm anything but tea.

An excellent example of colonial reaction to the Tea
Party is contained in John Adams' Diary:
December 17. Last night, three cargoes of Bohea tea were
emptied into the sea. This morning a man-of-war sails. This
is the most magnificent movement of all. There is a dignity,
a majesty, a sublimity, in this last effort of the partiots,
that I greatly admire. The pe0p1e should never rise without
doing something to be remembered, something notable and strik-

ing. This destruction of the tea is so bold, so daring, so
firm, intrepid and inflexible, and it must have so important

 

14. Ibid., 546-547.

consequences, and so lasting, that I cannot but consider it
as an epocha in history. This, however, is but an attack
upon property. Another similar exertion of popular power
may produce the destruction of lives. Many persons wish that
as many dead carcasses were floating in the harbor, as there
are chests of tea. A much less number of lives, however,
would remove the causes of all our calamities. The malicious
pleasure with which Hutchinson the Governor, the consignees
of the tea, and the officers of the customs, have stood and
looked upon the distresses of the people and their struggles
to get the tea back to London, and at last the destruction
of it, is amazing. 'Tis hard to believe persons so hardened
and abandoned.

Adams went on to justify this violent action.

The question is, Whether the destruction ofthis tea was ned-
essary? I apprehend it was absolutely and indispensably so.
They could not send it back. The Governor, Admiral, and
Collector and Comptroller would not suffer it. It was in
their power to have saved it, but in no other. It could not
get by the castle, the men-of-war, 800. Then there was no
other alternative but to destroy it or let it be landed. To
let it be landed, would be giving up the principle of taxa-
tion by parliamentary authority, against which the continent
has struggled for ten years. It was losing all our labor for
ten years, and subjecting ourselves and our posterity forever
to Egyptian task-masters; to burthens, indignities; to igno-
miny, reproach and contem t; to desolation and oppression;

to poverty and servitude. 5

Parliament could not afford to allow this Act of Open
defiance to go unheeded. Punitive measures had to be taken
for a royal law had been openly flaunted. Since Boston had
produced the incident then it would be natural for the ministry
to turn upon Boston with a special vengenance. The Port Bill
was the punishment meted out to Boston.

Steps were quickly taken in Massachusetts to carry out
the Act. The Boston Evenigg-ngh for May 23, 1774, ran

the following announcement :

 

15. John Adams, The Works 9_f_ John Adams, Charles Francis
Adams, ed., 10 vols., (Boston, 1850), II, 323-324.

10

The commissioners of His Majesty's customs hereby give notice,
that from.and after the first day of June, 1774, the officers
of theczustoms for this port and harbor will be removed from
the town of Boston; to the town of Plymouth, within the limits
of the port of Boston; then and there to proceed to<=arry on
in the usual manner thelausiness ofisheir respective depart-
ments...and no officer of the custom.will be permitted to
remain in the town or harbor of Boston from.and after ghe:first
day of June next, during the continuance of said Act.1
The commissioners remained out of Boston until the last of
September, 1774; they returned at that time even though the
port was officially closed. The last royal collector in B089
ton was Edward “finslow Who was appointed just before the evacua-
tion by the British}.7
Governor Hutchinson‘became, in the eyes of the people
of Boston, the symbol of all thd: was against the rights of
America. Hutchinson.had been instrumentalvin.holding the
ships in the port and thus aided in provoking the act of vio-
lence. General Gage was appointed Governor to Massachusetts
Bay and Hutchinson was relieved of his duties. The ex-governor
retired to a.house outside Boston to wait for transportation
to Britain. Some sympathizers went to see him.and forever after-
ward were scorned by their neighbors as ”Hutchinson's Addressers!‘18
The ramifications of the Port Bill were vitally important
to all America. Parliament had asserted unlimited power, not
only tairegulate, but to destroy commerce according to its

pleasure. Innocent and guilty were to suffer alike in Boston.19

 

16. Massachusetts Historical Society, Proceedings 2;.thg.
Massachusetts Historical Societ , 3 series of 20 vols. (Boston,
-fi?1-Iaae, leap-1997, 190—‘777-1944 , lst series, XIII, 182-185.
Hereafter cited as M,H.S., Proceedings.

17. Ibid., 478.

18. Mercy Warren, History‘g§.§hg_Rise, Proggess and Termina-
tion 22 Egg American Revolution, 5 vols., (Boston, l80§T:I, 124.

19. C. P. Nettles, Roots 9f American Qigilizatiqn, p. 644.
11

 

Colonial local governments and legislatures were at one stroke
made completely contingent upon the will of Parliament; not

only their laws but their veryexistance. Whatever a colonial
had invested in his community, his job, his time, or his money

could be made worthless without notice.

12

Chapter II
Reactions in New England

Reactions in New England were those of the people most
immediately concerned with the Boston Port Bill. Commerce
was an important factor throughout New England, and of course
Boston itself was a port city Built up through commercial
activity. Since most of the population of Boston had some
connection with commerce, the closing of the port had serious
economic and social effects. The center of much of the cul-
tural and intellectual life in Massachusetts was in Boston.

The town dominated the surrounding area, just as any large
economic center does. It is not surprising, therefore, that
the New England colonies reacted promptly to the passage of
the Port Bill.

With Boston the town most immediately concerned with the
effects of the Port Bill, it was only natural that Boston should
take the lead in any contemplated action. Before the Bill took
effect, in fact, it became obvious that Boston did not intend
to accept coersion passively. As soon as news arrived that
Parliament had taken action, Boston appointed a committee to
go to Salem and Marblehead in order to acquaint the people -of
these towns with the state of affairs in Boston and to see what
assistance might be forthcoming. On May 18, 1774, the committee
made its report. It found that there was ”a disposition" to
support Boston and that"...the selectmen of each town gave their

assurance that their :- espeotive towns would have a meeting

13

forthwith; the results of ihich they would immediately forward
to the selectmen of Boston."1 0n the same day the town ap-
pointed another committee for the purpose of securing sugges-
tions which would aid and e ase the lot of the people during
the coming siege.2 Boston indicated the pattern it was going
to follow: to seek all possible aid outside and to cwry on
an internal program of retrenchment.

After the Port Bill took effect, June 1, 1774, Boston main-
tained this pattern.with.increased vigor. On June 17, 1774,
the town took steps to advise the rest of the colonies of
its position. The town ”voted, (with.on1y one dissent) thus
the Committee of Correspondence be enjoined forthwith to write
to all the other colonies, acquainting themthat we are not
idle, that we are deliberating upon steps to be taken on the
present exigencies of our public affairs.”3 One method used
by Boston for relief of the poorms to allow the Committee on
ways and Means to employ the poor in building projects on.the
town's land at the south end, thus providing a source of in-
come forchose thrown out of work, so the unemployed would not
be forced by necessity to submit to Britishcoersion.4

The pattern e stablished by Boston was mirrored in the

course of action taken in the Legislature of Massachusetts.

 

1. Boston Record Commission, A Report of the Record
Commissioners of the City of Boston Containin the TOWn
Records 59 vols.,—TBoston,1876-19095, XVIII, 174. Hereafter
citedz as Boston Town Records.
2. Ibid., 175.
5. I513” 176.
4. 1513., 181.

14

The House of Representatives on May 26, 1774, voted (115e8)
to have the Committee of Correspondence transmit copies of the
Port Bill to the other colonies. To accompany the copy of
the Bill, the Committee wrote a note which read in part: "...we
enclose you an act, passed in the late session of the British
Parliament....We think the archives of ConstantinOple might be
in vain searched for a parallel. To reason upon such an act
would be idleness. You will doubtless judge every British
American colony deeply concerned in it."5 This tended to<:arry
further the program.of appeal contemplated by Boston, and after
the Port Bill took effect, the House of Representatives made
a formal plea for aid to Boston. The House pointed out that
the actiOn against Boston was an attack upon all colonial America
which threatened thecfiestruction of all liberty.6

The appeal from the House of Representatives fell on
susceptible ears in the towns of Massachusetts. Many of these
had already taken action indicating their sympathy for Boston
and their feelings about the Port Bill. On June 6, 1774,
Marblehead instructed its representative to the General Court
to do his best to assist Boston. The instructions went on to
say: "Our hearts blood for the<iistressed but truly respect-
able Bostonians.".7 It is interesting to note thd: this port
town, as well as Salem, which theoretically stood to gain econ-
omically by Boston's plight, heartily supported the Bostonians.

 

5. M.H.S., Proceedings. lst series; XIII, 182-183.

6. Adams, writings, III, 129.

7. Quoted in Samuel Roads, Ir., The History and Tradi-
tions 2; Marblehead, (Marblehead, 189777'p. 113.

 

15

0n the same day, in town.meeting,Bellerica resolved "That
the Act for blocking up Boston.harbor is hostile, arbitrary,
and cruel, and a solemn alarm, sounded to all America."8
Charleston, Concord, and Iynn passed resolves similar to those
of Bellerica and Marblehead. The Committee of Correspondence
of Ghelmsford in a letter to Boston summed up the attitude
of many towns by saying? "we are happy to have it in our
power, by any means to show our affectionf or atown, who are
so eminently suffering in the common cause. As we entertain
the highest esteem of your conduct, we are willing not only
to sympathize but share with you in your troubles."9
Havingeaxpressed their sympathy, the towns then prepared
to show Boston that they were willing to share in the town's
troubles in a more concrete form than.mere moral support. From
Cape God through the Connecticut valley to the Berkshires, the
Massachusetts towns passed resolutionsto provide economic as-
sistance to a town Which was being deprived of its economic
foundation. A few examples show typical contributions which
began to pour in to the blockaded port: Barnstable,&"12 10 8;
Wellflett, $7 10 8; Eastham, .f 10 and 50 bushels of corn;
and Falmouth, $50 18 and 51% cords of wood at one time-~50é

cords of wood at another time.10

 

8. Quoted in Henry A. Hazen, History;g§.Ballerica,‘Mggr
ggchusetts, (Boston, 1883), pp. 229-230.

9. Quoted in Wilson waters, History 2§.Chelmsford, Massa-
chusetts, (Lowell, 1917), p. 205.

10. See Appendix B.

16

Not all the towns in Massachusetts, however, expressed
sympathy for Boston in her predicament. Freetown, for example,
indicated that she looked with misgivings on thewhole situation.
On January 17, 1774, soon after the tea party, Freetown passed
resolves stating "the people of Boston had not acted in their
duty to prevent the dumping of the tea and the act was liable
to bring the vengeance of the king upon America."11 As time
wore on and the issue of the plight of Boston became more
apparent, neighboring towns were able to keep Freetown in line.”
Freetown, however, was the exception which proves therule, for
during the research for this study this was the only specific
example of a recalcitrant town that was encountered.

In addition to the official responses of the legislature
and the various towns, the correspondence of individuals also
reveals the widespread support which Boston received not only
from New England but from other colonies as well. The views
expressed came from both patriots and tories, which should
answer the c riticism of bias or prejudice which naturally pre-
sents itself.

The first person to be considered is Samuel Adams who
ranks first because no one person did more writing on thes ub-
ject of the port Bill. He was so active in this period that
some writers attribute the American Revolution to his work.

An evaluation of the specific part played by Samuel Adams is

 

11. Quoted in A Histor 9_i_‘_ _F_1;eetown, Massachusetts with
an Account 9;: the 013' Home estival, (FaI River, 1902), p'."“71 .
12c Ibide, De :8.

1'7

not within the scope of this study. Adam's comments are
presented here as merely another source of both official and
individual reaction to the Port Bill. Adams was a member of
the Boston Committee of Correspondence. In this capacity he
was a most prolific writer. He kept in touch with committees
of correspondence outside Boston and with many important people
in colonial America. Adam's letters told of conditions in
Boston and involsed sympathy and aid from Massachusetts to
Georgia. On May 15, 1774, Samuel Adams wrote a letter which
was addressed to the colonies in general. Said Adams: "...
the town of Boston is now suffering the stroke of vengeance
in the common cause of America... [it] cannot be entertained
as that this town will now be left to struggle alone."15 This
letterwas distributed to the committees of Connecticut, New
York, New Jersey and Philadelphia. At Philadelphia a copy of
the note of that town was enclosed with the letter and it was
forwarded to the South. The committees of Rhode Island, Provi-
dence, and Portsmouth alsor eceived copies of the general
letter written by Adams. Silas Deane received a le tter from
Samuel Adams dated May 18, 1774. Adam's assured him that his
sentiment "...that Boston is suffering in the cormnon cause is
just and humane."14 The replies to these letters indicate
that there was as walling tide of resentment toward Great

Britain and a growing feeling of unanimity in the colonies with

 

150 Adams, Wit 3 III 108.
14. .1214" MEL. ’ ’

18

respect to Boston. Boston was looked upon as suffering in the
common cause of American liberty. Most of these letters from
Adams' correspondence show that America felt that should the
ministry succeed in squelching resistance in Boston,a new
system of complete regulationns in order for all of British
America.]'5

The committees of correspondence had their share of
troubles, for of course Tory sympathizers attempted to dis-
credit patriot efforts. On one occasion Adams had too xplain
to the Committee of Colrain that the non-importation agree-
ments made in reply to the Port Bill were not a plot by Boston
merchants to make huge profits through the creation of scarcity.16
At another time Adams related that the Donations Committee of
Boston came under suspicion. Rumor said that the members of
the Committee were benefiting from their post he diverting
some of the money to their own pockets. They were also charged
with using the poor, supported by the donations, to work on
their own lands without payment. The Committee requested all
colonial newspapers to print their denunciation of the charges.
A challenge was made by the Committee to any person to furnish
proof of the scandalous insinuations.l7

British officials in Massachusetts supply a good picture
of conditions in that colony as observed'by British government

agents. Thomas Hutchinson the Governor of Massachusetts Bay

 

15. Ibid., 104-225.
16. TEE, 145.1,
17e I513." 167-168.

19

was in a good position to observe American attitudes. On
one occasion he said, "I hear nothing of givinguvay, nor is
there any preposal from.any quarter of making compensation
to the East India Company."18 Hutchinson was relievedeis
Governor by General Thomas Gage. Heireturned to England where
he was warmly greeted by British officials. Upon his arrival
in England, Hutchinsonuwas taken almost immediately to an
audience with the King and Lord Dartmouth, the colonial sec-
retary to discuss affairs in America. From.the evidence pre-
sented in.his diary, Hutchinson did not report that the Port
Bill was the success that the King seemed to infer.19 'General
Gage, Hutchinson's successor, reported on May 19, 1774, that
Athe Port Bill had produced such a marked reaction that he felt
he would have to bide his timetaecause "minds so inflamed can-
not cool at once."20
Examples of other colonial reactions are abundant in
Massachusetts. A letter of May 21, 1774, from.John Scollay
of Boston to Arthur Lee, recorded a typical Bostonian reaction.
Scollay pointed out the importance of Boston to theeeconomic
and financial life on Massachusetts Bay. He said the closing
of the port was a cause of distress to thousands of workers,
and that Boston was faced with the problem of relief of the

needy. The letter went on to say:

 

18. Thomas Hutchinson, The Diar and Letters of His
Excellency, Thomas Hutchinson—7E3 J., Tater UFlando Hutchinson,
ed., (Boston, 1884), p. 151.

19. Ibide' pe 158e

. 20. Peter Force, ed. American Archives, Fourth Series,
givgis., (Washington, 1857 ,I, 355. Hereafter cited ad Force,
c ves.

on

For that purpose Creliefj we have it in contemplation, if the
blockade continues any length of time, to employ the poor

in building a horse bridge over the Charles River about as
wide as the Thames. By this bridge, Charleston, a large and
opulent town, will be Joined to Boston. This bridge will
greatly facilitate the intercourseb etween Boston, Marblehead,
and Salem, and other trading towns.

“hen the news first arrived of Lord North's proposing
this bill in Parliament, itwas looked upon as a mere hum....
I believe...the colonies are too precious a Jewel for the
Crown to part Witheeeez

Charles Chauncy, a well-known Boston minister, in a letter
to Richard Price d ated July 18, 1774, summed the attitude of
all of colonial America on the Port Bill.

...there never was such an sic] union in the colonies as at
this day. The cause forwhic we in this town are suffering,
they look upon as the common cause of all North-America....

The indignation universally excited in all sorts of
persons throughout America, by means of the Boston Port Bill,
almost exceeds belief....

And it may be worthy of particular notice, the union of
the colonies and their intention of liberality in donations
for our relief were the result of their own thoughts, previous
to any applications to them from this town or province.22

Dr. Chauncy's letter grasps the magnitude of thef eeling
of unanimity in an American cause by peOple believing them-
selves to be threatened by an alien force.

The cements of John Andrews, a prominent Boston mer-
chant, are also worth noting. In a letter written on August
2, 1774, he revealed something of the conditions in Boston
during the siege. He told of seeing eleven carts loadedwith
fish and one loaded with sweet oil arriving in Boston on that

morning. Itw as a donation from Marblehead. The Committee of

 

21. Ibid., 369-570.
22. M.H.S., Proceedings, XVII, 268-269.

21

ways and Means, according to Andrews, had difficulty in getting
the donations into town. The commissioners enforcing the Port
Bill refused to let it come in by water. Two cargoes of rice
from.North Carolina, and a thousand bushels of grain.from
“bathersfield were held up also. The acts of the commissioners
caused much consternation on the part of the townspeople.
Andrews related that the Committee of Whys and Means met and
decided ”to ship some rice at Marblehead on board avessel
for ... [Boston] and demand clearance: in.case of refusal,
to enter a protest and proceed with it to Boston and take a
chance of it, and see whether they [the customs commissionergl
will put their threats in execution or not." The*writer felt
that the whole plan was to starve Boston into submission or
at least toczause the poor to become a serious problem. The
poor, according to Andrews, were employed in mending the streets
and decks for which they were paid enough to allow them to sub-
sist.23
Another observer, whose views are particularly relevant,
was Bendamin.Franklin. As colonial agent in England for the
Massachusetts Assembly, Franklin was in an excellent position
tozreceive information on America both from.his colonial cor-
respondents and from.reports reaching Britain by way of offi-
cial channels. In September he wrote the following to Thomas
Cushing, speaker of the House of Representatives:

 

23. Jehn Andrewm, Letters gf_John.Andrews, Es ., of
Boston, 1772-1776, “anthrOp Sargent, ed., (Cambridge, 1836),
pp. 23-24.

22

The coolness, temper, firmness of the American proceedings;
the unanimity of all the colonies, in the s ame sentiments of
their rights, A: of the injustice offered to Boston; and the
patience with which those injuries are at present born, with-
out the least appearance of submission; have a good deal sur-
prised and disappointed our enemies, and the tone of public
conversation, which has been violently against us, begins
evidently to turn; so that I make no doubt that before the
meeting of Parliament it will be as general in our favor.24

Franklin is also significant in showing the change which
took place in individuals themselves--something thd: doubtless
happened to many besides Franklin. Soon after the Tea Party,
Franklin wrote to Cushing decrying the fact that the Bostonians
had gone too far. Hef elt that in a dispute about public
rights it was e ntirely amiss to destroy private property. "A
speedy reparation," he advised, "will immediately set us
right in the opinion of all Europe.”25 But by September Frank-
lin had obviously shifted his position.

The sympathetic reactions cited above are those of Bos-
ton's neighbors in Massachusetts, but the rest of New England
was not left behind by the Massachusetts towns in voicing its
opinion on the lbrt Bill. New Hampshire expressed heartfelt
sympathy for the Bostonians. Subscriptions were raised for
the relief of the besieged inhabitants of Boston whowere re-
garded as suffering in the common cause of American liberty.26

The towns of Portsmouth and Francestown also voiced
strong opinions on the Port Bill. In a letter of May 19, 1774,

Portsmouth wrote to the people of Boston:

 

24. Benjamin Franklin, The writin s of Ben amin Franklin,
Albert Henry Smyth, ed., 10 vTo sz‘J", New item, 1907 , m 25 - 39.

25. Ibid., 1'79.

26. Jeremy Balknap, The History 2;; New Hampshire, 3 vols.,
(Dover, 1812), II’ 2840

We think the late act of Parliament to shut up the port of
Boston of the most extraordinary nature, andf atal tendency.
We heartily sympathize with you under your present difficult
and alarming situation; and we will exert ourselves to carry
any plan into effect which may be concerted by the colonies
general relief. We sincerely wish your-resolution and prosperity
in tag commonccause, and shalle ver view your interest as our
own.
Francestown reacted in as imilar way. June 1, 1774, the day
the Port Bill was to take effect was proclaimed a day of
mourning and public prayer. The men of Francestown agreed
that they would resist ”this foreign tyranny to the bitter
and and whatever peril."28

The town of Exeter was typical of the New Hampshire towns
in its reactions to the Port Bill. In a town meeting it was
decided to raise {100 by taxation for the aid of Boston. An
exemption to this tax was made for anyone who was against the
proposition. A subtle form of coersion was used to make sure
that a large fund was collected. All that was necessary was
that the person enter his name with the clerk within ten days
of the passage of the resolution. It is significant that
there were few who took advantage of the exemption and the
money was quickly raised.29 A letter written by Exeter to the
Committee of Correspondence of Boston also reveals the attitude
of the town:

Gentlemen, It gives us peculiar satisfaction that we are the

 

27. Nathaniel Bouton, Provincial Papers Documents and
Records Relati to the Province 2; N91 Hampshire from 1764
_to 1776, (Nashua-1845'), p. 567.

28. Quoted in W. R. Cochrane and George K. Wood, History
91: Francestown, N. 11., (Nashua, 1895) p. 68.

29. Charles Henry Bell History 9_f_'_ 1511.9. Town of Exeter,
M Hampshire, (Boston, 1888), p. 5 .—

24

happy instruments of conveying relief to the distressed. We
send you by the bearer hereof Mr. Carlton, one hundred pounds,
which sum was unanimously and cheerfully voted by this t own
for our suffering brethern in Boston. The cause for mich you
suffer we esteem the common cause of all America, your pru-
dence and fortitude we admire. That you may be assisted by
all the colonies in the present glorious struggle for liberty,
and imbued with wisdom and patience to perservere to the e nd
is the desire and hearty prayer of your sincere friends."-"0

The above are representative manifestations of Opinions
in New Hampshire and indicate that the people of that colony
were aware of the plight of the Bostonians and its relation-
ship to the rest of colonial America. New Hampshire was not
going to stand by and calmly watch their "Boston brethern" suf-
fer for what they believed should be the interest of all Bri-
tish America.

Rhode Island was another neighboring New England colony;
reactions there were similar to those of New Hampshire.
Providence, Bristol, Richmond, New Shoreham, Cumberland,
Harrington, and Newport all passed resolutions in support of
the Bostonians.“-

The statements of the people of Newport, Bar rington,and
Providence are typical of the s entiment expressed by the Rhode
Island towns. In May, before the bill was to take effect,
Newport told the world just where it stood by saying:

Voted, that we have the deepests ense of the injuries done
to the town of Boston by the Act of Parliament lately passed
for putting an end to their trade, and destroying the port.

And that we consider this attack upon them as utterly sub-
versive of American liberty; for the s ame power may at

 

30. Quoted in Ibid;,
31. John Russell—Bartlett, ed., Records 93 the Colony
of Rhode Island and the Providence Plantations in New nglan ,

1'6 ‘T‘vo s.,“(_‘T“"Prov denc_e, 1‘T‘T—862 v I, 272-9281.

25

pleasure destroy the trade, and shut up the ports in every
colony in its turn....32

The town of Barringtoneaxpressed its thoughts on the matter
in its instructions to its deputies. These instructions
also reveal that the fiscal conditions of Rhode Island would
be most unique among modern governments.
Whereas, the deputies represent to the1sown that there is
in the general treasury, a considerable sum of monewahich is
not at this time especially needed for the use of the colony,
and as it appears to the town that the inhabitants of Boston
are much distressed by the late port bill....it is voted thd:
the representatives of this town at the next session of the
assembly in this colony do to the utmost of their power
endeavor that part of said money...be appropiated to and for
the use of the said town....
A week later, August 12, 1774, the town of Providence passed
a similar resolution in the instructions to its deputies.
Providence called the Boston Port Bill "that unrighteous in-
hibition."54

Rhode Island was not outdone by the larger New England
colonies. The zeal which is shown by the above resolves
equals that of any in New England. It might also be pointed
out that Rhode Island held a more important political posi-
tion, relatively speaking, than it holds today with.forty-
eight states with which to compete.

Just as New Hampshire and Rhode Island were outspoken in
their support for Boston, indicating that they looked upon the

cause of the Bostonians as a common cause, so Connecticut, the

 

32. Force, Archives,I, 545.

33. Quoted In Thomas W. Bicknell, A History of Barrington
Rhode Island, (Providence, 1898), pp; 528;529. -—'

54. Records 2; Rhode Island, VII, 282.

 

2G

third colony, reacted in a simdlar way. Examples of feel-
ing against the Port Bill in the latter colony, in fact, are
much more numerous than those found in New Hampshire and
Rhode Island.

The legislature led the way in consideration of the
importance of the Bill. The House of Representatives urged
the various Connecticut towns to support Boston with the fol-
lowing resolution:

This house...do resolve, that it be and is hereby earnestly
recommended to theseveral towns in this colony, to continue
cheerfully and liberally to contribute to the relief of their
suffering brethern in said town [Boston] , according to the
several abilities which Divine Providence has given them;
esteeming it an incumbent duty and an acceptable service in
the right of God and their country.35

The above resolution is also an illustration of the growing
American.nationalism. Some of the towns which responded to
this resolution were Wbthersfield, Enfield, waterbury, Wbod-
stock, Wbodbury, Norwalk, Glastonbury, Litchfield, New Milford,
Hartford, Fairfield, Groton, Windsor, Windham, Stratford, New
London, Norwich, Plainfield, Killingly, Pomfret, Stanford,

and Derby. All these towns passed resolved indicating sympathy
with the Bostonians and remarkedthat they felt Boston was
suffering in the common cause of all colonial America. Some

of the more individualistic comments illustrate how Connecti-

cut felt in the matter.
The town of Wbthersfield is a good example. The inhabi-

 

55. Charles J. Hoadl , The Public Records gf_the Colony
2; Connecticut, 15 vols., Hartford, 1887IXTV, 409.

27

tants of this town decided on June 17, 1774, that they would
make donations from time to time to Boston as their own con-
ditions would permit.36 After much discussion the General
Assembly of Connecticut deferred action on their1?esolution

on the matter of aid to Boston for about five months. Whthers-
field did not condone its delay and in a resolution passed in
June, 1774, the town expressed itself on the subject oflrelief
and laid down a pattern that was quite typical of the plans

made by many of the towns.

Whereas, the honorable General Assembly of this colony tak-

ing into consideration the distressed situation of the town

of Boston, did come into a resolution to contribute to their
relief but deferred putting the same into execution, until
after their session October next--We, the subscribers appre-
hensive that to put forward a contribution at this time may
greatly tend to relieve and encourage the inhabitants of that
town, under their present unparalleled suffering in the general
cause of American liberty, do engage to pay the sums by us
subscribed, in the manner following: (viz.) One penny on the
pound of our list for the present year, as set down against

our names; and such other sums as we shall set down. Each.per-
son subscribing to be holden for one penny on the pound; and
for as much more as he shall see fit to subscribe; to be paid
in cash, in wheat, rye, & Indian Corn; to be transported to
said town of Boston, and delivered to the select men, or over-
seers of the poor for said town, to be disposed of as they
shall judge best for the benefit of said town.57

By July 25, 1774, the donations of Wethersfield had reached the
following quantities: 54-5/4 bushels of wheat, 245-1/2 of
rye, and 590 of Indian Corn.58

The spirit of giving was also represented in the action
of nine men from the town of Windham. The men collected 257

 

56. Silas Deane, "Correspondence of Silas Deane,"
Collections 9;,thg Connecticut Historical Society, (Hartford,
1870), p. 156.

57. Quoted in Sherman W. Admas and Henry R. Stiles,'2hg
Histor ‘9; Ancient Wethersfieldvggnnecticut, 2 vols., (New
York, 1904), TI, 421.

38. Ibid., 429.

sheep, drove them to Roxbury and waited there for an op-
portunity to get them into Boston. In a letter which accom-
panied the gift to Boston, the generous donors asked the Bos-
tonians to accept their offering and to "apply it to the,
relief ofthose honest, industrious poor, who are most oppressed
by the late oppressing act."39

Reactions in Woodstock, Gastenbury,and Farmington carried
on the feeling of good will and aid for the Bostonians. Wood-
stock emulated the helpful action of the men of Windham and

4‘0 Gastenbury risked a generali-

sent sixty-five sheep to Boston.
zation in its letter to Boston dated June 25, 1774. The signers
said, "we believe all Connecticut almost to a man tos tend by
you and assist you...."41 Reactions in Farmington show that

the peOple of that Connecticut town had a flair for the dramatic.
May 19, 1774, found the town's indignation over the passage

of the Port Bill at a boiling point. According to one account,
"a very numbrous and respectable body were assembled, of near
one thousand people, when a hugh pole, just forty-five feet

high was erected, and consecrated to the shrine of liberty;

after which the Act of Parliament for blocking up the Bos-

ton harbor was read aloud; sentenced to the flames, and executed

by the hands of the common hangman...."42 After this violent

 

59. Joseph Anderson, ed., The Town gn_d_ Cit 9f Waterbury,
Connecticut, from the Aboriginal Period _t_o_ £113 ear Eighteen
Hundred 9.9.4 N‘i'retymve, 3 vols.,‘W—ew Haven, 1"‘7896 , I, 413.

40. Clarence Winthrop Bowen, The Histor 9_f_'_ Woodstock,
Connecticut, 8 vols., (Norwood, 1923)“: T,"‘i"";43.:

41. noted in G. H. Hollister, The History 9;; Connecti-
cut, 2 vols., (New Haven, 1855), II, 1'53.

42. Force, Archives, I, 556.

29

demonstration of Farmington's attitude concerning the

Port Bill a meeting was called for discussion. Many resolves
were passed; one of which stated "that the late act...for
blocking up the port of Boston is unjust, illegal, and op-
pressive; and that we, and every American, are sharers in
the insults offered to the town of 153oston."4:5

An interesting illustration that the state of affairs
in New England in September, 1794, were decidedly in favor
of Boston is sipplied in one Delaware letter. The writer,
Caesar Rodney, relatednthd: a false report came to Philadel-
phia which said that the King's ships had fired upon Boston.
Reaction in the colonies became organized at this juncture.
The colonial governments acted swiftly to deny this report.
Rodney writes:

Then the expresses went to contradict this false report, they
found in those 2 gov'ts [Massachusetts and Connecticut in
different parties upward of 50,000 men well armed, ac ually
on their march to Boston for relief of the inhabitants and
that every farmer who had a cart or wagon (Be not able to bear
arms) were with them loaded with provisions, ammunition, bag-
gage, etc.,-—all headed by experienced officers....

The culmination of the spirit evidenced by the above
resolves and personal comments of New England was found in
the First Continental Congress. Through the spring and summer
of 1774 the colonies passedresulutions and discussed the

Port Bill and its relation to America. All that was needed

 

45. Ibid., 356.
44. DSlaware Archives, 5 vols. , (Wilmington, 1919)
III, 1429.

50

now was to have the colonies meet together and decide upon

a united American stand on the question. The Virginia Bur-
gesses supplied the instrument for this meeting by issuing a
call for a general Congress of the colonies to meet at Phila-
delphia. The New England colonies readilywresponded to the
call. June found Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut
Idth.delegates appointed and ready to attend.

The delegates from New England went to the Continental
Congress with the hope that the rest of colonial America would
support Boston. Their hOpe was realized by the feeling thd:
the New Englanders found present in the Congress. A few come
ments of the d elegates from New England will illustrate this
point. Silas Deane reported his findings to his wife. He
said, "You may tell our friends that I never met, nor scarcely
had an idea of meeting, with men of sudh firmness, sensibility,
spirit, and thorough knowledge of the interests of America, as
the gentlemen from the Southern provinces appear to be."45
September 17, 1774, was a memorable day in the Congress. thn
Adams wrote that this was one of the happiest days in his
life. Many statements were made in the session which led him
to say, "This day convinced me that America will support the
Massachusetts or perish.wdth her.n46 James Bowdain, a promi-
nent Boston merchantwrecorded his impressions in a letter to

William Bollan, the Massachusetts agent in Great Britain, on

 

45. Letters 2;,Members g§_the Continental_Co rose, 8
vols., Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., (“behington, 1921;, I, 55-56.
46. Ibid., 34.

31

September 6, 1774. Bowdain stated that Boston's hope hadtaeen
answered and said, "we have the satisfaction to know that the
other colonies look on our cause as their own."47
The effects of the Continental Congress upon Boston was

primarily to give encouragement to the:feeling already present.
Statements made in theciebates of the Congress bore out what
had been said months before. Boston was given heart by the
resolutions made by the Congress. Ellis Gray of Boston
commented to his friend Thomas Dolbeare, a merchant in Kings-
ton, Jamaica: "...what keeps us most peaceable at present is

the prospect of the Congress now assembled at Philadelphia;
[Ehey aré] ...doing something for our relief."48 A professor

in Harvard, John.uflnthrop said that, "They-[Ehe colonieE] all
consider Boston as suffering in a common.cause, and themselves
as deeply interested in the event."49 Benjamin Franklin wrote
from.London on September 15, 1774, to his friend in Boston,
Thomas Cushing: "I rejoice to find that the whole continent
have so justly, wisely, and unanimously taken up our cause

as their own. This is an unexpected blow to the ministry,

who relied on our being neglected by every other colony."50

He was speaking as agent to Parliament for Massachusetts Bay.

If any one comment had to be chosen among the many available
that best expressed how Boston reacted to the Congress and the
generous expressions of sympathy, the letter of Samuel Stillman,

pastor of the first Baptist Church of Boston, would undoubtedly

.....—

47. M.H.S.,Collections, IX, 572.
480 MeHeSo Eoceedings, XIV, 5150
49. Ibid., VII, 272.

50. F‘anknn, kitings, VI, 24.4.

20

receive prime consideration. Stillmanwrote a long exposi-
tion on.the Bill and its importance to all colonial America.

Such a spirit of union, firmness, intrepidity, and readi-
ness to sacrifice every less consideration for the cause of
liberty, I never conceived possible among a set of beings, whose
rimum mobile, in common, is self interest. The people

hroughoufl the continent are actuated by one soul, they have
laid aside every distinction of name and party, but that of
friends of freedom. The fire was kindled, and like a shock
of electricity ran Ethroughoufl this western world. No signs
of fear on one hand, nor rashness on the other: but a moderate
and firm opposition to any attempt to enslave America. I
have the pleasure to find, that some who for years had been
on the side of government have changed sides, and now unite
with the majority of the peOple against Oppression.

We are yet in prison in this town, but we seem to for-

get our circumstances through the friendship and generosity
of the other colonies. They seem as if they would pluck out
their very eyes fora us, were such an act necessary to comfort
and support us.5

The reactions c ited above indicate that New England er-
fered a united front of indignat ion to Great Britain's censure
of the Bostonians. The people of New England told the world
through their democratic town meetings and elected committees
they they viewed the plight of Boston as something that vitally
concerned them all. The personal reactions quoted in this
chapter serve to reenforce this conclusion. Bostonstood at
the bulwark of American liberties. Over and over again the
people of the New England colonies spoke of the "common cause
of America;" they looked upon the Bostonians as the front
rank fighters. The Port Bill became a matter of principle--
should it be allowed to succeed in strangling the Bostonians
into submission, then all of New England might be next.

 

519 M.H.S.,-Proceed1ng§, L, 4750

33

New England‘was determined to see that the Port Bill
did not succeed; all were tosahare in this project. Resolves
were passed fer all to see just where New England stood, but
resolves were mere words and words could not defeat the pur-
pose of the Bill. Action was in order and the New England
colonies acted. Donations of all sorts: food, clothing, fuel,
and money, were scraped together and sent to Boston.52 Many
peOple may sympathize with a principle but the real'test comes
when a person digs down into his larder and pocketbook and
freely gives. Towns throughout New England did just that.
When it is also considered how scarce money was in colonial
America the few pounds sent to Boston by her neighbors loom
much larger. New Englandwas not a big food raiser ande ngaged
for the most part in subsistence farming. Thefood that was
sent to Boston represented a sacrifice by many people in the
small towns. Perhapseaconomic and political interdependence
were factors in setting the program into action. Family ties
might also be a factor, the feeling that they would be next
might hage been a consideration. Such.a universal and heart-
felt manisfestation of concern for the "Boston brethern" can-
not be explained entirely in economic or social terms. After
reading many of the statements of the people of New England
one*would also be inclined to feel that the most important
reason behind the actions of the New Englanders in response to

the passage of the Boston Port Bill was that they felt that

 

52. See Appendix B for a summary of donations from
Massachusetts towns.

34

they were aiding an American cause; that they all had a very
important interest in maintaining thez'ights of American
colonies against any infringement by the British in any
manner whatsoever. Thus American nationalism.had begun to

assert itself.

35

Chapter III

Reactions in the Middle Colonies

Proceeding southward from New England one might expect
that reactions to the Port Bill would be less enthusiastic
in the middle colonies, but this was not true.e These "bread
ba£ket" colonies were not as tied to commercial activity at
Boston as their fellow Americans to the north. The closing
of the port of Boston, therefore, might not effect them as
markedly as the New England colonies. Besides this point, the
existance of the great ports of New York and Philadelphia, for
example, provided ample outlets to the sea. Family ties would
not play an important role such as they might in New England.
At first thought it might be concluded that Boston's loss
would be a gain for many people in the middle colonies; if
the port of Boston was closed, tradewould be increased in the
other Eastern seaports. The people of the middle colonies,
however, did not ignore theaatate of affairs in Boston: the
Port Bill brought definite reactions from New York, New Jersey,
and Pennsylvania. The absence of the town system.in its well-
developed New England form makes the task of collecting of-
ficial reactions somewhat more difficult than in New England.

New York City violently demonstrated in sympathy for

Boston. The Bill was cried through the streets as a "Barbarous

murder“ and effigies of the authors of the measure were burned

in public places.1- A meeting was called by the more "substantial"

 

l. The American Revolution in;New Ygrk, University of
the State of New Ybrk, (Albany, 1926), p. 54.

n'n

members of the community in an effort to guide the protests
into more peaceful channels. Itwas held at Faunces' Tavern
but the attendence soon grew so large that it was necessary

to ajourn to the Exchange where manystatements and resolu-
tions were made showing that the people of New York were be-
hind the Bostonians in their troubles.2 New York publicly ad-
vertised a meeting on the Port Bill to be held in the Fields
on July 6, 1774. The meeting was very well attended and a
number of resolves were adopted. Each resolve w as voted on
separately and all carriedwithout one dissenting vote. The
first resolve is indicative of the character of the rest:

1st resolved, peg. 22g” That the statute commonlycalled the
Boston Port Act, is Oppressive to the inhabitants of that
town, unconstitutional in its principles, and dangerous to

the liberties of British America; and that, therefore, we
consider our brethern at Boston as now suffering in the common
cause of these colonies.

The New York Committees of Correspondence kept the people
of New York informed of affairs in Boston. A brisk corres-
pondence was carried on regularly with the Boston Committee
of Correspondence.4 This exchange of letters was well under
way before the Port Bill took effect. On May 25, 1774, the
New York Committee of Correspondence wrote to Boston: "As a
sister colony, suffering in defense of therights of America,
we consider your injuries as a common cause, to ther edress of

which it is equally our duty, and our interest to contribute."5

 

2. Martha J. Lamb, History 2_f_ the City g_f_ New York: Its
Origin, Rise and Progress, 2 vols., New York, 1877), I, 765.
5. Force, Archives, I, 512.

4. History <_>_f_ Montgomery and Fulton Counties, _N_.X., F.W.
Beers 8c COO, New York, 1878 , p. 180

 

3'7

Albany voted a subscription for Boston and when subscriptions
lagged the Albany Committee had two hundred copies of an
advertisement printed which urged that those who had subscribed
but had not yet sent their donations do so. The Committee
also stated the: any other donations would be "gratefully
received."6

Other examples in New York of sympathy and aid for Boston
may be found in Schenectady, Jamaica, and Newtown. Schenec-
tady made its viewpoint clear to all by making a donation of
whealt.’7 Newtown passed resolves which denounced the Port Bill
and kept its Committee of Correspondence in close touch with
events throughout the colonies.8 The resolutions of Jamaica
stated their sympathy for suffering Boston. They believed
that the intentions of Parliament were not leveled at Boston
in particular but all the liberties of all the other oolonies.9

Several personal reactions in New York will illustrate
some opposition or at least a luke warm reception to the posi-
tion of the Bostonians. The motives for these opinions vary
from religious prejudice to the perspective caused by the fact
that the person was a Crown official. It is interesting to

note that changes were often made in the definiteness of the

 

6. Alexander Flick, Minutes 93:. the Alban Committee of
Corres ondence 1775-1778, Minutes 9; the Schenectady Committee
IZZ5-T779, 2 vois., (AlEany, 1925), I, 10.

7. Willis T. Hanson, A History 9;; Schenectady During 1:22
Revolution, (New York, 19167, p. 20.

8. Tamas Riker, The Annals 9;; Newtown, in Queens County
may York, (New York, Eta—Flo. lve-T——77.

9. Henry Onderdonk, fJocuments and Letters Intended to
Illustrate 1:112 Revolutionary Incidents 9; Queens Count , Wow
York, i846), Po 15c

38

stand taken before grass-root reactions were recognized. The
evidence indicated above and a considerdzion of the perspec-
tive of station or position ahows that these commentsxmere
not typical of reaction in New York as a whole.

One New Yorker, in a lettervvritten May 21, 1774, ration—
alized the causes of New York's violent reaction in an interest-
ing way. After he related how General Gage was hissed at a
public dinner in Boston, he concluded that a Presbyterian junto
was b ehind the r esistance to Parliament and the aid g iven to
Boston. He looked upon the Presbyterians as thecaause of
all violent American action. Only the adherents to the Church
of England, he declared, were reliable and respectful to the
British Parliament. The letter suggested that thelringleaders
should be punished as an example to the rest end then most as-
suredly America would quiet down.lo Another New Ybrk letter
written in June said that the violent opposition to the Port
Bill was the action of a group of smugglers and mob leaders-~-
men of prOperty would put things in order soon.11

Thomas Gamble was apprehensive about chances for reparations
from Boston or settlement of affairs in general in America. In
a letter written in New York on July 1, 1774, he stated his
Opinion of American affairs at that point ofcievelopment. He
insisted that the haughty attitude of the Bostonians was based

on the assumption that the other colonies would unite behind

 

10. Force, Archives, I, 299-502.
11. Ibid., 302.

39.

them. According to Gamble, the only way that Boston would
pay for the tea would be if the coming Continental Congress
instructed them to pay. He summed up his remarks with a
prediction: "...as matters stand at present I foresee the:
the troubles in America will not cease for some time...."12

Cadwallader Golden's correspondence is also useful to
illustrate how British officials were forced toirecognize the
seriousness of American:reaction to the Port Bill. Colden
was best known as the Tory Lieutenant-Governor of New York at
the outbreak of the Revolution. Heggained much of his repu-
tation among Americans by his conduct during the Stamp Act
controversy, 1765-1766. Colden was in regular contact with
the Earl of Dartmouth. 0n the day the Port Bill took:effect
ColdenIPeported to the Earl that the Bill was thesubject of
all conversation'but that he‘was assured that the hot-headed
people would be easily kept in check.13 Coldentissured the
Earl on June 6, 1774, that the zeal that he was then forced
to admit existed in New York by that time, was only confined
to the city of New York. The peOple outside that area were
in no way disposed tolaecome active in the manner of the city
dwellers.14

New Jersey, another middle colony, supported the Boston-
ians with zeal that equaled its neighbors in.New York. Many

of the counties of New Jersey passedlresolves displaying sym-

12. Lee Pgers, 4 vols., in Collections 9;; the New York

Historical Society, 82 vols., (New York, 1866-1942), I, 126.

15. Thg’Colden Letter Books, 2 vols.,in.N.Y} Historical
Socddty, Collections, II, 559.

14. _DOcuments Relative §g_§hg.Colonial History_of the State
9; Neg Ybrk,E.B.0'Callaghan,ed.,14 vols.,(Albany,l85777VTTT,470.

 

40

pathy for Boston and stating that Boston was suffering in the
common cause. Some of these counties were Sussex, Monmouth,
Union, Morris, Hunterdon, Middlesex, Bergen, and Essex.

A few of the resolves of these New Jersey counties will
serve as illustrations of New Jersey sentiment on the Port Bill.
On July 16, 1774, Sussex county passed resolves which stated
that the Act of Parliament was "pppressive, unconstitutional,
and in:)urious."15 The people of Monmouth received a letter of
thanks from the Boston Committee of Correspondence for their
aid to Boston in the troublesome times. Wrote thec ommittee:
"Such charities not only serve to show the union and tender
sympathy of the colonies with and for each other but will fix
an everlasting brand of infamey upon the Ministry."16 After
making a statement similar to the above, Hunterdon set up a
subscription for relief from every town.]"7 Morris County passed
resolves on the Port 'Bill on June 27, 1774. One of the Resolu-
tions passed on that date summarizes the attitude described in
the other r esolves:
4th--that it is the opinion of this meeting that the Act of
Parliament for shutting up the port of Boston is unconstitu-
tional, injurious in its principles to the general cause of
American freedom, particularly oppressive to the inhabitants

of that town, and that therefore the people of Boston are con—
sidered by us as suffering in the general c ause of America.18

 

15. Quoted in George Wyckoff Cummings, History 9; Warren
Count , New Jerse , (New York, 1911), p. 55.

T .‘T‘rederick W. Ricord 8:. William Nelson, eds. , "Documents
Relating to the Colonial History of the State of New Jerse ,"
Archives 9;: _t_h__e_ State 9_f_ M Jerse , 41 vols.,(Newark,1886¥,X,498.

17. Minutes 9;; the Provincial Congress and the Council 2;

Safet of the State 9_f_ New Jarse , pub. by the State of New
Jersey,-TTrenton, 1879), p. 14.

18. Histor 9}: Morris Count , New Jerse ,pub. by W. W.
Munsell 8c 50., (New York, T882), p. 25.

41

On June 25, 1774, the people of Bergen County passed resolves

which agree with theleesolves of Morris county because they

felt "deeply affected with the calamitous condition of the

inhabitants of Boston."19 The New Ybrk Gazette and the

weekly Mercury reported on October 21, 1774, that the peOple

of Monmouth county had expressed their sympathy for Boston in

a very tangible way. "Boston, October 24. Capt. Brown arrived

at Salem, with a generous donation from.our worthy sympathizing

brethern of the<zounty of Monmouth, in.New Jersey, consisting

of twelve hundred bushels of rye, and fifty barrels of rye flour"2O
The Committee of Correspondence of New Jersey was active

in establishing itself as a liaison for information about Bos-

ton and expressing the sentiments of the people of New Jersey.

A letter of July 28, 1774, to the Committee of Correspondence

in Boston stated: "The arbitrary and cruel oppression under

which your metropolis now labors from.the suspension of come

merce, must inevitably reduce multitudes to inexpressible dif-

ficulty and distress....Sympathy and resentment, with peculiar

energy fill the brests of your anxious countrymen."2l On another

occasion the Committee of Correspondence of New Jersey told the

 

19. Quoted in “bodford W. Clayton and William.Nelson,
History of Ber on and Passaic Counties, New ersey Phila-
delphia, 1882), p. 49. ’

20. New Jersey.Archives, XXIX, 512.

21. New Jersey;Minutes, p. 28.

42

peOple of Boston that they looked upon themselves as e ventually

being in the same predicament.22

Benjamin Franklin's son
William was Governor of New Jersey during the period ofthis
study and his comments indicate that he was uncertain as to
the feeling of his colony on the Port Bill. Governor Franklin
wrote to the Earl of Dartmouth, Secretary of State for the
colonies, about conditions in America the day before the Port
bill took effect. The letter stated:
. It is difficult as yet to foresee what will be the consequence
of the Boston Port Act. It seems as if the merchants of
Philadelphia and New York, at their late meeting, were in-
clined to assist or cooperate with those of Boston, in some
degrQeeeeo
A Congress of members of the several Houses of Assembly
has been proposed in order to agree upon some measures on the
present occasion; but whether this expedientwill take place
- is as'yet uncertain.23
The Governor went on to say that he feared that New Jersey might
go a]. ong with the other colonies simply because they would
not want to appear singular in the eyes of the other Americans.
The fears of the Governor were bound tobe increaded
by sentiments expressed by individuals in New Jersey. Opinion
there was generally in support of Boston. The Pennsylvania
Gazette carried an extract of a New Jersey letter of June 8,
1774. The letterwas written by a member of the House who was
also a member of the Committee of Correspondence. IThe writer

stated that the people of New Jersey were interested in the

 

22. History 9_f_‘_ Union County New Jersey 1664-1925, A.Van
Doren Honeyman, ed., 5 vols., ew York, 925), I, 155.
25. Force, Archives, I, 568.

43

affairs of Boston because they felt that they mightbe next.
The tenor of the letter is summed up in the words, "Our commit-
tee is well disposed in the cause of American freedom.”4
Delaware was not left behind by its larger neighbors,
as the people of Delaware reacted to the Port Bill in much
the same manner as the colonies already cited. On August 1,
1774, representatives of the c ounties of New Castle, Kent,
and Sussex met together to discuss the Port Bill. The meeting
was called by a circular letter from the Speaker of the House.
The resolves passed at this meeting echo those of the rest of
colonial America.
litesolvedf5 1. That the Act of Parliament for shutting up the
ort of oston is unconstitutional, Oppressive to the inhabh-
tants of that town,. dangerous to the liberties of the British
colonies, and that, therefore, we consider ourtbtrethern at
Boston as suffering in-the common cause of America.25
As far as the available evidence indicates, the representa-
tives brought to the meeting the ideas of the people of their
respective counties--ideas which indicate that the people of
Delaware were squarelybehind the Bostonians. The counties of
Sussex, Kent, and New Castle passed resolves independent of
those passed at the general meeting of August 1. They expressed

the same feelings as .. shown in the above resolve and in much

the s ame language.26

 

24. New Jersey Archives, XXIX, 595.
25. Force, Archives, I, 664.
26o Ibide, E64-6660

44

Reactions in Pennsylvania tend to c arry on the pattern
that has beendescribed in the other colonies. Examples of
the tenor of the Pennsylvanian's feelings about the Port Bill
are numerous in that politically active colony. The available
reactions in Pennsylvania are mostly those of Philadelphia,
the counties and legislature rather than the small towns
or cities.

The governor of Pennsylvania attempted to head off organized
sympathy for Boston by the peOple under his administration.
When the storm of the Port Bill broke, the legislature of
Pennsylvania was not in session. Numerous petitions were sent
to the Governor asking him to call a special s ession for the
consideration of the Port B11153.7 The Governor brought the
petitions before the Board, which was a c ouncil appointed by
the Crown to assist the Governor, and asked their advice as
to what answer he could make. The Board after due consideration
drew up and @proved the following answer: ”Upon all occasions
when peace, order and tranquility of the Province requires it,
I shall be ready to convene the assembly, but as that does not
appear to me to be the c see at present, I cannot think such

a step would be expedient or consistent with my du‘ty."28

27, Pennsylvania Gazette, June 15,1774. The Gazette
had aided the consideration of the Port Bill by printing the
full text of the Bill on May 18, 1774. See Appendix A.

28. Minutes of Provincial Council of Pennsylvania, 1_;"____rom
the Organization to —th____e_ Termination of the Proprietar Govern-
ments. p1).1(b.l;r7>gr T38 State ofTennsylv ar—ii'a, l6 vols., (harrIsEurg,

' "' O

 

 

45

The people persisted intheir desire to let the Bostonians
know that they stood behind them so that the failure of the
Governor to cooperate c aused the peOple to meet in State House
Yard to air their opinions. Much talk and debate ensued and
the meeting passedr esolves on the Port Bill. One of these
resolves stated that the Port Bill was "unconstitutional, op-
pressive to the inhabitants of that town...and therefore they
considered their brethern at Boston as suffering in the common
cause of America."29

Philadelphia disclosed its feeling on the Port Billtearly
and in veryd efinite terms. On May 20, 1774, at the City Tavern
a meeting was held to consider the Port Bill. IIthe meeting
decided to make the cause of Boston their own.‘50 A Committee
of Correspondence was chosen and instructed to write to Boston
informing the Bostonians of the sympathetic feelings of the
people of Philadelphia.31 Four days later the Committee of
Correspondence wrote 'a‘ similar letter to Boston and added
that they felt "Great Britain must be out of her senses."32

After the Port Bill went into operation, Philadelphia con-
tinued in this vein in an even stronger sense. On the first
of June, the day the Port Bill took effect, the shops were closed

throughout the city as a s ign of mourning for the suffering

29. Charles Thomson, "The Papers of Charles Thomson,
Secretary of the Continental Congress," L X. Historical
Society Collections, XIV, 223.

50. Frank IL Etting, An Historical Account of the Old
State House 9_f_ Penns 1vania-£2! Known as the Ell-ofmdrpen-
dence, IB3ston,11I8{76;, p. '74. — —- '—

31. Same azard, ed., The Re ister of Penna 1vania 16
V0180: (Philadelphia, 1829): m;— 34-38. .- y ’

52. Force, Archives, I, 347.

46

Americans in the town of Boston.55 Nearly eight thousand people
assembled on June 18, 1774, in a mass meeting. John Dickinson,
the author of the Farmer' s Letters, and Thomas Willing were
the leaders. This meeting recommended a continental congress
and appointed a committee to raise a subscription for the
relief of the Bostonians.:54

The Society of Friends in Philadelphia was also active
in support of Boston. They collected a large sum of money
whichaided Boston significantly. The committee of the Society
reported that "The sum contributed by the Philadelphia meeting
for sufferings was $2540, mostly in gold....Three
thousand and thirty families, consisting of six thousand
nine hundred and twenty-three persons, received aid from this
rund.35

In addition to Philadelphia and the Society of Friends,
the counties of Pennsylvania also responded to the plight of
Boston. Some of the counties of Pennsylvania which passed
resolutions of sympathy for Boston and declared that Boston
was fighting a common cause were Bucks, Augusta, Allegheny,
Delaware, Berks,Philadelphia, Perry, Chester, and Fayette.
The wording of these resolves was very much like those of the
other colonies already discussed.

——‘

33. Etting, History 9f Old State House, p. 74.

34. Sherman Day, Historical Collections 3;: the State 9;
Farms 1vania, (Philadelphia, 1843), p. 34.

35. The Historical 1S‘ociety of Pennsylvania, _T_h_e_ Penn-
.levania Magazine of History and Biography, 72 vols., ( Phila-
delphia, 1877-194877’1, 168.

4'7

The dangerous implications of the Port Bill to Ameri-
can liberty were emphasized in most of the resolves passed
by the Pennsylvania counties. Augusta and Allegheny counties
passed similar resolves on the same day. A committee was
appointed by Augusta County to c ollect subscriptions .36 Alleg-
heny County did not have its subscription going as early as
Augusta County but was more eloquent in the wording of its
resolves.
Resolved, unanimously, That there is no reason to doubt
but the same system of tyranny and oppression will--should
it meet with success in Massachusetts Bay-~be extended. to
other parts of America. It is, therefore, become the in-
dispensible duty of every American...by every means which
God has put in his power, to resist and oppose the execution
of it; that for us we will be ready to oppose it with our
lives and our fnrtunes.
The above resolve illustrates the fear that was present in
Pennsylvania that should the Port Bill succeed in its opera-
:bion in Boston the people of the rest of America maybe next
in line for similar treatment. Sympathyw as not the only
motive therefore, for the support given to Boston--se1f pres-
ervation was an important reason also. The people of Allegheny
County were talking in terms of backing the'cause with all
they had—their lives, money and property.

Berks County, after mentioning the threat to American
liberties posed by the Port Bill stated on July 2, 1774, "that
it -is the duty of all the inhabitants to contribute to the sup-

port of said sufferers."3’8 Assembled at the County Court House

k

36. Franklin Ellie, History of Fayette Count Pennsylvania
(Philadelphia, 1882 ) i p. 71. -— ’ ’

5'7. Quoted in istorw 9;; Allegheny Count , Pennsylvania
A. Warner 8c 00., pub., (CEEcago, 889 , p. I75.

38. Morton L. Montgomery, History 2; Berks County in
fiennsylvania, (Philadelphia, 1886 , p. 1370

 

 

“the people of Chester County passed resolves on the Port Bill

on July 15, 1774.59

Feeling for Boston was carried down to the grass roots:
Newtown and Fermanagh townships looked upon the need of giv-
ing aid to the poor of Boston one oftheir main concerns. In

its resolves Newton injected Christianity and American nation-

alism as motivations for its action:

We hold it as our bounden duty, both as Christians and as
countrymen, to contribute towards the relief and support of
the poor inhabitants of the town of Boston, now suffering
in the general cause of all the c olonies; and we do hereby

recommend the raising stem of money for that pul4~80se to every
inhabitant...in this county as soon as possible.

Sometimes smaller units than the counties acted indepen-
dently. Fermanagh township scraped together as much money
as it possibly could afford. The town proudly announced that
the two largest subscriptions were for ten shillings each.“-
A group of German farmers in Philadelphia county, believing
that they ought to do their bit, assembled a donation which
was sent to Boston. This indicated that the new immigrants
of Pennsylvania took an active interest in American affairs .42

Kim indication of the social pressure brought about by

the majority upon recalcitrants is illustrated by an incident
in Buck's County. Charges were brought by the Committee of
Safety of Bucks County against Thomas Meredith. The accused

H

39. J. Smith Futhey and Gilbert Cope, History 93 Chester
County, Pennsylvania, (Philadelphia; 1881), p. 60.

40. Quoted in Pennsylvania Magazine, XV, 260.

41. Ibid., XVII, 180.

42. 1513., XXVIII, 242-245.

49

issued the following statement:

Whereas, I have spoken injuriously of the d istressed people

of the town of Boston, and disrespectfully of the measures
prosecuting for the r edress of American grievances; I do

hereby declare, fizhafl I am heartily sorry forwhAt I have done,
voluntarily renouncing my former principles, and promise for
the future to render my conduct inexceptionable to my country-
men, by strictly adhering to the measures of the Congress.43

Miile remonstances and resolves were being passed on the
various political levels the individual inhabitants of Pennsyl-
vania were recording their personal views in letters or signed
newspaper articles. These personal comments will be cited to
show that the general essence of the official comments thus
far discussed were indicative of the mind of Pennsylvania on
the matter of the Port Bill.

‘One of the best summaries of the situation, both in
Pennsylvania and in the other colonies, c ame from Deputy-
Governor Penn. In a letter to the Secretary of State for
the colonies he stated: "The temper of the peOple, as well here
as in other parts of America is very warm. They look upon the
chastisement of the people of Boston to be purposely rigorous,
and held up by way of intimidation to all America; and in short,
that Boston is suffering in the c ommon cause."44 This state-
ment agrees with others presented here, and certainly Penn

could not be accused of distorting colonial opposition for

prOpaganda purposes .

43. Ibid., XV, 265.
44. Borce, Archives, I, 514.

50

Events in Pennsylvania bear up the Deputy Governor's
words. The city of Philadelphia reacted to the Port Bill in
away that left no doubt as to where its inhabitants stood
on the measure. A letter written in Philadelphia on the day
the Bill took effect throws some light on the motives of the
people of that City. "We must stand or fall together,"stated
this writer, "for the Boston Port Act carries in its principle
and effects the c ertain, if not the immediate destruction of
all the liberties of America."45 As a result of thistype of
feeling about the Port Bill, Philadelphiaians decided to make
an outward manifestation of their sympathy for Boston. On
June 1, 1774, when the Port Bill took effect the c ity went
into mourning. All business was stopped; the church bells rang
a muffled tribute and flags were at half mast. One resident
of the city said that "such a pause is intended, not only to
show the real concern we feel for the distresses of our breth-
ern...but to give an opportunity of seriously reflecting on
our own dangers."46 On the next day a citizen reported that
he believed that excepting the Friends, ninegatenths of the
citizens shut up their houses.47 The Friends. or Quakers would
not enter into these proceedings because their doctrine forbade
active opposition of this type. The day of mourning dictated
that church bells be rung, and though the Church of England
did not join in the events officially, the Anglican bells rang

—¥
4_

45. Ibid., 378-379.
46. IEIE., 365.
47. IBIE..

51

out with the others. An official notification was made at the
insistance of the rector of Christ's Church to the effect that
the bells of that church were rung without his consent. The
notice pointed out that the e stablished churchwas restrained
from.any religious observance except on<iays appointed by
the church or the public authority of the government.48
The greatest obstacle to popular measures in Pennsylvania

seams to have been the Quakers, but e ven Quaker pacifism was
not sufficient tolrestrain the Pennsylvanians. Charles Thomson,
secretary of the Continental Congress, reported that at the
great mass meeting held in Philadelphia immediately after
news of the Port Bill many principled leaders such.as John
Dickinson attended with the purpose of off setting the Quaker's
who gathered in considerable numbers to assert their ideas.49
Ther esolves whichvere passed at this meeting were as spirited
as those passed elsewhere in the colonies, indicating that the
Quakers had exerted little influence.50

‘ The Farmer, John Dickinson, continued to use his pen in
the pOpular cause Just as he had done in the time of the
Townshend Act. In a series of letters addressed to the in-
habitants of the British colonies in America hevvrote:
...administration and Parliament do us Americans the honor to

think, we are such idiots, that we shall not believe ourselves
interested in thefhte of Boston; but that one colony may be

 

480 MM?
49. Quoted in Pennsylvania Magazine, II, 413.
50. See page 47.

52

attacked and humbled after another without showing the

sense or spirit of beasts themselves, many ofvhich unite

against a common danger.51

By June 20, 1774, his early faith seemed to have been vindi-

cated, Dickinson said that as far as he had been able to

determine the colonies were unanimous in their desire for a

Congress. A note of caution was offered by Dickinson lost

one colony get too far ahead of the others and thereby

lessen the effectiveness of the resistance.52
Thomas Vaharton, a prominent Philadelphia merchant was a

good example of a Pennsylvania who changed with the changing

times. A letter of his dated May 17, 1774, reported that thd

majority of the people to whom he spoke were of the Opinion

that while the Act was severe the Bostonians would probably

pay for the tea. The reason given for this Opinion was

that the removal of Governor Hutchinsonwould sufficiently break

the violent attitude of many people.535 Warton, and several

of his friends, attempted to tone down the tempers of the people

attending the great mass meeting on the Port Bill which was

held in Philadelphia. He claimed that his efforts met with

some success,“ but the resolves quoted elsewhere in this

study will demonstrate that the success was very small. By

June 10, 1774, Wharton admitted his error by declaring that
"all this extensive continent considers the Port Bill of Bos-

 

51. John Dickinson, The Writings of John Dickinson, 1764-

l'Zlé. Paul Leicester Ford, 'e'd., (Ph'ila'dE‘i'phia, 18957, p. 452'.
52. Force, Archives, I, 434.

53. Pennsylvania Magazine, XXXIII, 334.
54. id., 337.

 

 

55

as strikingeessentially at the liberties of all North America."55
By July he was sure that "the whole continent will hereby be
united in a stronger and more firm union than anythingvvhich
has heretofore happened could possibly effect."56 And when
the first Continental Congress met in September, Wharton ap-
peared to be as rabid as anyone: "I am very jealous that the
Congress will be compelled to adopt this measure... Cnon-.'
importation agreements) and I do believe itlvill be.attended
with the most positive and.strict observance... CEO that] per-
haps our great ones may find they hadbetter never compelled the
Americans to adopt this measure."57

The Continental Congress gave other delegates from the
middle colonies an Opportunity to see that America was in
essential agreement in support of Boston. An early reaction
from a delegate is that of JOseph Galloway. In a letter to
William.Franklin, Governor of New Jersey, Galloway recorded
his opinions of the meeting.
I am just returned from Philadelphia, where I have been to wait
on and endeavor to find out the temper of t edelegates. Near
two thirds of them are arrived, [geptember 3 and I conclude
all be ready to proceed on business on Monday. I have not
had any great opportunity of sounding them. But so far as I
have, I think they will behave with temper and moderation.
The Boston commissioners are warm, and I believe wishfor a

non-importation agreement, and hope that the colonies will
advise and Justify them in a refusal to pay for the tea until

 

55. QuOted in. ibido, 435.
56. Quoted in Ibid., 435.
5'7. Quoted in Ibid., 441.

54

their aggrievances are redressed.58

The temper of the Congress was tested by George Ross, one of
the Pennsylvania delegates. He proposed that Massachusetts
should be left to her own discretion. Galloway seconded his
motion. The feeling of sympathy for Boston was so strong that
the proposition was defeatediwhen put to a vote.59
Throughout theczolonies the fervor for theczause'was
encouraged andezxtended. The New YOrk delegates made this
point in their report to the freeholders of Dutchess County.
The delegates said "permit us only to add that the recommenda-
tion of the committee of correspondence of this city in favor
of theciistressed inhabitants of the town of Boston.has re-
ceived additional weight by one of theliesolutions of the Con-
gress."60 On September 17, the Congress passed resolutions
which indicated support of Boston. George Head of Delaware
was unable to be present On this important day and regretted
that he was absent. He wrote to his wife on the day following:
If I had been able to have travelled through yesterday, I should
have blamed myself for being absent, as two matterswere debated
which Iwould have chosen to appear in,--to wit, a resolve
of approbation of the<3onduct of the people of Boston and the
county of Suffolk,...since the operation of the Port Bill; and
another resolve for a further contribution from all the<zolonies

for thessupport of the poor of Boston, both ofrhich will be
published tomorrow.6

 

58. E. C. Burnett, Letters, I, 5.

59. J. C. Stille, The Life and Times of John Dickinson,
1732-1808, 2 vols., Memoirs 9; the HistoricET Socie 0
Pennsylvania, 14 vol's'., {Ph'iladelph—_1a, 'l“86'4'-'189"5)',I, [15R

60. Ee Ce Burnett, Letters, I, 840

61. Ibid., 35-56.

55

The reactions of the middle colonies did not differzfrom
those of Boston's next door neighbors in New England. As one
proceeds southward through New YOrk, New Jersey and Pennsyl-
vania the reactions of the people are everywhere the same.

The homogeneity of colonial feeling thus far analyzed in this
study is pointed out again and again in the similariwording 6f
the resolves and the spontaneous spirit of giving aid to the
poor of Boston. The resolves cited above point out repeatedly
the use of the term "common cause!‘ Subscriptions were set up
in.many towns, large and sma11.62 The surging desire to do
something constructive in aid of Boston was found in the per-
sonal comments of the people and made itself felt in the offi-
cial organs of government up through the legislature of the
colonies.

The question of motivation is not a different one in the
middle colonies. The peop1e*were furtherlremoved geographically
but their sentiments were not different from.the New Englanders.
On the contrary they were remarkable the s ame. StOpping the
effectiveness of the Port Bill meant placing a shot in defense
of American liberty against arbitrary parlimentary actions. If
the British policy succeeded in Boston, the inhabitants of the
middle colonies could see themselves next in line. Self-preser-

vation was undoubtedly a factor, but the character of the re-

 

62. See Appendix B for a list of donations sent to Boston
from.the middle colonies.

56

solves and the charitable actions of the people of the middle
colonies suggests other reasons. One of themwas an emerging
natdre Americanism--a feeling that Americans were not simply
British subjects but a people set apart. Whatever the antago-
nisms between colonies, and there had been many, there was still
this unifying factor. The Bostonians were their brother Amer-
icans, To aid them in their time of need was to further bolster
the newly-maturing idea of the American as having distinct rights

inalienable by any power outside the American scene.

57

' Chapter IV
Reactions in the Southern Colonies

The southern colonies were even more removed than the
middle colonies from the affairs of Boston. At first glance,
one might expect that the distance couldb 6 measured econimi-
cally and socially as well as geographically. Slavery,
tobacco, and the Church of England seemingly would preclude
the possibility“ of any sympathy among southern planters and
small farmers for the Congregational merchants and mechanics
of Boston. In fact, one might suspect that the southerners
secretly felt elation that Boston "mobs" were to suffer for
their wanton destruction of private property.

Any supposition that the southerners were not sympathetic
with Boston, however, would be highly erroneous. Speeches,
resolves, and legislative action quickly demonstrated that
the South was asfully aware of the implications of the Boston
Port Bill as were its sister colonies further north. From
Maryland tO'Georgia came physical as well as moral support for
the besieged Bostonians.

Turning first to Maryland, one may find that the people
there were not outdone anywhere in the colonies in their
strong stand in support of Boston. In the southern colonies
the principal organ of government outside the legislature was
the county; therefore, it is on that level that a good consen-
sus of opinion may be obtained. The counties passedresolves

on the port Bill which were sympathetic with Boston's position,

and at the same time demonstrated, perhaps, that thes imilari-

ties between North and South were greater than the differences.
Many Maryland counties, in fact, passedlcesolutions and

moved to aid Boston beforeishe Bill took effect in June., In

Talbot County, for example, the peOple assembled at the County

Court House on May 24, 1774, specifically to discuss the Port

Bill. Those present decided that they must unite with all Ameri-

cans who were gathering to offer aid to Boston.1 The people

of this Maryland county determined to pursue every legal means

"to avert the evils threatened by the last act of Parliament

for shutting up the port and harbor of Boston."2 Queen Anne

County passed resolves on the Port Bill on May 13, 1774. The

people of Queen Anne County said "...that they look upon the

cause of Boston, in its consequences, to be the common cause

of America."5 Another meeting was held to discuss the Port

Bill on May 30, inxnhich the bill was declared a violation

of natural rights, constitutional rights and the rights of

English subjects, thus basing resistance on legal grounds.

The Port Bill was called "a foundation for the utter destruc-

tion of American freedom," at this meeting.4
After the Port Bill tookeffect, June 1, 1774, the c ounties

of Maryland continued to denounce the bill and indicate sympathy

 

1. Force, Archives, I, 348.

2. Quoted IE Maryland Historical Society, Mar land H13:
torical Ma azine, 2O vols., (Baltimore, 1906-19255, VI, 153-154.

3. Force, Archives, I, 336.

4. Quoted IE Thomas J. Scharf Histor of Maryland 3 vols.
(Baltimore, 1879), II, 148. ’ -———__Z.__ . ,

59

for Boston. Kent County resolves, passed on June 2, said the
peOple of Kent County were "moved with the most tender symr
pathy for theciistresses of their suffering brethern of Bos-
ton" and star ted a subscription for relief of the poor.5
Anne Arundel County on June 4 and Lower Frederick and Harford
Counties on June 11 passed resolves saying that the people
of those counties looked upon Boston asesuffering in the cam-
mon cause of all America.6 Charles County stressed self-preser-
vation.more than Christian sympathy in its meeting on the Port
Bill on June 14, 1774.7 On June 18 Caroline County fell in
step with the rest of Maryland.8 Frederick County felt some
overt action to demonstrate its sympathy“was necessary and
collected $100 for the relief of Boston. The resolves of
this county were more dramatic andtatated, "the peOple of Bos-
ton as standing in the gap where tyranny and oppression [were]
ready to enter, to the destruction of the liberties of all
America."9

In addition to their individual actions, the Maryland
counties apparently considered the situation serious enough
tocall for concerted efforts. A convention of deputies of
all the counties was held at Annapolis, June 22, 1774, to take
action in support of Boston. This meeting declared the stand

of the deputies in several resolves, of which the two most

 

5. Quoted in ibid., 149.
6. Quoted in IbId., 150-151.
7. Quoted in ibid., 152.
8. Quoted in IEid., 153.
9. Quoted in ibid., 155.

60

pertinent follow:

I. Resolved...the said bills, if passed into acts will lay

a foundation for the utter destruction of British America;

and therefore that the town of Boston and the province of
Massachusetts,are now suffering in the common cause of America.
VIII. Resolved Unanimousl that a subscription be opened in
the several counties of th¥s province...for ther-elief of the
distressed inhabitants of Boston....10

John Hancock, in a letter<iated September 6, 1775, indicated
that contributions from.Maryland counties in response to1xhis
call were considerable.
Rec'd of John Dickinson Esq. One hundred a fifty seven pounds
thirteen shillings & nine pence Philadelphia Currency, being
a donation from thecounty of Carolina in Maryland to the
poor of Boston,'which I engage to transmit to the Committee
of donations to be apprOpriated to the sufferers of Bostdn
agreeable to the design of thecionors.11

Events in the c apital of Maryland indicate that the
city was vitallytiware of the significance of the Port Bill
to dolonial America. Annapolis passed resolves to that effect
on May 25, 1774, at a city meeting.
Resolved, that it is the unanimous Opinion of this meeting,
that the town of Boston is now suffering in the common cause
of America, and thei:it is incumbent on every colony in America,
to unite in effectual means to obtain a repeal of the late act
of Parliament for blocking up the harbor of Boston.12
On May 27, 1774, the people of Annapolis declared'that the
officers of the law should not bring a suit for the recovery
of any debt due anyone in Britain until the Port Bill was

repealed.13 Daniel Dulany, Jr., in a letter to Arthur Lee

 

10. Quoted in ibid., 157-158.

11. Quoted in The Penns 1vania Magazine, XXXIV, 255.
12. Force, chives, I, 552.
13. Marxian s orical magazine, XV, 189.

61

reported that all resolves passed unanimously except the one
concerning legal measures. He felt inclined to vote against
this resolve because some injustice might be done.14

The Committees of Correspondence of Maryland were very
active during this period. Before the Bill took effect the
Annapolis Committee of Correspondence wrote to the Baltimore
Committee that nothing could be plainer than that the suffering
of Boston was in the general c ause of America. The Committee
went on to say that only through a union of mutual confidence
could the basis be laid for the support of American liberties.15
The Baltimore Committee wrote a sympathetic note to Boston three
days after the odious bill took effect, expressing, as many
others had previously done, the idea of an emerging American
nationalism. The letter said in part:
Permit us,..as brethern, fellow citizens and Americans embarked
in one common interest most affectionately“to sympathize with
you, now suffering and persecuted in the common cause of our
country, and assure you of ourzveadiness to concur in every
reasonable measure that can be devised for obtaining the most
effectual and speedy relief to our distressed friends.16

While these eventsvvere taking place in Maryland similar
things were happening in Virginia. The Virginia House of Bar-
gesses became a focal point for sentiment in that colony. Jef-

ferson.reported in his memoirs that when the members of the

 

14. Force, Archives, I, 354-555.

15. Scharf,—History g§_Maryland, II, 145.

16. Quoted in Clayton Colman Hall, Baltimore Its History
ang‘gt§_Peo le, 5 vols., (New York, 1912),‘I, 25.

 

62

House heard of the passage of the Port Bill, the leadwas seized
by Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, Francis Lightfoot Lee, and
a few others along with Jefferson and a stand was made for an
unequivical position in line with Massachusetts. In order to
announce their position Jefferson related thw he w ith the
help of Rushworth "rummaged...for the revolutionary prece-
dents... Cancfl cooked up a resolution, somewhat modernizing
their phrases, for appointing the first day of June, on which
the Port Bill was to commence, for a day of fasting, humilia-
tion and prayer."17 This 'bookedup" resolution is worth read-
ing because it captures the American spirit in this affair

as perhaps no other single utterance does.

This House, being deeply impressed with apprehension of the
great dangers to be derived to British America from the hostile
invasion of the c ity of Boston, in our sister colony of Massa-
chusetts Bay, whose commerce and harbor are, on thef irst of
June next, to be stopped by armed force, deem it highly nec-
essary that the said first day of Junebe set apart by the
members of this House as a day of fasting, humiliation, and
prayer, devoutly to implore the divine interposition for avert-
ing the heavy calamity which threatens destruction to our civil
rights, and the evils of civil war; to give us one heart and
one mind firmly to Oppose, by all Just and prOper means, every
injury to American rights, and that the minds of his majesty
and his Parliament, may be inspired from above with wisdom,
moderation, and justice, to remove from the loyal people

of America all cause of danger from a continued pursuit of
measures pregnant with their ruin.

Ordered, therefore, that the members of this House do
attend their places at the hour of ten in the forenoon on said
first day of June next, in order to proceed with the Speaker
and the Mace, to the church of this city for the purposes afore-
said, and that the Reverend Mr. Price be appointed toread
prayers, and the Reverend Mr. Gwatkin, to preach a sermon suit-
able to the occasion.18

 

17. William Wirt Henry, Patrick Henry Life, Correspon-
dence 1.113 S eeches, 5 vols., (New York, 18915,I, 176-177.

18. John Pendelton Kennedy, ed., Journals of the House
‘9; Burgesses, (1773-1776), (Richmond, 1905), p. T247—

 

 

 

63

Thesezresolves broughtcdown on the House of Burgesses the
wrath of the royal Governor, Lord Dunmore, buteaven this was
not sufficient to halt activities in Virginia. When Dunmore
dissolved the House, May 24, 1774, the Burgesses simply ad-
Journed to the Appollo room Of the Raleigh Tavern to carry
on their deliberation in spite of the Governor. Non-importation
agreements were adopted, but the most important thing to come
out of this meeting was the momentous decision of prOposing
a general congress of all the colonies to consider the plight
of America.19 The Raleigh Tavern resolutions were 8 igned by
eightybnine Virginians andvvere very much like those of the
colonies already quoted. They denounced the Port Bill and
concluded with the observation that they were "clearly of the
Opinion that an attack made on ond Of their sister colonies...
was an attack made on all British America.”0

In addition to the activities Of the House Of Burgesses,
the counties Of Virginia were also very emphatic in their
denunciation of the Port Bill. Some Of the Virginia counties
Which passed resolves indicating sympathy for Boston and
stating that they felt that the town Of Bostonwas suffering
in the common cause were Fredericksburg, Prince Hilliam, West-
moreland, Spottsylvania, Richmond, Prince George, Culpepper,

Essex, Fauquier, Nansemond, New Kent, Chesterfield, Caroline,

 

19. Landon C. Bell, The Old Free State, 2 vols., (Rich-
mond, 1927), I, 205.
20. W. W. Henry, Patrick Henr , I, 180.

64

Middlesex, Dinwiddie, YOrk, Fairfax, Hanover, Albermarle, Acco-
mack, and Rockingham.2l Although the r ecords are not available
for other counties, this list gives some indication of theeax-
tent of popular support for Boston in Virginia.

During the first month of the Port Bill's effective life
there was a virtual outcropping of resolves from the Virginia
counties. On the day the Bill took effect, the people of
Fredericksburg County met to consider the Port Bill and unanim-
ously agreed tocio everything that might be thought expedient
by the other colonies to aid Boston in recovery of her liberty.22
Prince “filliam.County passed resolves generally agreeing with
-Fredericksburg Just five days later but their motive was op-
position to Great Britain's right tot:ax America with a duty
on tea.25 Westmoreland County passed resolves on June 22, which
placed their emphasis on the destruction of commerce as the
cause of their indignation and added that Boston should be
understood as suffering in the common cause of America.24 The
people Of Richmond County stressed the economic scanctions also
and said that:

They do respect the Bostonians, in their sister colony of Mas-
sachusetts Bay, as suffering in the common cause Of British
America; and that the hostile attack now made on them.by the

Parliament of Great Britain, in blocking up their harbor,
and violently taking away the property of many individuals, by

 

21. Lewis Preston Summers, History of Southwest Vir inia,
1746-1786, Jashington County 1777-1870, (fichm‘mond, 190:5")"‘,l 'p."1""89.

22. Force, Archives, I, 373.

23. Ibid., 388..

24. T513" 437.

65

preventing them the use Of heir wharfs, quays, etc., is an
avowed intention to reduce all America to a state of slavery.25

Whatever British intentions, it is important to note from these
various expressions the implication that the Boston Port Bill
was an indication of British intentions regarding all the
colonies.

By July, 1774, the Virginia counties hit their stride in
passing resolves indicating sympathy for Boston and telling
the rest of colonial America to follow their lead. James
City County passed resolutions on July 1 and ordered that a
subscription be started to raise money, corn, wheat, or any
other commodity that peOple could spare for the relief of
the peOple of Boston.26 Culpepper County agreedwith James
City in declaring their state or mind on July 7.27 Essex
County told the world that it stood beside the other Virginia
Counties on the question Of the Port Bill and asked that all
the colonies unite in defense Of their common rights.28 The
resolves Of Fauquier County passed on July 9 asked all colonial
America to supply Boston with all that would enable her to hold
out.29 The Chesterfield County resolves typify the feeling
expressed by the Virginia counties during July: "Resolved,
that the t own Of Boston is now suffering in the cause of Ameri-
can liberty; that her safety and protection is, and ought to

be, thecommoncause Of the other colonies; and their relief

 

25. Ibid., 492.
26. IEIH., 499.

2'7. rib-id” 525.
28. TEid” 527.
29. IBido, 529.

66

ought to be attempted by all proper and constitutional ways
and means in our power.50

Perhaps the most advanced position taken by any of the
Virginia counties was that of Albemarle County in its resolu-
tion Of July 26, 1774. The freeholders first<ieclared that
the inhabitants of the "Several States of British America" were
subject to the laws which they had adopted at their first settle-
ment, and others since made by their respective legislatures,
duly constituted and appointed with their own consent. NO
other legislature whatever could rightfully exercise any
authority over them-~a flat denial of the provisions of the
Declaratory Act passed when Parliament repealed the Stamp
Act. They went on to say that British action against Boston
made the cause a common one, and that they were ready to join
with their fellow subjects in re-establishing and guaranteeing
their constitutional rights, "when, where, and by whomsoever
invaded." The most effectual remedy, they declared,mras econo-
mic pressure through non-importation of most British goods.
But even more significant was the following:
It is the Opinion Of this meeting, that these measures should
be pursued until a repeal be Obtained of the Act for blocking
up the harbor Of Boston; of the Acts prohibiting orirestrain-
ing internal manufacturers in America; of the Acts imposing
on any commodities duties to be paid in America; and of the
Act laying restrictions on the American trade; and that on
such repeal it will be reasonable tO'grant to our brethren

Of Great Britain such privileges in commerce as may amply com-
pensate their fraternal assistance, past and future.

 

30. Ibid., 558.

67

In Short, Albemarle County was demanding that Britain abolish
her whole mercantile system, the very thing that members of
Parliament had feared when they repealed the Stamp Act and
Townshend Act. The fact thas Jefferson drafted theselresolu-
tions doubtless had something to do with these demands.51

As in Maryland, the Virginians decided that concerted
action Of the counties would be more effective than individual
action. The rump Raleigh Tavern meeting in may had recommended
such action,'with the result that a convention of the counties
met in Williamsbury on August 1, 1774. This convention elected
delegates to a general congerss Of all the colonies and13hen
proceeded to instruct these delegates on the views Of the
convention. They declared allegiance to George III, determines
tion to support him.in the "legg;.exercise" if his just rights
and prerogatives, approval of a constitutional connection with
Great Britain, and a desire to return to the Old connection
between the two countries. They alsoaaaid that they had "Egguifi
aged? in the acts of navigation restricting colonial commerce,
because they wanted British protection, and they considered
this adequate cOmpensation for such protection. They ended
their instructions'with the declaration that any attempt by
General Gage to carry out his threats against Massachusetts
would justify "RESISTANCE and REPRISAL." Then without waiting

for the Continental Congress to act, the Virginia Convention

 

31. Commager, Documents, pp. 77-78.

68

drew up its own non-importation agreement to put pressure on
Britain.52

Virginia committees Of correspondence were actively doing
their part in telling the Bostonians and theirest of colonial
America the attitude of the people Of Virginia on the Boston
Port Bill. The Committee of Norfolk and Portsmouthvvas in
close contact with committees throughout Virginia and particu-
larly with the Baltimore Committee. The Norfolk and Portsmouth
Committee wrote a most eloquent letter to Boston.assuring the
people of that town that Virginia stood by their side by s aying:
"...Our bosoms glow with tenderziegard for you;‘we sympathize
with you in your sufferings....Be assured, we consider you as
suffering in the common cause, and lack upon ourselves as
bound by the mostzaacred and solemn ties to support you in
every measure that shall be found necessary tO regain your
just rights and privileges."35

During the passage of thez'esolves on the various levels
Of government and theaaction Of the committees of Sorrespondence,
the individual Virginian was deveIOping his own particular
view Of the affairs in America at thistime. An accounting of
some of the personal comments and actions during this period
reveal that the views of most Virginians were represented by

the reactions thus far discussed.

 

52. Ibid., 78-80
55. Force, Archives, I, 571-72.

69

The grave import of the Port Bill as far as all America
was concerned was appreciated in Virginia before the Bill
took effect. Arthur Lee writing from London to his brother
Richard Henry Lee on March 18, 1774, aired his opinions. He
told his brother that the affairs of America had now reached
a very serious stage. If the Port Bill was allowed to succeed in
humbling Boston, Arthur Lee foresaw the establishment Of a dan-

gerous precedent. Parliament would undertake to subjugate

America by degrees .54

George Masonwrote from Williamsburg Iflay 26, 1774: "I
arrived here on Sunday morning last, [and] found e verybody's
attention...entirely engrossed by the Boston affair." 5 A
letter from a member of the Virginia assembly to afriend in
London sums up the tenor of the reactions of Virginia before
the Port Bill actually took effect:

Infinite astonishment, and equal resentment, has seized every
one here on account of the war sent to Boston. It is the uni-
versal determination to stop all exportation of tobacco, pitch,
tar, lumber, etc., and to stop all importation from Britain
while this act of hostility continues. We every day'expect
ahaexpress from Boston, and it appears to me incontestably
certain, that the above measures will be universally adepted.
We see with concern, that this plan will be most extensively
hurtful to our fellow-subjects in Britain; nor would we have
adopted it, if Heaven had left us any other way to secure our
liberty, and prevent the total ruin of ourselves and our
posterity to endless ages. A wicked ministry must answer for
all the consequences. I hope the wise and good on your side
will pity and forgive us. The House is now * pushing on

the public business for which wevsre called here at this time;
but before we depart our measures will be settled and agreed on.
The plan proposed is extensive; it iswise, and I hOpe, under
God, it will not fail of success. America possesses virtue

 

34. Ibid., 228‘2290
350 “e We Hemy, Patrick Henry, P0 1830

'70

unknown and unfelt by the abominable sons of corruption Who
planned this weak and wicked enterprise.36

After the Port Bill took effect personal reactions
in Virginia showed an increase in tempo and depth. Richard
Henry Lee wrote to Samuel Adams and asked the Bostonians to
take heart that the rest of the colonies would unite in the
common cause.57 Jefferson reported that "no example Of such
a solemnity had existed since the days Of our distresses
in the war of '55 since which a new generation had grown up."58

The Virginian destined to reap more fame than any of his
contemporaries, George meshington, was in agreementlith the
stand taken in Virginia. Washington was sitting in the House
during these great days. Silas Deane, an important political
leader during this period, reported in a letter to his wife
of washington's conduct during the debates in the House of
Burgesses. Deane wrote that he heard through good authority
that washington, upon.hearing of the Port Bill jumped to his
feet and Offered to raise, arm, and lead one thousand men at
his own expense to aid Boston. The writersaaid that he had
it on good authority that "his [Colonel Washington's] fortune
is said to be equal to such an undertaking."39 Whahington
summed up much of the motivation behind these actions in a

letter that he wrote on June 10, 1774 to George “filliam Fairfax.

 

56. Force, Archives, I, 540.

57. Richard Henry Lee, The Letters Of Richard Henry Lee,
James Curtis Balngh, ed.,2 vols., (New YOrk, 1911), I, Ill-115.
58. Thomas efferson, The Vritings of Thomas Jefferson,

Paul Leicester Ford, ed., 10 vols., CNew YOrk, 18927, I, 10.
59. The Deane Pa ers, N .Y; Historical Society, Collections,
57018., I—_ 27.

 

71

After he outlined the entire situation of the dispute, he
ended his letter with these words:
...in short the ministry may rely on it that Americans will
never be taxed without their own consent: [that] the cause of
Boston; the despotic measures in respect tO it, I mean now is
and ever will be considered as the cause of America (not
that we approve their conduct in destroying the tea) and
that we shall not suffer ourselves to be sacrificed by piece
111631000040

If the observance of a fast is any indication of a
peoples' devotion to a cause, the way in which the people of
Virginia carried out the fast proclaimed by the legislature
should have convinced Boston Of the Southerners' support.
“mote Edmund Randolph:
The fast was obeyed throughout Virginia with such vigor and
scruples, as to interdict the tasting of food between the
rising and setting sun. With remembrance of the king, horror
was associated; and in the churches as well as in the circles
Of social conversation, he seemed to stalk like the arch
enemy of mankind.41
In private homes, according to one account, women sealed up
their stock of tea and declared that they amuld not use it
until theduty was repealed.42

To the southward of Virginia, North Carolina soon showed
that colony stood beside its northern American friends. The
official organs of government were called upon.to pass re-

solves denouncing the Port Bill and to make definiteeafforts

 

40. George Weshington, Egg ngtiggs Of Geor e Vbshiggton
from.the Original yanuscript Sources, 1745:I799, John C. F 29
““patriEE': ed., :59 vols., (Washington, ""l951T‘f“,. II, 224.

41. The Virginia Historical Society, The Virginia Maga-
zine of History‘agd Bio ra h , 56 vols., (Richmond, 1895-1948)
FVIIT,‘ 215.

42. Charles Campbell, History g§_the Colony EgggAncient
Dominion 9; Virginia, (Philadelphia, 19567, p. 574.

 

72

to show their sympathy for Boston in a material way.

The lower House Of North Carolina created a committee
to draw up a formal resolution on the stand to be taken on
the Port Bill and in its instructions the House declared that
the committee was to express North Carolina's warmest attach-
ment to its sister colonies in general, and to Massachusetts
in particular. The instructions stated that North Carolina was
Of the Opinion that a union of the colonies was necessary in
the support Of Boston and the preservation of the rights and
liberties of all America.“5

An investigation Of the state of opinion in the counties
of North Carolina brings to light the fact that they acted in
much the same way as the counties in the colonies already dis-
cussed. Some of the counties which passed resolutions on
the Port Bill were Anson, Craven, Bowen, and Pitt. Rowon
County blamed the ministry for the troubles in America and
called the attention Of the other colonies to the Port Bill
as proof of the intention of the ministry to deprive the colo-
nies Of their constitutional rights and liberties. The County
denounced the Port Bill and declared that the canes Of the
town Of Boston was the common cause Of all Of colonial America.44
A committee wastppointed by Craven County to consider the alarm-
ing state of affairs in British America.45 The peOple of Anson

 

45. Th3 Colonial Records 2; North Carolina, 50 vols.,
pub. by State of North Carolina, (Raleigh, 18967, IX, 1200.

44. Ibid., 1025.

45. IEid., 1027.

73

County pointed out that the yoke of slaveryvvas about to be
placed upon British America and that the colonies must act
to preserve their liberty.46 A committee to receive donations
for the relief of the poor of Boston was set up by Pitt County
as their reaction to the detested Port Bill.47 The resolves
passed at Wilmington, North Carolina on July 21, 1774, serve
as a good illustration of the type of resolves that were passed
throughout North Carolina concdrning the Port Bill. The Wil-
mington resolves stated:
Resolved, That we consider theczause of the town of Boston
as theczommon cause of British America and as suffering in
the defense of the rights of the colonies in general; and
that therefore we have in proportion to our abilities sent
a supply 8§ provisions for the indigent inhabitants Of that
place....

Feeling ran so high in North Carolina that a general
convention was demanded. The poeple felt that only in this
way could the rest Of colonial America he made to see clearly
where the peOple of North Carolina stood on the question of
the Port Bill. A provisiona1<3onvention Of North Carolina was
held at Newbern on August 25, 1774, which passed resolutions
similar to those of the lower House of the colony. The conveny
tion proclaimed that the Port Bill was "the most cruel infringe-
'ment of the rights and privileges of the people Of Boston, both

as men, and members of the British government."49

 

46. Ibid., 1032.
47. 15375., 1081.
48. THE" 1017.
49. T6171, 1045.

74

Committees of Correspondence in North Carolina kept the
people of that colony informed as to the progress of the
struggbs of Boston and recommended measures for their aid.

The Wilmington Committee sent a circular letter to all the
counties of North Carolina explaining the nature of thecaause
of Boston and recommending action. A meetingvvas called of the
delegates Of all theczounties for August 20, 1774, which was

to meet at Johnston County Court House. A subscription was
suggested by the Wilmington Committee for thel'elief of the
poor Of Boston thrown out of work by the Port Bill.50

South Carolina was not outdone by its northern sister.

A copy Of the Boston resolves of May 15, 1774, which asked the
other colonies to rally to the aid of that town came to Charles-
ton and caused a town meeting to be called immediately. The
town, in turn, decided to call a general meeting of the province
to be held in Charleston on the sixth of Julyl Circular letters
were sent out explaining the situation in Boston and urging
Opposition.51 This meetingwas reported by the South Carolina
Gazette to be the largest ever assembled.52 According to the
resolves passed at this meeting South Carolina acted on the
motive of self preservation. Itwas feared mat a dangerous

precedent might be established which would cause the rights,

 

50. Force, A chives, I, 619.

51. Edward moors y, The History 2;.South Carolina Under
Royal“C-overnment l719-1776TTNew York, 19015," 75:5.

52. Ibid., p. 7540 ,

75

property, and privileges of the rest of America to be in

danger.55

South Carolina was adequately served by its various
committees Of correspondence. The opinions of the above meet-
ingvvere echoed throughout theczolony as the committees promoted
assistance for Boston. The pressure caused by many people
desiring to send donations to Boston caused the Committee Of
Charleston, for example, to provide a solution. A public
announcement was made which told those wishing to contribute
goods for the relief of Boston that a special committee ex-
isted to aid and expedite matters. Subscriptions were to be
given to any of the thirteen members of this committee. A
footnote to the announcement disclosed that one generous resi-
dent Of Charleston had Offered the free use of his wharf for
the storage and shipping of'rice to Boston.54

SOme personal reactions from.SOuth Carolina will help
enlarge upon the picture Of that colony's sympathetic feel-
ing for Boston. A South Carolina letter of June 4, 1774,
reveals the character of the Opinions in Charleston on the
Port Bill. The King's birthday came almost simultaneously
with the day the Port Bill took full effect. This letter re-
lates that the birthday was Officially celebrated in the usual
way--bells were rung, colorsvvere displayed, the guns of the
fort were fired, and the militia wasiceviewed--but the people

 

55. David Ramsay, The History 2; South Carolina from Its
First Settlement in 1670 to the Year 1808, 2 vols., (Charles-

4—“—

 

76

did not join in the celebration. The houses were not il-
luminated nor were there any<iemonstrations of joy. The writer
says that the people lamented "that so good a prince should be
beset by a minority who seem to have studied to alienate,

rather than preserve, the affections of his most loyal sub-
jects."55 Another South Carolina letter dated June 13, 1774,
indicated that the merchants in that colonyvvere generally
inclined to favor noneimportation. As a method of making the
non-importation agreements work thevvriter suggested that America
take stock of herliesources. Iron particularly interested the
writer of this letter and he was anxious for an accounting.

He also wanted to know what quantity of hoes, axes, tools,
cutlery, and other articles usually imported from Great Britain
that each colony could supply to the common need of America.56
Thisvvould seem to indicate that the retrenchment necessary
for the effectiveness of the non-intercourse agreements was
accepted by South Carolina. The main purpose of these agree-
ments was, of course, a demonstration of opposition to Parliament
caused by its action against Boston.

On first consideration it might seem.that:sentiment in
Georgia would not be as forceful as that found in South Caro-
lina and the other colonies. One reason for this speculation
would be that Georgia's history was different from the general

pattern of the rest of British America. Georgia hadloeen

55. Ibid., 392.
56. ifiid., 408.

77

founded later and the British government had incurred consi-
derable expense in setting up this "buffer colony." Connection
to Britain.w0u1d therefore be stronger. This is true to a
certain degree but it did not stop Georgia from indicating
that a considerable portion of its people were of thesaame
opinion as the rest of America.

One vehicle for expressing opinion in Georgia was the
principle newspaper of that colony. The Georgia Gazette
of July 14, 1774, described the position thatzsentiment in
Georgia had reached, and took the lead in suggesting future
action:
The critical situation to which the British Colonies in America
are likely to be reduced from the alarming and arbitrary imposi-
tion of the late acts of the British Parliament respecting the
town of Boston asvvell as the acts that at present extend to
theraising of a perpetual revenue without the consent of the
peOple or their representatiues, is considered as an object
extremely important at this critical juncture, and particularly
calculated to deprive the American subjects of their constitu-
tional rights and liberties as a part of the British Empire.
It is therefore requested that all persons within this province
do attend at the liberty pole at Tondee's Tavern, in Savannah,
on Wednesday the 27th instant, in order that the said matter
may be taken under consideration, and such other constitutional
measures be framed as may then appear to be most e1igible.57

The meeting suggested by the Gazette was postponed until
August 10 in order that more of the parishes could be repre-
sented.58 Thecielegates met and thoroughly discussed the Port
Bill and its ramifications throughout colonial America. The

resolves that were reported in this meeting s how that Georgia

 

57. The Rgvolutionary Records Q§_the State 2; §§orgia,
5 vols., Allen D. Chandler, ed., (Atlanta, 1908i, I, 1.
58. Ibid., 15.

78

was not going to be left outside the pale of general colonial
feeling on the Port Bill. (The meetingzresolvedishat:
...an act of Parliament, lately passed, for the blockading the
port and harbor of Boston... [was] contrary to... fisheifl idea
of the British constitution: First, for what it in effect...
[deprived] good and lawful men of the use of their property‘
without judgement of their peers, and secondly for that it...
was} in nature of an.g§.§ggt {£323 law, and indiscriminately
b ends, as Objects of pun shment, the innocent ith the guilty.
It was also resolved that Georgia would "concur with...[its]
sister[}mericaé}colonies in every constitutional measure to
Obtain redress of American grievances...."59

Some resolutions were passed by various localities‘which
denounced the above resolves, but the position of those in
sympathy with Boston was vindicated in the election for the
lower House of the Legislature in January, 1775. The issue
in the election was the question Of the resolves of the much-
publicized meeting and the attitude tolae‘taken toward Britain
by Georgia. The patriots won a sufficient number of seats to
hold a majority and thereby settled the issue as far as the
legislature of the colony was concerned.60

The result of this election was clear enough to prod the
Governor into writing a long discussion against the attitude
expressed in the resolves of the 10 of August cited above.
This paper was officially read to the House. The opposition
Of the Governor only served to heighten the enthusiasm for the

cause. The House, in spite of the Governor's message, officially

recognized that the act of Parliament shutting the port of Bos-

59. Ibid., 16-17.
60. For a complete outline of the events of the election
and actions in the House see ibid., 54-57; 52-55.

79

ton as an infringement and violation of the rights of the

colonists.61
Reactions at the county or parish level mirrored the atti-

tude Of the House. The parishes of Georgia followed the pattern

indicated by thecounties in other colonies. Some of“the

parishes which passed patriotic resolves were St. Andrew,

St. Matthew, St. Ggorge, St. Paul, and St. John. The people

of St. Andrew Parish stated in their resolves that they would

never become slaves and would support the actions of the rest

of America toward Britain.62 The Parish of St. Jehn backed

up its feeling for Boston by subscribing a donation of two hun-

dred barrels ofi'ice for the relief of Boston.65 St. Paul and

St. George Parishes deviated from the general pattern at first

by passing resolutions against the actions of the great meeting

of the 10 of August, but later fell in line with the others.64
Events in Georgia apparently misled the governor of tha:

colony in his estimate of popular support for Boston, for in

a letter to Dartmouth, Governor “right at first claimed that

the resolves of Georgia in support of Boston were thewwork of

a junto of only a few people. In a laterl?eport, however, he

had to admit that a change in his evaluation was necessary:

And now I am mentioning these matters permit me my Lord to

say how things appear to me, and I conceive that the licen-
tious spirit in America has received such contenance and

 

61. Ibid.

62. IEId., 54-58.

65. Force, Archives, I, 767.

64. Chandler, Revolutionary Records 3;.Geor is, I,
22-26, 50-51. '——

encouragement from many persons, speeches, and declarations

at the time of the Stamp Act, and.eversince in Great Britain
...in short things and circumstances in America have increased
so fast...that however matters may be got over at present and
whatever appearance there may be of amity and union the flame
will onlylae smothered for a time and break out again at

some future day with more violence.55

The royal governor seems to have diagnosed the trouble as
something more serious than just the Port Bill.

Feeling for the Bostonians was not as unanimous in
Georgia as might be found in the other colonies. Reactions
similar to St. Paul and St. George Parishes cited above may
be found in the towns of Georgia. Wrightsborough and Augusta
agreed with the parishes which did not go along with most Of

66 It has already been suggested

the residents of Georgia.
that Georgia had a background different from most of the
colonies---particular1y the older ones.

A majority of the Georgians, however, backed Boston. At-
tempts to aid the peOple of the suffering town were supported;
meetings which kept the cause before the people were held
and adequately attended. Machinery continued to be set up
for the transmission of aid to Boston. For example, a tax
on viblations of the non-importation agreements was provided
by forty-five delegates Who met at Savannah on January 18, 1775.

The proceeds Of this tax were "to be applied towards relieving

such poor inhabitants of the town of Boston as...[weré] immediate

 

65. Georgia Historical Society, Collections of the Ggor ia
gflptorical Society, 9 vols., (Savannah, 1840-1906)_III, 18!.
66. Ibid., 27-50.

81

sufferers of the Port Bill."67 Thus the policy of Georgia

set down as early as July of 1774 was carried on successfully.
This policy was, in some respects, dissimilar to tha: persued
in other southern colonies but in over-all nature it was not
different to any marked degree.

The Continental Congress served as the culmination of
reaction in the South just as it had been for the other
sections of America. This is not as clearly defined as in
the New England or middle colonies because some of the south-
ern colonies were not represented by large delegations and
one southern colony, Georgia, did not attend the Congress at
all.

Virginia was very well represented and the statements
of the delegates from.that colony are very indicative that
Virginia was going to stand firmly behind the position it had
outlined through the summer of 1774. Virginia may claim the
foremost position in the move for a Congress, since the House
of Burgesses agreed upon calling one before they received the
fiery resolutions of Boston. After the proclamation of a
fast the Governor dissolved the Burgesses. On May 27 they
assembled unofficially and recommended a general Congress
of deputies from all the colonies to meet annually to deli-
berate on such measures as "the united interests of America
may from time to time require."68 Twenty-five Burgesses sent

out a formal call for the first convention to meet on August

1, 1774. Thomas Jefferson said that the call was greeted

 

67. gplg., 46.
68. Burnett, The Continental Congress, p. 20.

AA

enthusiastically and was like a shock of electricity which
caused the colonies to see the Congress as a means of
expressing their sentiments.69 He drew up a set of instruc-
tions for his fellow delegates from Virginia which was pub-,
lished and became a good presentation of the motives that
prompted many people to action in all parts of America. Jef-
ferson's pamphlet was entitled, "A Summary View of the Rights
of British America." Many of the utterances in the Congress
were based on natural and proscriptive rights Which Jefferson
outlined in this important pamphlet. The wording was much
like another famous document edited by Jefferson, The
Declaration of Independence.70 Patrick Henry caught some
of the great importance of the Congress when.he eloquently
proclaimed, "The distinctions between Virginians, Pennsylvanians,
New Yerkers, and New Englanders, are no more. I am not a
Virginian but an American”.71

The comments on the Congress of Caesar Rodney, JOhn
Dickinson, and Joseph Hewes reenforce those of the Virginia
delegates. On September 9, 1774, Caesar Rodney wrote, "it
is the greatest assembly...that waseaver collected in America--
.and the Bostonians who...have been condemned by many for their

'violence are moderate men, when compared to Virginia, South

 

69. Jefferson, ghitings, I, 12.
70. A reprint 0 his paper has been made, in the
original style in the Scholar's Facsimilés & Reprints,

(New YOrk, 1945).
71. Burnett, Letters, I, 14.

85

Carolina, and Rhode Island; in short all the colonies seem to

"72 JOhn Dickinson wrote to Arthur

be hearty in the cause.
Lee that "a determined and unanimous resolution animates
this continent, firmly and faithfully to support the common
cause to the utmost extermity."75 This was written in a
letter of October 27, 1774, just after the Congress ajourned.
A letter of Joseph Hewes of North Carolina indicates tha:
the Congress was well received. Hewes said in this letter:
"I have the pleasure to inform you that they [the Congress
delegates] are generally approved of here by all ranks of
peOple; the Germans who compose a large part of the inhabi-
tants...are all on our side."74

With the qualified exception of Georgia, the peOple of
the southern colonies seem to have reacted to the Boston
Port Bill in much the same way as the peOple of the rest of
colonial America. Activity reached all the way from colonial
legislatures and conventions down through the counties,
parishes and towns to the individual. One might even go so
far as to say that in some instances, Virginia for example,
the South was further advanced in its position than New England

itself.75

 

72. Letters tg_and from Caesar Rodney 1756-1784, George
Herbert Ryw‘den, ed., (fil‘ade—lph‘fafi, 1953f, pp. 45-46.

750 Burnett, Letters, I, 850

74. Ibid.

75. See Appendix B for a summary of donations made to
Boston by the peOple of the southern colonies.

84

Chapter V

Conclusions

The first conclusion that seems valid upon the evidence
presented is that the Port Bill brought reaction from all
of colonial America. Parliament aimed the Bill squarely at
Boston, imposing sanctions as a direct result of the Tea
Party of December 16, 1775, held in Boston harbor. A par-
ticular colony had been singled out by Parliament for special
coersive action. The Boston Port Bill, which would have
caused great suffering in Boston had not the rest of the
colonies aided her, was not considered merely a local affair
by Americans. Almost immediately after the news of the consi-
deration of the bill came to America, colonial sentiment was
fired for Boston. Before the Bill took full effect resolu-
tions of sympathy were passed by legislatures and official
organs from New Hampshire to Georgia. Mrs. Mercy Warren,
the sister of James Otis, stated in her history of the Revolu-
tion that, "such a remarkable coincidence of Opinion, energy
and zeal, existed between the provinces...that their measures
and resolutions were often similar, previous to the opportunity
for conference."2 Examples have been given in previous
chapters which illustrate the accuracy of this statement.

A concrete form of this sentiment can be found in the

many donations made to Boston during her time of trouble. It

 

1. Warren, History 2§_the American Revolution, I, 155.

85

is surprising that so much money was collected and sent to
Boston in light of the<3ritica1 shortage of pounds in

America. Most of the money came from the more densely settled
areas but the small towns made contributions of money also--
at perhaps a greater sacrifice. The donations were not limited
to money. Livestock, equipment, personal goods, and food of
all kinds were forwarded to Boston by the generous sympa-
thizers.2 Sometimes the people of a small community would
make a careful check of their provisions and send on to Bos-
ton the small amount that they felt they could spare. On
Other occasions the more well-to-do Americans made gifts of
considerable importance.

Statements have been made that only a handful of radi-
cals were responsible for America's opposition to British policy,
but the evidence does not support this view. The many resolves
passed by communities and legislatures throughout America would
have been difficult for a few men toeangineer. The depth of
the colonial feeling crept to the back country and to the small
communities everywhere in America. Resistance was not limited
to a mob of uncouth, uneducated, rabble as sOme interpretations
have implied. The "mob" would include Franklin, Jefferson,
Hancock, and Washington. Itvvould be a difficult task indeed
to make a case that would include washington, for example, as

a mobster.

 

2. See totals in Appendix B for an illustration of the
diversity of the gifts made to Boston.

86

The motives behind the aid given Boston varied with
individuals. Some ofishe comments presented in this study
indicate that many acted on the principle of self-preserva-
tion. These people felt that should the ministry succeed in
humbling Boston by the Port Bill a similar instrument might
be used on them. Success of the measure would, of course,
recommend its future use. The line of reasoning suggested
here was used by individuals living in communities that stood
to make an immediate economic gain should commerce be diverted
through their respective areas. Apparently the immediacy of
the gain did not lessen the fact that a weapon might be given
to Parliament which would be difficult to take away at some
propitious time in the future.

Another motive for the rallying aroundifihe Bostonians
by the rest of America was that of pure Christian brotherhood.
This was the force that moved many of the Friends of Penn-
sylvania. By doctrine, active or violent resistance was
denied the Quaker. He could not, therefore, condone the Tea
Party. The fact that many people were left in serious dif-
ficulty by the results of the Bill was another matter. The_
Quaker could not stand aside while a fellow creature suffered
from starvation. The resolves Of Philadelphia were not completely
accepted by the Quakers but nevertheless they raised a consi-

derable donation and sent it to Boston with a statement of

their motives. 5

 

5. See Chapter III page 47.

87

The principle of American liberty was anOther motive.
Americans had acted for themselves in much of their govern-
ment andishey were not going to see theiri'ights compromised.
Should Parliament be recognized to have the power to completely
eliminate a community by a simple act, then American liberty
and preogative was certainly on very shaky ground. The other
colonies, therefore, would have to prevent this dangerous
principle from being established. If the action of a few men
could provoke Parliament to bring poverty to a city of over
12,000 inhabitants, then nowhere in America was a man safe.
The fundamental rights of life, liberty and prOperty so
dear to American hearts were only in existance at the pleasure
of Parliament if the principle held forth by the Port Bill
was kept unchallenged.

The most important motive has yet to be considered,
that is, the growing spirit of American nationalism. By
1774 a feeling of uniqueness in going an American was in
evidence in the colonies. PeOple there began to think in
terms of American issues and causes as distinct from British
interests. In their resolves they mentioned their country,
meaning America, not Britain. When they declared that viola-
tors of their resolves should be treated as enemies of their
country, they were certainly not referring to the mother
country. It was this idea which appears in Patrick Henry's
statement tha: he was an American, not a Virginian. Just as

in the rise of the nation states in Europe, local or provincial

88

loyalties had to bow before a bigger loyalty. Many factors
contributed to this emerging nationalism-~common language,
similar experiences in government, travel and exchange of
information, and particularly the cooperation forced on the
colonies by British policies after 1765. By 1774 they had
reached a stage in their development where their common in-
terests loomed as more important than their individual differ-
ences. In many of the resolves and personal statements one
can find evidence that the dolbniés had reached the point where
they felt that not only the Port Bill but other restrictions
on America should also be lifted. American nationalism.was
asserting itself.

The effects of the hearty support given to Boston,vvhat-
ever the motive, were many fold. As far as Boston itself was
concerned the aid sent to the town from all oter America enabled
her to ride out the storm. Samuel Adams summed up the attitude
in Boston when he wrote, "The peOple ofishis town have at
length gone through the winter [of 1774-1775] with tolerable
comfort. Next to the gracious interposition of heaven,‘we
acknowledge the unexampled liberality of our sister colonies."4
The most important effect was the<flrawing together of the
colonies into a closer union of spirit and interests. The
first Continental Congress was the high water mark as far as

the influence of the Port Bill may be traced.

4. Samuel Admas, Eritin s, III, 199.

89

Two contemporary comments may be offered as summation
of the important aspects of colonial reaction to the Port
Bill. Edmund Randolph, in his Egggy;gg_thg_§3volutionary‘§i§-
£221 93 Virginia, 1774-1782 caught the spirit behind much of
colonial reaction when he said,

Men, mad in the career of power seldom delay to consult the
human heart. They overlook the sympathies which act upon
nations, sincerely sisters for the general purposes, andvhhich
cannot be topical, although the distance of place and an exemp—
tion from instantaneous suffering may for a moment deceive

with the expectations of at least an indifference on their part.5

Another good summary may be found in the Lee Papers.

What could put it into our blockhead's heads that these

people could be tricked out of their liberties by cunning,

or bullied by any force which they canisend over?...I have
lately my lord run through almost the whole colonies from

the South to the North-~I have conversed with all the orders
of men...and cannoteaxpress my astonishment at the good sense
and general knowledge which prevades the whole....I think

I should not be guilty of exaggeration in asserting that there
are two hundred thousand strong bodied active yeomanry ready
to encounter all hazards and dangers...rather than surrender

a little of thelcights which they have derived from God and
their ancestors: They were arming and drilling men in prepara-
tion for defense, Virginia, Rhode Island Carolina, Massachu-
setts, and even that Quakering province Pennsylvania] is
following the example.6

The Boston Port Bill of 1774 was, in a significant way,
a contributor to the awareness of thei~ising feeling of inter-
dependence in the colonies. It was one drop of nourishment

to the strongly maturing seeds Of American nationalism.

 

5. Virginia Mggazine, XLVIII,,2l4s ’ a ;
6. fee Papers, 4 vols., N.Y. Historical Society, Collections,
I, 141.

90

Appendix A1
Boston Port Bill

An Act to discontinue, in such manner and for such time
as are therein mentioned, the landing and discharging, loading
or shipping Goods, wares, or Merchandise, at the Town, and
within.the Harbor of Boston, in the Province of Massachusetts-

Bay, in North-America.

. Whereas dangerous commotions and insurrections have been
fomented and raised in the town of Boston, in the Province
of Massachusetts Bay, in New-England, by divers ill-affected
persons, to the subversion of his Majesty!s government, and
to the utter destruction of the public peace and good order
of the said town; in which commotions and insurrections cer-
' tain valuable cargoes of Teas,t>eing the property of the East-
India Company and on certain vessels lying within the bay
or harbor of Boston, were seized and destroyed: And whereas
in the present conditioncaf the said town and harbor, the
commerce of his Majesty's subjects cannot, nor the Customs
payable to his Majesty duly collected; and is therefore ex-
pedient that the Officers of his Majesty's Customs should be
forthwith removed from the said town: May it please your
Majesty that it may be enacted, and be it enacted by the king's
most excellent Majesty, by anduwith.the consent of the Lords

Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parlia-

 

11. Pennsylvania Gazette, May 18, 1774.

91

ment assembled, and by the authority of the same, That from
and after the first day of June, One thousand seven hundred and
seventy-four, it shall not be lawful for any person or per-
sons whatsoever to lade or put, or cause or procure to be
laden and put, off or from any quay, wharf or other place,
within the said town of Boston, or in or upon any part of
the shore of the bay, commonly called the harbor of Boston,
between a certain headland or point, called Nahant Point, on
the eastern side of the Entrance to said bay, and a certain
other headland or point, commonly called Alderton Point, on
the Western side of the entrance into said bay, or in or
upon any island, creek, landing place, bank or other place,
within the said bay or headlands, into any ship, vessel,
lighter, boat or bottom, any goods, worse or merchandise what-
ever, to be brought from any other country, province or
place, or any other part of the said province of Massachusetts
Bay in New England, upon pain of forfeiture of the said goods,
wares and merchandise, and of the said boat, lighter, ship,
vessel, or other bottom into whichthe same shall be put, or
out of which the same shall be taken, and of guns, ammunition,
tackle, furniture and stores, in or belonging to the same;
and if such goods, wares or merchandise, shall, within the
said town, or in any other places aforesaid, be laden or taken
in from the shore into any barge, hoy, lighter, wherry or boat,
shall be forfeited and lost.

And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid,

92

That if any wharfinger or keeper of any wharf, crane,
or quay, or their servants or any of them, shall take up
or land, or knowingly suffer to be taken up or landed,
or shall ship off, or suffer to be waterborne, at or
from any of their said wharfs, cranes, or quays, any
such goods, wares or merchandise; in any such.case, all
and every wharfinger or keeper of such wharf, crane or
quay, and person whatever who shall be assisting, or other-
wise concerned in the shipping or in the loading or put-
ting on board such boat or other vessel, for that pur-
pose, or in the unshipping of such goods, wares and mer-
chandise, or to whose hands the same shall knowingly come,
after loading shipping or unshipping thereof, shall for-
feit and lose treble the value thereof, to be computed
at the highest price Which.such.goods, wares and merchandise
shall bear, at the place where such offense shalllae com-
mitted, at the time when the same shall be so committed;
together wdth the vessels and boats, and all the horses,
and carriages whatsoever, made use of in the shipping,
unshipping, landing, removing, carriage or conveyance of
any of the aforesaid goods, wares and merchandise. A

And it be further enacted by the authority aforesaid,
That if any ship or vessel shall moored or lie at anchor,
or be seen hovering within said Bay, described and bounded
as aforesaid, or within one league from said Bay so des-

cribed, or the said Headlands, or any of the islands lying

93

between or within the same, it shall and may be lawful
for any Admiral, Chief Commander, or Commissioned Officer
of his Majesty's fleet or ships of war, or for any offi-
cer of his Majesty's Customs, to compel such ship or vessel
to depart to some other port or harbor, or to such station
as the said officer shall appoint, and to use such force
for that purpose as that be found necessary: And if such
ship or vessel shall not depart accordingly, within six
hours after notice for that purpose given by such person
as aforesaid, such ship or vessel, together with all the
goods laden on board thereon, and all the guns, ammuni-
tion, tackle, and furniture, shall be forfeited and lost,
whether bulk shall have been broken or not.

Provided always, That nothing in this Act contained shall
extend, or be construed to extend, to any military or
other stores for his Majesty's use, or to the ships or ves-
sels wherein the same shall be laden, which shall be com-
missioned by, and in the immediate pay of his Majesty, his
heirs or successors; or to any fuel or victuals brought
coast-wise from any port of the continent of America, for
the necessary use and sustenance of the inhabitants of the
said town of Boston, provided the vessel wherein the same
to be carried shall be duly furnished with a cocket and
let-pass, after having been duly searched by the proper
Officer of his Majesty's Customs at Marblehead, in the port

94

of Salem, in the said province of Massachusetts Bay;

and that same Officer of his Majesty's Customs be also
there put on board the said vessel, who is hereby author-
ized to go on board, and proceed with the said vessel, who
together with a sufficient number of persons, properly
armed, for his defense, to the said town or harbor of Bos-
ton; nor to any ships orvessels, Which may happen to be
within the said harbor of Boston on or before the first
day of June, One thousandleven.hundred and seventybfour
and may have either laden or taken on board, or be there
with intent to load or take on board, or to land or dis-
charge any goods, wares or merchandise, provided the said.
ships and vessels do depart the said harbor within four-
teen days after the first day of June, One thousand seven
hundred and seventybfour.

And be it further enacted by the authority afore-
said, that all seizures, penalties and forfeitures, in-
flicted by this Act shall be made and prosecuted by any
Admiral, Chief Commander, or Commissioned Officer of his
Majesty's fleet or ship of war, or by the Officers of
his Majesty's Customs, or some of them, or by some
other person deputied or authorized, by warrant from.the
Lord High Treasurer, or the Commissioners of his Maj-
esty's treasury for the time being, and no other person

whatsoever: And if such Officer, or other person,authorized

95

as aforesaid, shall, directly, or indirectly, take or receive
any bribe or reward to connive at such landing or unloading

or shall make commence any collusive seizure, information or
agreement for that purpose, or shall do any other a’ct‘what-
soever; whereby goods, wares or merchandise, prohibited as
aforesaid shall be suffered to pass either inwards or outwards,
or whereby the forfeitures and penalties inflicted by this

Act may be fev’a‘ded, for such offender shall forfeit the sum
of five hundred pounds for story such offense and shall become
incapable of any office or employment, civil or military;

and every person who shall give, offer or promise, any such
bribe or reward, or shall contact, agree or treat with any
person, so authorized as aforesaid to commit any such offense,
shall forfeit the sum of fifty pounds.

And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid,
That the forfeitures and penalties inflicted by this Act, shall
and may be prosecuted, sued for and recovered, and be divided
paid and applied, in like manner as other penalties and for-
feitures inflicted by any Act or Acts of Parliament, relating
to the trade or revenues of the- British colonies or planta-
tions in America, are directed to be prosecuted, sued for or
recovered, divided, paid and applied, by two several Acts of
Parliament, the one passed in the fourth year of his present
Majesty, entitled, "An Act for granting certain duties in the
British Colonies and plantations in America; for continuing,
amending, and making perpetual, an Act passed in the sixth
year of ther eig’n of his late Majesty King George the Second,

96

entitled, an Act for the better 3 ecuring and encouraging
the trade of his Majesty's sugar colonies in America, for
applying the produce of such duties, and the duties to arise
by virtue of the aforesaid Act, towards defraying the expenses
of protecting and securing the said colonies and plantations;
for applying explaining an Act make (sic in the twenty-fifth
year of the reign of King Charles the Second, entitled, An
Act for the encouragement of the Greenland and Eastland trades,
and for the better securing the plants: ion trade, and for
allowing and disallowing several drawbacks on export from
this kingdom, and more effectually preventing the Clandestine
conveyance of goods to and from the said colonies and plan-
tation, and improving and securing the trade between the same
and Great-Britain;" the other passed in the eighth year of
his present Majesty's reign, entitled, "An Act for the more
easy and effectual recovery of the penalties and forfeitures
inflicted by the Acts of Parliament relating to the trade
or revenues of the British colonies and plantations in America."
And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid,
That whenever it shall be made to @peai to his Majesty, in
his Privy Council, that peace and obedience to the laws shall
be so far restored in the said town of Boston, that the trade
of Great Britain may safely be carried on there and his Maj-
esty's customs dulycollected, and his Majesty in his Privy
Council, shall judge the s ame to be true, it shall and may be
lawful for his Majesty, by Proclamation, or order of Council
to assign and appoint the extent, bounds or limits, of the

97

port of Harbor of Boston, and of every creek or haven within
the s ame or in the islands .within the precinct thereflf, and
also to assign and appoint such and so many cpen places, quays
and wharfs, within the said harbor creeks, haven and islands,
for landing, discharging, loading, and shipping of goods, as
his Majesty, his heirs or successors, shall judge necessary
and expedient; and also to appoint such and so many Officers
of the Customs therein as his Majesty shell think fit; after
which it shall be lawful for any person or persons to lade or
put off from, or discharge or land upon, such wharfs, quays
and places, so appointed within said harbor, and none other,
any goods, wares or merchandise whatever.

Provided always, That if any goods, wares or merchandise
shall be laden or put off from, or disbharged, or loaded upon,
any other place than the quays, wharfs' or places, so to be
appointed the same, together with the ships, boats, and other
vessels employed therein, the horses, or other cattle and
carriages used to convey the same, and the person or persons
concerned or assisting therein or to those hands the same shall
knowingly come, shall suffer all the forfeitures and penalties
imposed by this or any other Acts on the illegal shipping or
landing of goods.

Provided also that it is hereby declared and enacted That .
nothing herein contained shall exist, or be construed to enable
his Majesty to appoint such Port, Harbor, Creeks, Quays, Wharfs,
places or Officers, in the said Town of Boston, or. in said Bay

98

or Islands, until it shall sufficiently appear to his Majesty,
that full satisfaction hath been made by or in behalf of the
Inhabitants of the said Town of Boston to the United Company
of Merchants of England trading to the East-Indies, for the
damages sustained by the said company, by the destruction of
their goods sent to the said Town of Boston, on board certain
ships or vessels as aforesaid; and until it shall be certified
to his Majesty, in Council, by the Governor, or Lieutenant-
Governor of the said Province, that reasonable satisfaction hath
been made to the Officers of his Majesty's Revenue and others
who suffered by the Riots and Insurrections above mentioned;
in the Months of November and December, in the year One
thousand seven hundred and seventy-three, and in the Month
of January in the year One thousand seven hundred and seventy-
four.

And be it further enacted by this Authority aforesaid,
That if any Action or Suit shall be commenced, wither in
Great Britain or America, against any Person, or Persons, for
any Thing done in Pursuance of this Act of Parliament, the
Defendent or Defendents in such Action or Suit may plead
the general issue and give the said Act and the s pecial
Matter in Evidence and any Trial to be had thereupon, ~
and that the same be done in Pursuance and by the Authority
of this Act: And it shall appear to have been done, the
Jury shall find for the Defendant or Defendents, and if the
Plaintiff shall be nonsuited, or discontinue his Action,
after the Defendent or Defendents shall have appealed or if

99

Judgment shall be given upon any Verdict or Demurrer against
the Plaintiff, the Defendent or Defendents shall recover treble
costs, and have the like Remedy for the same, as Defendents

have in other cases by Law.

100

Appendix B1

The book from.which the following abstracts were taken
has the following introductory certificate:

Boston, July 18, 1778.
I certify that this Book contains a True Copy of the
Account of all the Donations Received by the Committee ap-
pointed by the Town of Boston, to receive the Generous Bene-
factions of the Sister Colonies, for the Relief and Support
of the Inhabitants of the Towns of Boston and Charlestown,
suffering by the operation of that Cruel Act of the British
Parliament, commonly called the Boston Port Bill. '
By order of the Committee of Donations,
ALEXr HODGDON, Clerk.

Donations Received from the Province of the Mas-
sachusetts Bay

1774.
July 5. Wrentham 19%; bush. Rye, 11-3/4 Corn
" GrotonA' 21 “ 2 "
7. Pepperrell 24 " " 173 "
20. Charlemont 2 bbls. flour

22. Screwsbury J." 6 : 2s : 6
” Beverly l4 : 2 : l
30. Lenox 3 : 17 : 0%

Aug. 2. Manglehead 224 quintals of fish, 53 gals. oil,
39 : 5 : 3.
3. Brookfield 8% rye, lO cor .
Sept. 8. Old York, fr. Josha 5. Sam Sewall,.F2 : l6 : o
" Concord, fr. John Beaton, 1’5 : C : 0
27. Chelmsford, 4O rye
Oct. 10. Berwick, 26 sheep, 6 oxen.
20. Middleborough 51 Rye, 30 Corn
24. Old York 106 potatoes, 57 sheep, 4 qtls. fish,
23 cords of wood,oFl : 4s.
26. Newbugy Falls fr. Samuel Moody, schoolmaster,
7 : O : 0
Nov. 26. Petersham.fr. Silvanus How, 11 quarters mutton
” Belchertown, fr. Josh“ Boydell 8c W11 Clark, 2
bshls. wheat
" Rehoboth, es sheep, £14 : s z 9

 

l. Copied from.New England Historic, Genealogical
Society, New-England Historical and nealogical Register,
101 vols., (Boston, 18"““"T47-1948 , m,§§7—;7 -380.

101

Nov 0

D60 0

1775
Jan.

FOb o

21.

24.

Pittsfield (Joseph Easton 125.).(‘6 : 12 : O

Medfield, 132 lbs pork, 402 lbs. cheese, 22 cart
loads wood.

No. Yarmouth, 43 cords of wood

Union Fire Club at Salem (consisting of 19
members)al“40 : 0 : 0

Cambridge, fr. David Hoar, ten lbs. Balm &
ten lbs. Sage. .

Unknownxl : l6 : 0

Salem, Dean Whitaker's parish, £24 : 16 : s
Rutland Dist. Co. of Worchester, fr. Colo Nathan

Sparhaw, 593 lbs. beef.

Dorchester, fr. Capt. Leml Robertson, 160 lbs. beef

Braintree, 25 Carcasses.

w61r1eet, 4°40

Eastham, South,¥3. 13. 6

Billerica, 48% rye, 2% corn, £5. 7. 0-3/4

Westford, 54% rye, 6 corn

Salem, Rev. Mr. Dimon's parish, $87. 1.

Lexington, 61 cart loads of wood (with the Flagg),
3. ll. 6

Reading, First and Third parishes, 1 bush. rye,

'7 lbs. pork, 26 cart loads of wood, «(1. 8.
Salem, Rev. Mr. Dimon's parish, $3. 19
Dorchester, 25 cords wood, 3 pr. men's and 2 pr.

boy's shoes.

Stoughton, 17 loads of wood.

Temple, 40 bush. rye.

West Springfield, 23 hogs.

Barnstable, West, .67, 9. 4--including 16 shillings
collected of the Marshpee Indians.

DO. Eaat, (12. 10. 8.

Salem, No. Society--Rev. Mr. Barnard, {'45.

Manchester, {'28. O. 7%

Rehoboth, 59 lbs. flax (James Allyne, 8; Joseph

Allyne, 24 3 Josiah Cushi , 12 3 Abner Allyne,

‘ 12; Jacob Cushing, 3; Sam Allyne, 12.)

Salem, Revd Mr. Barnard 8c Dunbar's Society,
(114: 9. 0%

Attleborough, 4" 33. 10. 7%

Falmouth, Casco Ba , 51% cords wood.

Cape Elizabeth, 44 cords wood.

Danvers, (‘13. 15. 6

Welfleet,o{'7. 10. 8

Yarmouth, Eas precinct, 4'7. 4. 4.

Newburyport, 202. 10. 2

KOttOI’y, $410 30 5

Middleton, ‘22. 90 10

Rehoboth, Rev. Ephm. Hoit's, £6. 0

do Rev. Robert Rogerson's, 3‘2. 6. 3

102

51"
I}
Ill-('1

 

Ox

 

3:30 :co
0

aaaaqazzzzzazaags

Berwick, South, 3'11. 6. 8.
do North, $2. 2

Eastham, 52%- bush. corn, «(0. 8.

Biddeford, Joseph Morrill, f0. 12.

Southborough, e” 5. 0. 9

Newbury, Rev. John Tucker's, X46. 4. 2

do Rev. Moses Parson's, £10. 16. 4.
do Rev. Oliver Noble's, (‘9. 0. 6

Truro, «$11. 16. 2%

Scarborough, 4’11. 4. 3

George Town, First, £22. 14. 4

Sturbridge, Capt. Ebenr. Crafts, X0. 12.

" Jose Peirce, f0. 5. 4
d0 N‘th Walker, Jr. «I O. 30

Beverly, of 31. 9. 10 and goods estimated at
141. 10c 4e .0673. 00 2

Brookfield, 9 bush. rye.

Greenwich, 10 bush. rye, 2% corn.

Sandisfield, £7. 10.

Wells,.{9. 1: 1.

Mendon, 268 lbs. cheese, 50 flax.

Marlborough, by Joseph Howe, who subscribed 40
shillings toward purch'sg, 334 lbs. beef.

Paxton, ll bush. rye, 9 corn, 2%- malt.

Wells, 26-3/4 cords wood.

Brookfield, l9 bush, corn.

Northborough 6‘} bush. wheat, 51% rye 15% corn,
61 lbs. pork, 36 lbs. cheese, 6% malt,
['10. 19. 4.

Milton, 24 cords wood.

Littleton, 26% bush. rye, (collected b Mr. R.
Harris, who gave the carting of 6 , and
Messrs Bennett & JnO Wood who gave the cart-
ing of 20 bushels), 1 check Handkerchief,
4 1b pink flowers,d‘4. 3. 0%

Brookline, Joseph Winchester 6: others, 9 bush.
corn, 18% potatoes, 2 fat sheep, l cord
wood, 48 cabbages,f25. '7. 6i-

Shrewsbury, Second, 51 bush. rye, 2 corn.

Cambridge, 4 bush rye, 33% corn, 2 bu potatoes,
17 loads wood, 1 bush. turni s, 4‘31. 4. 6‘}

Concord, 87% bush. rye, 31 corn, 11. 4. 6*}

Lunenburgh, 2 bush. wheat, 82 rye, 2 corn.

Lincoln, 29% corn, 19 cords wood, 2 pr. boy's
shoes, £1. 15. 54

Dracut,45% bush. rye, £3. 17. 1

Acton; 38 " 3% corn, 32 lbs. pork

3. 17. 4

103

March

20.
I

21.

21.
22.
24.

25.

15.
I!

17.
20.

21.
22 .

A Gentn unknown, £10 14. 8

Chilmark, «F6. 10.

Brookline, Rev. Joseph Jackson, X' 2.

Roxbury, Second, 2 bush. rye, 1 corn, 40 lbs.
cheese, 13-3/4 cords wood, $15. 12.

Roxbury, Third, l8 bush. potatoes, 51 lbs.
pork, 5% cords wood, 72 cabbages, 1 bush.
turnips, 6‘20. 4. ’7.

Brookline, Maj. W“. Thompson, 1 load wood,
2 cwt. rice.

Bolton, 28 bush. rye, 5 corn.

Sandwich, X19. 0. 3

Malden, Rev. Mr. Willis' parish, 2 leads wood,
1 pr. women's shoes, 1 ton of hay, f3. 1.

Malden, Rev. Mr. Thacher's parish, 4‘9. 13.

Lancaster, Second parish, 40 bush. rye, 38 corn,
96 lbs. cheese, £0. 12. o

Sturbridge, 9 bush. corn, 2 bbls. flour, 5 cwt.
flour, 3 bush. malt, 1 bbl. salt beef,
4 bbls. rye flour, £4. 13

Dedham, 47%- cords wood.

Plympton, $40 160

Medway, East parish, 53% lbs. cheese, XV. 2

Sturbridge, fr. Nathl 8c Josiah Walker, 15 shillings

Danvers, North parish, 8 pr. men's shoes, 2 pr.
boy's shoes, 8%- yds check, pr. mooseskin
breeches, 2 skeins thread, 26. 15. 4

Nantucket, Rev. Bezal. Shaw's par. «6‘26. 16. 9.

Marblehead, fr. Comttee of Inspection, one per
cent. on Sales of sundry cargoes imported
since Dec. 1, 1774, contrary to Resolve of
Con. Congress, IJ'12O.

Bradford, 1'7 prs. men's 8c 18 prs. women's shoes,
$18. 14. 10.

Duxbury, 21 cords wood.

Roxbury, fr. Maj. Nathl. Ruggles, 1 bbl. salt beef.

Boston, fr. Stephen Bruce, 1 bbl. salt beef.

Gloucester, (11?. 0. 4

Eastham, North parish, ('7. 16.

Brookfield, 30 bush. rye, 14 corn, 224 lbs.
cheese, % bush. beans.

Plymouth, fr. Nathl. Goodwin, 20 bush corn.

Marshpee, fr. Rev. Gideon Hawley, 18 shillings.

Yarmouth (Cape Cod) West par. ('5. 6. 8

George Town, First par. (6. o. 3
do fr. Capt. m Rogers,&°2. 8.

01d Hadley, s cwt. rye flour, £2. 13. 4

Scituate, lst par.£5. 6. s

Hatfield, £12. 15% 3

Plymouth, fr. Com 1‘90 of Inspection, one percent.
on sales of sundries imported since Dec. 1,
1774, contrary to resolve of Con. Congress.-
.K‘Sl. 5. 6%-

104

(0
33b)
0

25.
2'7.

29.
If

April 9.

1o.

11.
14.

1776
March
1777

Jane ' 28 0
Mar 0 1;? e

July

D00. 17.

Brookfield, ed precinct, 12 shillings.

Berkley, {8. 1. 7.

Bridgewater, East par. 344 lbs. flax, 3 lbs.
sheeps' wool, 9 lbs. tobacco, 2 iron shovels,
1 foot spinning wheel, (6. 15. 9%

Tisbury, $12. -

Falmouth (Casco Bay) 2d par. 30-7/8 cords wood.

Scituate, South ar. x6. 15. 11%

Gorhamtown, 8-7 8 cords wood.

Falmouth (Co. Barnstable), X5. 16

Fr. a Gentn unknown, (‘0. 19. 8

Salem, fr. Comtteo of Inspection as above,

{109. 9. 5%

DquIer,r4e 80

Marlborough, 24 bush. rye, 5% corn, so lbs.
cheese, 1 pr. men's shoes, 1% bush. malt,
$32. 18. 2

Dartmouth (Acushnet River), X 50. 1'7. 3

Norton, X7. 2. 10

Christian Town (Marthas Vineyard), fr. the
Indians, {2: 1

Fr. persons unknown (supposed to be the Friends
Society at Nantucket) {90. 9.

Hanover, fr. a lady unknown, 1‘2. 8

Monson, 5 bush. rye, 1 bbl. 8c 2 cwt. 9 lbs.
flour, 17 lbs. tobacco, 12 lbs. butter,
2 prs. stockings, 8 cwt. l qr. 14 lbs.
rye flour -

Sherburne, 2 bush. potatoes

Shrewsbury, 1 bush rye.

Weston, X13. 7. ll

Brimrield,£9. o. 4

Newton, $22. 16. 6

Boston (Sarah Hutchinson 128.; Ellis Gray, Esq.,
13s. 4d.),'fl. 5. 4.

Stockbridge , f 9 .

Woodbury, lst Soc. 5‘8. 8. 4.

Boston, (Nathaniel Peirce, lO cords wood® 368. is
18; Jonathan Amory, l hhd Sugar, 13 cwt.
3 qurs. 23 lbs. Net, a e per cwt isaflll. 12.
10; Semi Blod ett 35 bushels Indian mean @
5. is s. 15. d‘lee. 7. 10

Sandisfield, fr. Matthew Williamsnl‘ 1. 4.

Arundel,f21. 8. 8-3/4

A Summary of DONATIONS received by the Committee appointed
by the Town of BOSTON, to receive the Generous Benefactions
of the SISTER COLONIES, for the Relief and Support of the
Inhabitants of the Towns of Boston and Charlestown Suffer-
ing by the Operation of that Cruel Act of the British
PARLIAMENT commonly called the BOSTON PORT BILL.

105

MASSACHUSETTS BAY.--10% bush. wheat; s33 bush. rye; 399-3/4
corn; 5 bbls. ll cwt. 9 lbs. com. flour; 13% bush. malt;
224 lbs. rice; % bush beans; 173 sheep; 6 oxen; 23 hogs;
111 qurs. mutton; 8 bbls. 16 cwt. 1 qur. 14 lbs. rye flour;
283 lbs. pork; 3 bbls. 1087 lbs. beef; 228 quint. fish;
53 galls. oil; 12 lbs. butter; 1199% lbs. cheese; 366%
cords & 165 cart loads of wood; 453 lbs. flax; 3 lbs -
sheeps wool; 1 ton hay; 26 lbs. tobacco; 29 pr. men's
19 women's, & 6 boy's shoes; 2 prs. stockings; 146% bush.
potatoes; 120 cabbages; 2 bush. turni s; 10 lbs. balm;
10 lbs. sage; 1/2 lb. pink flowers; 8 yds check; 1
check handkerchief; 1 pr. moose-skin breaches; 1 foot
spinning wheel; 2 iron shovels, and cashal‘2213. 8. 0i-

CONNECTICUTm-448-3/4 bush. wheat; 5108-3/4 rye; 1051-3/4
corn; 85 bush. ship stuffs; 2 bbls. 4 cwt. com. flour;
l6 bush. beans; 10 bush beans; 1841 sheep; "83 oxen,
including a cow;" 15% bbls. 27 cwt. 14 lbs. rye flour;

5 bbls. pork; 1 bbl. beef; 540 lbs. cheese; 8 pr. men's,
1 women's, 2 prs. children's shoes; and cashf251. 4. 5.

PENNSYLVANIAQ'-105 bbls. and 249 0'15. 2 qrs. 18 lbs. ship
stuffs; 36 bbls. and 68 cwt. 3 qus. 15 lbs. superfine,
and 1035 bbls. 2122 cwts. 15 lbs. com. flour; 2 bbls.

2 cwt. 21 lbs. ship bread; 107 bbls. 215 cwt. 3 qrs 27
lbs. rye flour; 3 tons nail rod iron; 3 tons bar iron;
and cash, $435. 17' .18.

SOUTH CAROLINA.--7l2 casks 8c 370, 463 lbs. rice and
cash, 1403. 12. 3-3/4. or the rice 580 casks a 259,814
lbs. were sold in New-York realizing (1304. 19. 0-3/4.

MARYLAND.--235 bushs. rye; 93295 bush. corn; 57 bbls. a.
114 cwt. com. flour; 21 bbls. 26 cwt. l qr. ship-bread;
20 bbls. 35 cwt. rye flour; 2 bbls. pork; and «6' 245.

NORTH CAROLINA.--2296%~ bush. corn; 34 bbls. 66 cwt. com.
flour; 10 casks a 5,300 lbs. rice; 1 hogshead 8c 10 bush.
peas; 1 hogshead, 61 bbls. 80 cwt. ship-bread; 147 bbls.
pork and-8'1. l3. 6.

NEW-‘iIIAMPSHIREw-SO bush. peas; 174 sheep; 15 oxen; and
oash4’370. 14. 10.

VIRGINIA.--4011 bush. wheat; 4595—;— bush. corn; 27 bbls.
8c 54 cwt. ship stuff; 197 bbls. at 394 cwt. com. flour;
1194 bush. peas; 54 bbls. 67 cwt. a 2 qurs. ship bread;
30 bbls. pork; 6 firkins at 360 lbs butter; and cash
.1“ 447. 5. 10.

CANADA.--1056% bush. wheat; 2 bbls. 4 cwt. com. flour;
and cash $100. 4.

RHODE ISLAND.--825 sheep; 13 oxen; 1 pr. men's shoes; and
cashalr363. 5. 3%.

NEW JERSEY.--114O bush. rye; 50 bbls. 87 cwt. 2 qrs. rye
flour; and cashef594. 6. 2.

NEW YORK.--44 bush. wheat, and 6 of rye; 394 bbls. 8c 714
cwt. 3 qrs. 2 lbs. com. flour; 5 hogsheads 8c 30 cwt.
Indian meal; 24 tierces 8c 50 cwt. 2 qrs. 3 lbs. ship bread;

106

22 bbls. 34 cwt. 3 qrs. 9 lbs. rye flour; 10% bbls. pork;

28 firkins & 1669 lbs. butter; 1 pipe and 123 galls.

grandy; 3 tons nail rod iron; 1 ton bar iron.
GEORGIA.--Nett proceeds of sale in New York of 63 casks of

rice = cash, $162. 0. 3-3/4.
ISLANDS IN WEST INDIES.-- 2 cwt. 2 qrs. cocoa, and cash,dr22. 16.
ISLAND OF GREAT BRITAIN.-q£154. 6. s.

Totals:--Wheat, 5370-3/4 bushels.
Rye, 7322-3/4 "
Corn, l7,673%- 3"
Ship-stuffs, 85 " 132 bbls. 303 cwt. 2 qrs. 18 lbs.
Flour, 1762 bbls. 3499 cwt. 6 qrs. 41 lbs.
Indian meal, 5 hhds. 30 cwt.
Malt, 13% bushels.
Rice, 722% casks, 375,987 lbs.
Beans, 16 bushels.
Peas, 1 hhd. 169% bushels.
Ship Bread, 1 hhd. 24 tierces, 138 bbls., 226 cwt.
1 qr. 24 lbs.
Sheep, 3013.
Oxen, 117.
Hogs, 23
Mutton, ll qrs.
Rye Flour 222% bbls. 416 cwt. 3 qrs. 9 lbs.
Pork, 194' bbls. & 283 lbs.
Beef, 4 bbls. & 1087 lbs.
Fish, 228 quintals.
Oil, 53 galls.
Butter, 34 firkins, & 2041 lbs.
- Cheese, 1739% lbs.
wood, 366% cords.
" 165 cart loads.
Flax, 453 lbs.
Sheeps Wool, 3 lbs.
Hay, 1 ton.
Tobacco, 26 lbs.
Shoes, men's 38 prs.; women's 20; children's 8.
Stockings, 2 airs.
Potatoes, 146 bush.
Cabbages, 120.
Turnips, 2 bush.
Balm, 10 lbs.
Sage, 10 lbs.
Pink Flowers, fi'lb.
Check, 8% yrds.
Check Hdkfs. 1.
Mooseskin Breeches, 1 pr.
Foot Spinning Wheels, 1.
Iron.Sho€bs, 2.
Nailrod Iron, 6 tons.
Bar Iron, 4 tons.
Cocoa, 2 cwt. 2 qrs.

107

Cash :

From.the Colonies, &c., JP6765.
A balance received from.a committee of

the General Court appointed to take

care of the donations sent after the

town of Boston was shut up and before 218.
the committee of donations could meet

at Whtertown.

From Hon. John Hancock, rec 'd from

sundry gentlemen while in Congress in

1777 2500 dollars. 750.

15. 0%

l7. 5

 

4‘7734.

108

12. 5%

BIBLIOGRAPHY
SOURCES

One type at source material that was important to
this study was the writings and works of some of the peo-
ple who lived in America during the period under consid-
eration. A variety of reactions were obtained and many
different motives were revealed through the use of these
sources.

New England was represented by excellently edited
works. John Adams, The Works 93 {ghn Adana, 10 Vols.,
Charles Francis Adams, ed., (Boston, 1850); gghg‘ggg
{235 Quincy Agamg, A. Koch and W. Peden, eds., (New

York, 1946), and Samuel Adams, The Writings 2; Samuel

 

édgmg, 4 Vols., Harry Alonzo Cashing, ed., (New York,
1907), were used to gain the reactions of the great Adams
family. John Andrews, Letters g; ,1th Andrews, 353., 91
Boston, 1772-1776, Winthrop Sargent, ed., (Cambridge,
1866) gave the reactions of a prominent Boston business-
man. The comments of a British official were contained
1352; Thomas Hutchinson, Esg., Peter Orlando Hutchinson,
(Boston, 1884).

In the middle colonies an important source of personal
reactions was John Dickinson, ghg_Writing§52£'gghg Elsi:
igggg_l764-l774, Paul Leicester Ford, ed., (Philadelphia,

1895). The reactions of a most famous representative of

the Middle Colonies came from.Benjamin Franklin, The
Writings ggiBenjandn Franklin, 10 Vols., Albert Henry
Smyth, ed., (New York, 1907). This is a very well edited
work. The reactions of a British official were presented
in William.Johnson,iggg Papers 2£_§13.William.Johnson,
9 Vols., Alexander C. Flick, ed., (Albany, 1933). An
important source for this period was Caesar Rodney,
Letters _t_o_ and from Caesar Rodney, 1756-1784, (Phila-
delphia, 1933).

The South was not lacking in important works repre-
senting opinions on the Port Bill. Patrick Henry,
Patrick H3231 _l_._i_i_‘g, Correspondence, and S eeches, 3 V018.,
William.Wirt Henry, (New York, 1891) was a useful while
not entirely complete work. A standard source was Thomas
Jefferson, 222 Writings ggiThomas Jefferson, 10 Vols.,
Paul Leicester Ford, ed., (New York, 1892). A sample of
Jefferson's work in this period was obtained in Thomas
Jefferson, _A_ Summary 1131 9; £13 Rigts 9_f_ British America,
Scholar's Facsimilies and Reprints, (New Yerk, 1943).
Richard Henry Lee, Thg_Letters gngichard gggry Leg, 2 VOlS.,
James Curtis Ballach, ed., (New York, 1911) supplied much
in the way of many diverse comments because of Richard
Henry Lee's wide correspondence. An important collection
and well edited source was George Washington, IEE.EEEEEEEE
23 George Washington from.thg Original Manuscript EEBEEEE»
1745-1799, 39 Vols., John C. Fitzpatrick, ed., (Washington,

 

1931).

Two collected letter source books were: Margaret

Wheeler Wellard, Letters 22 the American Revolution 1774-

 

1225, and the excellent example of a completely scholarly
Job of editorship, Edmund Cody Burnett, Letters 23.E2§f
'2333 of the Continental Congress, 8 Vols., (Washington,
1921).

A history written by a comtemporary was Mercy Warren,
History 22.222.3132' Progress, and gprmination 22.122.
American Revolution, 3 Vols., (Boston, 1805).

The official records that were available were the
publications of the various levels of government which
were indications of reactions on their respective levels.
These reactions varied from speeches and debates and for-
mal resolves passed by vote. The size of the vote was
one measure of the depth of the sentiment expressed in
the resolutions. The volumes published under the sus-
pices of the states and of fairly recent publication are
the more complete works.

Bartlett, John Russell, ed., Records of the Colon of
Rhode Island and the ProvidenEE—PTEEtEEiEEE'IE_NE%'—-

.‘ Efiglfindj—IU—Vols.,‘(PrdVidence, 1862). -_'-"'

Boston Record Commission,;A Report 2; the Record Commis-

sioners of the 9.111 91‘, oston Containing 3h; 11919 52293115.:
m.7(8‘6§ton, 1876-190 .

1 Bouton, Nathaniel, ed., Provincial Pa ers Documents and

Records Relating tg_the Province g; yew Hampalireffrom
1754 to , Nathaniel Bouton, ed., (Nas ua, ).

 

 

Candler, Allen D., ed., The Revolutionary Records 23 the
State 2: Georgia, 3 Vols., (Atlanta, 1908 .

'Delaware, State of, Delaware Archives, 5 Vols., (Wil-
mington, 1919).

Flick, Alexander 0. ed., Minutes of the AlbanyCommittee

of Corres ondence 1775-1778, Minut88‘2:_the Schenectady
Emma - 79“, 2 Vols., (Albany, 1932 ).

Hoadly, Charles J., ed., The Public Records 33 the Colony
2; Connecticut, 15 Vols., (Hartford, I887).

 

Kennedy, John Pendelton, ed., Journals 2: the House 22
Burgesses, (Richmond, 1905).

 

New Jersey, State of, Archives of the State g£_New Jersey,
First Series, 41 Vols.,"‘('N‘e"—‘Ewar ,‘Is”"86-1917 . "'"

New Jersey, State of, Nunutes 22 the Provincial Congress
and the Council gf_Safety‘2£ the State g3 New Jersey,
(Trenton, 1879).

North Carolina, state of, The Colonial Records 22 North
Carolina, 30 Vols., (Raleigh, 1890).

O'Callaghan, E. B. ed., Documents Relative to the Colonial
History of the State of New York, I4 VoIs.,-TAIEany, 1857).

Pennsylvania, State of, Minutes g£_the Provincial Council
of Pennsylvania, from the Organization to the TerminatIon
§IZPh9 Proprietary Government, 16 Vels., (Harrliburg, 1852).

Pennsylvania, State of, Pennsylvania Archives, Fifth series,
15 Vols., (Harrisburg, 1905).

Plymouth, Massachusetts, Town of, Records g£,the Town
2; Plymouth, 3 7018., (Plymouth, 1903).

Collections have been made by various historical
societies and aSsociations which were a valuable supple-
ment to other source material. Many different types of
information were collected by these groups, which extend
from diaries, letters, and official proclamations to some
personal anecdotal accounts. The material included in
the collections was not limited strictly to material orig-

inating in the particular home state of the society but

often material was presented purely for its historical value.
The most fruitful source published in the North East
was Massachusetts historical Society, Massachusetts Hist-

orical Society Proceedings, 3 Series of 20 Vols., (Bos-

 

ton, 1791-1883, 1884-1907, 1907-1944). Another publica-

tion of collections that were most often used was Massa-
chusetts Historical Society, Collections pf the Massachu-
§33£§_Historical Society, 79 Vols., (Boston, 1794-1941).
some illustration of the value of this publication is that
such important sources as the "Bowdoin and Temple Papers",

and Warren-Adams Letters, 2 7018., The New England Hist-

 

 

oric, Genealogical Society, ESE Epgland historical and
Genealogical Register, 101 Vols., (Boston, 1847-1948) is
another good source of information on American History.
Carrying on the New England tradition was the Connecticut
Historical Society, Collections p£.ppp Connecticut 2122f
orical Society, 25 Vols., (Hartford, 1860-1948).

The middle states historical societbsalso published
important collections. The New York Historical Society,

Collections pf the New York Historical Society, 82 V018.,

 

(New York, 1866-1942) published the following sources

that were used in this study: Th3 23323 Pa ers, 5 7019.,
Egg Golden Letter gppkp, Tpg Letters 223 Papers 2; Cadwal-
3393; Golden, 7 Vols., and "The Papers of Charles Thomson,
Secretary of the Continental Congress." The Historical

Society of Pennsylvania, Memoirs 33 the Historical Society

 

3: Pennsylvania, 14 Vols., (Philadelphia, 1864-1895)

Charles J. Stillé, The Life and Times p£_John Dickinson,

 

1732-1808, 2 Vols., (Philadelphia, 1891) is a most famous

 

life of Dickinson.

The southern states do not seem to have as an elab-
orate historical society organization as the north east
and middle parts of the Atlantic coast. The South was re-
presented in this classification by Georgia nistorical

Society, Collections 9; the Georgia Historical Society,

 

9 Vols.,(Savannah, 1840-1916). This work is in no way as
complete as the other collections and the evidence that
only nine volumes were published during its history shows
that it is not a large source.

There are various edited collections of source
materials in American History which were of use in this
study. Two of the best edited source books for the
colonial period are Peter Force, American Archives,
fourth series, 6 Vols., (Washington, 1837), and H. Niles,
Principles and Acts 33 the “evolution ip America, (Balti-
more, 1822). Some other valuable source collections were:

Commager, Henry Steele, Documents 2; American History,
(New York, 1948).

 

Hart, Albert B., American History Told py_Contemp0raries,
4 Vols., (New York, 1898).

 

 

MacDonald, billiam, Documentary Source Book.p£ American
History, (New York, 1926).

 

Historical magazines also make available sources that

might not be easily obtained otherwise. The best maga-
zines for use in the colonial period are the Historical
Society of Pennsylvania, The Pennsylvania Magazine 23_

Histogy and BiOgraphy, 72 Vols., (Philadelphia, 1877-

 

1948) and William and Mary College, William 933 W
College Quarterl , Vols., (Richmond, ). A.maga-
zine of early sources is Samuel Hazard, ed., The_Register
2; Pennsylvania, 16 Vols., (Philadelphia, 1828-1835).
Other magazines of history that are useful sources or
leads to sources are:

Maryland Historical Society, Maryland Historical Magazine,
20 Vols., (Baltimore, 1906-1925):

Tyler, Lyon G., Tyler's uarterl Historical and Genea-
logical Magazine, 50 Vols., Richmond, 1918:1545).

 

Virginia Historical Society, The Virg_niam m azine
History and Biography, 56 Vols., (Richmond, E8 895-I918).

 

SECONDARY WORKS

Many state histories exist that can be utilized for
guides to sources or provide important background material.
Some of these histories are not of high scholarship nor
are they free from enthusiasm that leads to considerable
bias. host of these books quote from records or other
sources and thus enable a careful reader to make consider-
able use of them. Generally, the later published state

histories are of higher quality than the earlier works.

Footnoting is more prevalent in the later histories which
makes them more useful as guides to sources or other im-
portant works.

American Historical Society, nistory 2£_Vir§inia, 6 Vols.,
(Chicago & New York, 1924).

Barber, John Earner, Connecticut Historical Collections,
(New Haven, 1838).

Balknap, Jeremy, The Histogy 2f New Hampshire, 3 Vols.,
(Dover, 1812).

 

Bell Landon C., The Old Free State, 2 Vols., (Richmond,
'1927 e

 

Browne, William hand, hagyland the History gg'g'Palati-
nate, (Boston, 1884).

 

Campbell, Charles, histor 2; the Colony and Ancient
Dominion g£_Virginia, P 1 adelphia, 1866).

Cornell, William.Mason, The History_g§_Pennsylvania from
Earliest Qiscovery 33 the Present Time, (Philadelphia,

 

 

Day, Sherman, Historical Collections 2; the State 22_
Pennsylvania, (Philadelphia, 1843).

 

 

Hollister, G. H. The History g£_Connecticut, 2 Vols.,
(New Haven, 1835 .

 

Howe, Henry, Historical Collections 2; Vir inia,
(Charleston, 1847).

Howison, Robert n., nistorngg Vir inia, 2 Vols., (Rich-
mond, 1848).

Jones, Charles C., The History g§_Geor ia, (Boston, 1883).

 

 

Lee, Francis Bazley, New Jersey §§_g Colony and gg‘g State,
4 Vols., (New York, 1953 .

McCrady, Edward, The Histor' g3 South Carolina Under Royal
Government 1719-1776, New York, 1901).

 

Mleord, Isaac 8., Civil and Political history g£_New
Jersey, (Phildelphia, 1861)T_

 

Ramsay, David, The Histo gg South Carolina from its
First Settlement In 0 §2_the Year 1808,—2'VoIs.,
(Charleston, 1809):.

 

 

Scharf, J. Thomas, History gngaryland, 3 Vols., (Balti-
more, 1879).

 

. Histor 2: western Mar land 2 Vols.
(philadelphia, 1882)T"“l; --————-——_l;___g ,

stevens, William Baron, A history 91:0eorgia 2 Vols.
(Philadelphia, 1839). ’ '

University of the State of’New York, The American Revolu-
tion.ig New York, (Albany, 1926).

Secondary works of use in creating the background and
locating sources were, Curtis P. Nettles, The_ggggs 9;
American Civihzation, (New York, 1945), one of the out-
standing works on colonial history, and John C. Miller,
Origins 23,323 American Revolution, (Boston, 1943), which
proved to be the most detailed secondary works in this
period. Miller used a great number of sources and covered
the period very carefully. Arthur Meier Schlesinger,

"The Uprisings Against the East India Company" Riitical

science Quarterly, (March, 1912) provides much material

 

on the East India Company and its part in the passage of
the Townshend tax. In William Beer, Checklist g; Ameri-

can Periodicals, 1741-1800, (Worcester, 1923) the perti-

 

nent magazines in the period are listed. A recall of con-
siderable study of the Continental Congress is Edmund
Cody Burnett, Th2 Continental Congress, (New York, 1941).
other works of somewhat lesser importance to this study

were:

Bonney, Catharina, A_Legacy 2; historical Gleanings, 2
Vols., (Albany, 1875).

Etting, Frank M., An Historical Account of the Old State
House of PennsylvaETa Now Known a§_the H511 9:_Independ€nce,

(BostoET'1876).

Harrell, Isaac Samuel, Loyalism.in|Vir inia, (Durham,
1926).

Hart, Albert Bushnell, Commonwealth Histogy‘2£_Massachu-
setts, 5 Vols., (New YorEIY1927).

Homes, Abiel, The Annals gf_America from the Discovery
§y_Columbus in the Year 1492 £g_the Year 1826, 2 Vols.,
(Cambridge, 1829).

Howard, George Elliott, Preliminaries g£_the Revolution,
1763-1775, (New York & London, 1905).

 

The following is a list of the town and county his-
tories that were used to obtain local reactions to the
Port Bill. Very few of these works are wdmhy of inclus-
ion.as critical historical works, or even as sound liter-
ary compositions; they redeem themselves by the fact that
they quote extensively from.town or county records which
makes those sources available for analysis. Many of these
books are the work of retired ministers or doctors who in
their last years hoped to make some contribution to the
cultural life of their communities. A virtual outcrOp-
ping of these local histories came about in the late
nineteenth century.

Adams, Sherman and Henry R, Stiles, The History 9_f_
Ancient Wethersfield Connecticut, 2 Vols.,(NewYork,

 

 

Allen, Francis Olcott, The History g: Enfield Connecticut,
3 Vols., (Lancaster, 1900).

Anderson, Joseph, The Town and City of Waterbury, Connect-
icut, From the Aboriginal Period 32 the Year Eighteen
Hundred and Ninety-five, 3 Vols., (New Haven, 18 6 .

 

Babson, John J., History of the Town of Gloucester, Ca e
Ann, Including the Town or“h_oo"kp—ort, T'dloueester, 1 so .

 

Barry, John 8., A nistoricalSketch 2; the Town of Hanover,
Massachusetts, witthamily—Genealogies, (Boston,_I863).

 

Barry, William, A_Histor g: Framingham, Massachusetts,
Including the Plan atlon, from 1640 32 the Present Time,
(Boston, 1847).

 

 

Bell, Charles Henry, histor 23 the Town.g£,Exeter, New
Hampshire, (Boston, 1888).

 

Bicknell, Thomas Williams, Agflistory g£_Barrington Rhode
Island, (Providence, 1898).

 

Bliss, Leonard, The Histor of Rehoboth, Bristol County
Massachusetts, (Boston, I836)? ’

 

Bowen, Clarence Winthrop, The Histor a; Woodstock, Conn-
ecticut, 8 Vols., (Norwood, I926)”

Butler, Caleb, Histogy g; the Town 3; Groton, Including
Pepperell and Sh rle rom the First Grant 2: Groton
Plantationig I655, (Boston, I848 .

Caulkins, Frances Manwaring, fiistor gjiNorwich Connecti-
cut from its Possession.2y the Indians 33 ihe Year I866,
(Harti 0rd, 1875) e

 

 

, History pg New London, Conn-
ecticut, (New London, 1895).

Chandler, Seth, History 2; the Town g£_Shirle , Massachu-
setts from its Ear_y Settlement 33 A.D. I882, (FiEcEBurg,
Clayton, W. Woodford and William Nelson, Histo of Ber an
and Passaic Counties, New Jerse , (PhiladeIphia, I882).
Cochrane, W. R. and George K. Wood, Histcry .c_f___ Francestown,
New Hampshire, (Nashua, 1893).

 

Cogswell, Elliott C., Histor 22 Nottingham, Deerfield, and
Northwood, (Manchester, I878).

 

Corey, Delorahe Pendre, The History g£_Malden massachusetts
1633-1785, (Cambridge, 1789 ).

 

Cothren, William, Histor g§_Ancient Woodbury, Connecti-
cut, from the First ndian Dead 13 I65 _9 871, 2 VoIs.,
(Waterbury, I87I).

 

 

Cummings, George Wyckoff, history 2; Warren County, New
Jersey, (New York, 1911).

Egle, William,flenry, History of the Counties g£.Dau hin
and bebanon in the Commonwealihlgg Pennsylvania, (Phila-

mphlzr'rsen.*

Ellis Franklin, Histo 23 Fayette Count Pennsylvania
(Philadelphia, le—T‘flsz . ' . '

 

 

, Histo 22 Monmouth County New Jersey
(Philadelphia, le‘-)—‘llss . """—“" ' "‘" '

Fitchburgh, Town of, The Old Records g§_the Town of Fitch-
burgh Massachusetts 176Z-I789, (Flichburg, 1898).

of Barnstable Count and 9__ 3 Severe owns, IncIuE ng
ifie District 2: Mesfi ee, 2 VoIs., (Bosion, 60).

Freetown, Town of, A Histor g£_Freetown, massachusetts
with an Account of ihe 51d Home Festival, (Fall River,

I902Y7"‘—""""-"'""-_"

Frothingham, Richard, The History sf Charlestown, Massa-
chusetts, (Boston, 1845).

Freeman, Frederick, The History gija e Cod: The Annals

Futhey, J. Smith and Gilbert Cope, Histor 23 Chester
County, Pennsylvania, (Philadelphia, I88I).

Gage, Thomas, The Histogy g; Rowley Anciently Including
Bradford, Bo ford, and Geor~etown rom t ear 6 _g
the Presen me, (Boston, I848).

Hain, H. H. Histor g; Perry County, Pennsylvania, (Har-
risburg, 1922 .

Hall, Clayton Colman, Baltimore its History and its People,
3 Vols., (New York & Chicago,l912).

Hall, Edwin, The Ancient Historical Records 2: Norwalk,
Connecticut, (Norwaik, I847).

Hanson, Willis T., é Histor 23 Schenectady During the
Revolution, (New York, 1916).

 

Hazen, Henry A., History 2: Billerica, Massachusetts,
(Boston, 1883).

Hingham, Town of, Histogy s; the Town gfiHin ham, Mass-
achusetts, 3 Vols., (Cam ridge, 1893 .

History 3; Allerhen County, Pennsylvania, A warner and
Company, puEIisher, (Chicago,1889).

 

 

Histoyy g£_Franklin Counyy, Pennsylvania, Warner, Beers
an Company, publisher, (Chicago, 1887).

History of Montgomery and fulton Counties, New York F. W.
Beers and—Company, (New Yerk, I878). '

 

 

Honeyman, A. Van Doren, History g£_Union Count New Jersey
1664-1923, 3 Vols., (New York & Chicago, I923).

 

Hudson, Charles, History‘s: the Town sf Lexington; Middle-
sex County, Massac usetts from its First Settlement is.
I868, (Boston, 1868).

Huntington, E. B., History 9: Stamford, Connecticut, from
its Settlement in 16 o the Present Time, Including
Darien, (StamToPH, I868)?

 

Jameson, E. 0., The History 23 Medway, Massachusetts 1813 is
1885, (Providence, 1886).

 

 

Jodd, Sylvester, Histogy gngddley Including the Early
History 23 Hatfie , South Hadle Amherst and Granby,
Massachusetts, (Springfield, I905)

Johnston, George, History 23 Cecil County, Maryland,
(Elkton, 1881).

Kilbourne, Payne Kenyon, Sketches and Chronicles of the

Town 93 Litchfield, Conneéticut, (Hartford, 1859).

Lamb Martha J., History 2; the City d? New York; its
Origin, Rise, and Pro ress, 8 Vols.,'FNew York and Chicago,

Larned Ellen D., Histor 2; Windham Count , Connecticut,
2Vols:, (Worceste—T—xr, sec). """"_

Levermore, Charles H., Tne Republic 93_Nsw Haven, (Balti-
more, 1886). ”

 

Linn, John Blair, Annals 93 Buffalo Valley, Pennsylvania,
1755-1855, (Harrisburg, 1877). .,

 

Hathews, Alfred, Histogy‘gg Wayne, Pike and Monroe Counties,
Pennsylvania, (Philadelphia, 1886).

MontgomerY, Morton L., Histor of Berks Count in Penns 1-
12122, (Philadelphia, lé‘tfifi’l - -———- ____1 __ y

Morris County, New Jersey, w. W. Munsell and Company,

(New Yor , 882).

Nelson, William, Histor of the Cit of Paterson and
the Counjyg§_Passaic New—Tersey, (PaiErson, 1901).

 

 

Onderdonk, Henry, Documents and Letters Intended lg Illus-
trate the Revolutionasy Incidents sffaueens Counsy, (New

York, I816).

Crcutt, Samuel and Ambrose Beardsley, The Histor g§_the
Old Town of Derby, Connecticut, 1642-1880, (Dpringfield,

I880TT""—'

Orcutt, Samuel, A History 2: the Old Town sf Stratford and
the City 33 Bridgeport, onnecticut, 2 Vols.,(New Haven,
1886')“. ""

 

 

 

 

 

, History of the Towns of New Milford and

Bridgswater, Connecticut—I78831w882, (Hartford, 1882).

 

Paige, Lucius, History gg'Cambridgs, Massachusetts, (Bos-
ton, 1877).

, History of harwick, Massachusetts, (New

 

York, 1883).

Pendleton Wilhhm C., Histor g: Tazewell Count and
Southwest'Virginia lM‘T—le- 920, (Rimchmond, 1—T1920 . ""
Pierce, Frederick Clifton, History of Grafton, Worcester

County Massachusetts from its EarlnyettIement 2y the
Indians in 1647 to the Present Time, 1879. (Worcester,

1879TT"""—'—""—_"'—'_—-—'

 

Riker, James, The Annals of Newtown, yn‘gnaens Counsy,

New York, (New YorE, I852)?

Roads, Samuel, Jr., The History and gsadtions QEDMarble-’
head, (Marbelhead, 1897).

Sanderson, Howard Kendall, Lynn is the Revolution Compilsd
from Notes, (Boston, 1909).

Sanford and Company, publisher, Historical Album.g£
Orleans County, New York, (New York, 1879).

Scharf, J. Thomas and Thompson Westcott, Histor of
Philadelphia 1609-1884, 3 Vols., (PhiladeY—Jphia, 1884).

Schenck, Elizabeth Hubbell, The Histor of Fairfiehi,
Fairfield Coun_y, Connecticut, From I780— to 1800, 2 Vols.,

 

Schoonmaker, Marius, The History of Kingston, New York,
(New York, 1888).

 

 

Shattuck, Lemuel, A History of the Town of Concord
Middlesex County, Massachusetts, (Boston, 18 88).

Sherman, Andrew My, historic Morristown, New Jersey, (Mor-
ristown, 1905).

Smith, George, Histor 23 Delaware County, Pennsylvania,
(Philadelphia, I882).

Smith, H. P., History 2; Broome Count , (Syracuse, 1885).

Smith, J. E. A., The Histoyy gijittsfield, Massachusetts
From the Year 1734 to the ear 1800, (Boston, 1869).

 

Snell, James P., History of Sussex and warren Counties,
New Jersey, (Philadelphia, ’188I).

Starbuck, Alexander, The Histor of Nantucket, Count ,
Island and Town, (Boston, I924).—

Stark, Charles Rathbone, Groton, Connecticut 1705-1905,
(Stonington, 1922).

Stiles Henry R., The Histor and Genealogies of Ancient
Windsor, Connecticut, 8 VoIs., (Hartford, 1891)T'

Summers, Lewis Preston, Histor of Southwest Vir inia,
1746-1786, Washington County 77- —1878, (Richmong, I903).

Taylor, Charles J., History of Great Barrington, Massachu-
setts, (Great Barrington, 1882).

Tilton, George H., A Histor of Rehoboth Massachusetts
its History_ for 275 Years I84331918, (Boston, 1918).

Torrey, Rufus Campbe11,H mtory of the Town of Fitchburg

Massachusetts Comprising 180 a to of Lunenber ,
f:‘m‘itsfl First Settlement to the Year 764, (F it EEEarg,

1865).

 

Temple, Josiah H., History_ of rraminghmm‘massachusetts
Early Known as Danforth 8 Farms 1640-1880, (Framingham,

I887).

 

 

 

Trumbull, James Russell, Histo g£_Northampton Massachu-
setts From its Settlement _n 654, 2 vols., (Northampton,
I952).

 

 

 

 

Trumbull, James Hammond, The Memorial Histor 9£_Hartford
County Connecticut, 2 Vols., (Boston, 1886).

Warfield, J. D., The Founders 2; Anne Arundel and uoward
Counties, Maryland, (Baltimore, 1905).

 

 

Waters, Wilson, History 2: Chelmsford, Massachusetts,
(Lowell, 1917).

 

Watertown, Mass., Town of, Jatertown's military History,
(Boston, 1907).

Wayland, John W., é history 22 Hockingham County, Vir inia,
(Dayton, 1912).

Westervelt, Francis A., History of Bergen County, New
Jersey 1630-1923, 3 Vols., (New YBrk & Chicago, 1923).

 

 

Weston, Thomas, History of the Town 23 luiddle boro Massachu-
setts, (Boston & ew York? 1906).

Wheeler, Richard Anson, History 2; the Town g§.Stonington,
County 2;.New London, Connecticut, New London, 1900 .

Wickes, Stephen, Histor of the Oranges in Essex Cainty,
New Jersey, (Newark, 18%2T7

 

Wilcoxson, William Howard, Histor 9}: §tratford, Connecti-
cut 1639-1939, (Bridgeport, I939).

MY 3 '54

J0 \b '54

”‘r 1 :5?

’ABRaS-~~}gai__§;

uF5 _' " "Ii":
"WT—7“" moi m

‘A' “‘;...“-e‘ ‘— ‘ “a.

V. _, I ~ :I "l ‘
'3‘ 1"“: 1.0.1:" .-— ‘3 "Ln {2’5 I

 

 

 

ICHIGRN STRTE UNIV. LIBRQRIES

I II” III II"! II
9

 

312 3010572919