Volume 3, Chapter 38 The Non-Importation Movement Begins
The arrogant encroachments of the Townsend Acts immediately rekindled American resistance to
British oppression. With the exception of tea, much of which was handled by the British East India
Company, the commodities taxed by the Townsend Act were all manufactured products imported almost
The Americans therefore decided to employ the non-importation weapon, which had proved so effective in pressuring the British merchants to have the stamp tax repealed.
A non-importation boycott promised to be the best means of fighting the towns and duties as well.
Boston, the major port for reception of the newly taxed goods, was a natural point of
origin for the resistance, and this vigilant and libertarian-oriented town did not disappoint
anyone's expectations.
The first public resistance came in the Boston town meeting of October 28, 1767, led by James
Otis.
The meeting drew up a lengthy list of British products that Americans were to pledge themselves
not to purchase after the end of the year. Colonists were to patronize local manufacturing
instead. Copies of the resolutions were sent to all the towns in Massachusetts and to the
principal towns in the other colonies. Twenty-four Massachusetts towns backed Boston's action
This original phase of the non-importation movement was organized by Massachusetts town meetings and pledged to the public not to consume certain British imports. These actions were partially spurred by a commercial depression triggered by the restrictions and the lack of access to the public.
and Burdens of the Townsend Acts. Clearly, they would help those caught by the Depression
to retrench their expenses and hence their purchases of imported goods.
Massachusetts towns were not alone in following Boston's example. Rhode Island, in fact,
not only followed, but went one better. On December 2, a Providence town meeting pledged
Most of the town's merchants not to import a list of imported goods after the first of
the year.
Such a pledge of a non-importation boycott by merchants was far more concrete and finely
edged and far easier to maintain than a vague and unwieldy pledge by the mass of consumers.
Providence's action was really the first effective move for a mercantile boycott to pressure
for England for repeal. Any merchant failing to sign or to conform to the boycott was himself
to be boycotted by the people. Two days later, Newport followed suit and then small Rhode
Island towns. In Connecticut, town meetings led by Norwich adopted non-consumption agreements
after the pattern of Boston's. Historians have made much of the fact that popular resistance
to the Townsend duties early took the form of boycott agreements, whereas resistance
to the Stamp Act had stressed armed rebellion. This has been interpreted as a significantly
conservative shift led by merchants fearful of popular mob actions. But this view ignores
the crucial difference between the two threats. The Stamp Tax, being internal to all colonial
All colonial transactions had to be fought by dismantling the new Stamp Act bureaucracy
and then immobilizing the stamped paper.
This could be done only by the armed action of the aroused people.
But the towns and levees reverted to the more orthodox import duties, and early mob action
would have been pointless.
What was needed now was mercantile action, smuggling in defiance of the duties and boycott
pressure on English merchants.
Mob violence at that point would have been ineffectual and even absurd, and hence was
not embarked upon.
As would soon be seen, neither the American liberal leaders nor the public had become
more timid or conservative since the Stamp Crisis.
Different methods of oppression simply called for different means of resistance.
The change was one of tactics, not of spirit.
As in the case of the Stamp Act, popular local action was supplemented by petitions and resolutions
of the assemblies.
A clarion call was sounded in the form of a letter drawn up by the indefatigable Samuel
Adams and presented to the Massachusetts General Court.
Adopted on February 11, 1768, the missive was sent out as a circular letter to the assemblies
of all the other colonies.
The letter acknowledged the power of parliament to regulate the colonies, but categorically
denied any power of taxation, internal or external.
Furthermore, not only the constitutional, but the natural rights of Americans were charged
to have been violated by such a tax, because the doctrine of consent to taxation was an
unalterable right in nature, ingathered into the British Constitution.
Hence the Townsend duties were spurned, along with any move to make executive, including
judicial, offices independent of assembly appropriations, and United Action was called
for.
The Massachusetts circular letter was approved by the assemblies of New Hampshire, New Jersey,
Connecticut, Maryland, Virginia, Georgia and South Carolina during the spring and summer,
and Virginia reinforced it by a circular letter of its own against British taxation.
Another powerful and widely influential statement of the American case against the towns and
Townsend Duties was delivered by the eminent leader of the Pennsylvania liberals, the young
lawyer John Dickinson.
Dickinson's Letters from a Farmer appeared in the Pennsylvania Chronicle around the turn
of the year 1767-68.
It denied the right of any parliamentary taxation and hence of the Townsend Duties, although
Dickinson also called for a determined non-importation campaign to effect repeal of the Townsend taxes.
It soon became clear that official petitions and individual protest and even uncoordinated
After several meetings, almost every merchant and trader of New York agreed to import no British goods after October 1, 1768, and on tail repeal of the Townsend duties, provided that Boston continued its boycott and Philadelphia concurred.
The city of Philadelphia, scarcely hit by the trade depression, was more heavily ridden with Tories than any other city in the American colonies. Here the Tory machine of Joseph Galloway was in control and was able to overrule John Dickinson.
During meetings in Philadelphia in March and April 1768, Dickinson eloquently reminded
the merchants of the numerous attempts by Great Britain to cripple the trade and the
nascent manufacturing of the colonies. The towns and acts were an invasion of liberty,
and liberty, property and industry went hand in hand. Therefore, Dickinson urged the merchants
is to forgo present advantage for principle and for long run self-interest, but the Philadelphia
merchants taking their cue from Galloway remained unmoved and the great and imaginative project
for a non-importation league of merchants from the leading American cities collapsed.
Boston's betrayal was a severe blow to the colonial cause.
Notwithstanding, nearly all the merchants of Boston fearlessly agreed on August 1 to
go it alone and to discontinue imports of all goods from Great Britain for the entire
year of 1769, as well as imports of all goods on the Townsend duty list until those duties
were repealed.
The heroic example of Boston's merchants inspired others.
Soon, the merchants of Salem, Plymouth and other towns followed suit.
On August 27, the New York merchants decided to go far beyond their Boston confrères.
Almost unanimously, they agreed to cease all importation after November 1, 1768, and until
All the Townsend duties were repealed. Any subscribing merchants violating the agreement
would be publicly designated enemies to their country. Furthermore, the retail tradesmen
in New York signed an agreement to refuse to buy from any merchants who themselves refused
to sign or follow the merchants' agreement. The merchants of Albany and other towns of
The following April, New York's assembly on motion of Philip Livingston, merchant and
leader of the liberal wing of the landed oligarchy, voted its thanks to the New York merchants
for their patriotic decision for a boycott.
Once again in the fall of 1768, the merchants of Philadelphia were on the spot.
and once again they coolly ignored the pressure for a boycott and confined themselves to their
own petitions, supporting a request to England by the Pennsylvania Assembly for repeal of
the Townsend Act. Finally, however, the Philadelphia merchants pledged themselves to non-importation
effective next spring if the Townsend Act had not then been repealed. With no sign of
In mid-March of 1769, the great bulk of the Philadelphia merchants at last agreed to import virtually no goods from Great Britain after April 1, 1769, until the towns and duties should be repealed.
Any violator would be publicly stigmatized as an enemy of the liberties of America.
Thus, by the spring of 1769, the three great ports had joined in a boycott until repeal.
After a year of shilly-shallying, Philadelphia was at last permitting concerted American
and Pressure upon Great Britain.
The boycott movement was over the top.