Two months had passed since a group of Baltimore merchants called for a meeting in Annapolis to consider whether Maryland should continue enforcing a strict boycott of certain British imports in hopes of pressuring Parliament to repeal its tax on tea. If traders in other colonies were getting back to business as usual, they reasoned, why shouldn’t Marylanders?
The resulting October 25, 1770 gathering at Anne Middleton’s tavern affirmed strong collective support for the nonimportation Association and lambasted the Baltimoreans for their “indecent and inconsistent Message to this Meeting,” their “shameful Disregard … to the most sacred Rights and Liberties of America,” and their attempt “to destroy that Union and good faith so necessary at this, and at all Times for the Safety and constitutional Rights of these Colonies.” Ouch!
Now, one of those publicly shamed merchants felt duty-bound to defend his honor. Ebenezer Mackie’s letter in the December 6th Maryland Gazette aimed to counter the “very unjust and illiberal Charges” levelled against him and his fellows. Quoting the character Iago in Shakespeare’s Othello, Mackie wrote:
“Who steals my Purse steals Trash; 'tis something, nothing;
’Twas mine, ’tis his, and has been Slave to Thousands;
But he that filches from me my good Name,
Robs me of that which not enriches him,
And makes me poor indeed.”
The central argument of Mackie’s letter was that businessmen like him, not the broader population of colonial consumers, had shouldered the real burden of the economic strategy to bring about political change. “Liberty is what we are all contending for,” he wrote, and Baltimore merchants had proven “their Readiness to do what lay in their Power, to obtain that constitutional Liberty which the Colonies were so justly contending for.” They were happy to do their part as long as there was reasonable hope for a repeal of the tea tax, but it made no sense to continue the boycott when that was no longer the case. After competitors in other American cities “broke through their Associations,” Baltimore merchants would be fools “to rob our Employers and Families of the Profits on a considerable Branch of our Business” by continuing to restrict their own commercial activities.
According to Mackie, traders were tired of sacrificing their personal liberty and economic interests “to benefit a Set of Men, who risk nothing in the common Cause, by putting it out of their Power to purchase Luxuries, which they are afraid they would not have Virtue or publick Spirit enough to refuse” were such items readily available for purchase. Why not let the market itself help encourage good behavior among the wider populace? Allow merchants to import what they would. If patriotic consumers refused to buy certain luxury goods, traders “will not continue to import what they cannot sell.”
Ebenezer Mackie proudly claimed to be “as warm a Friend to the Liberties of America as any Person in it,” and he was confident that his own efforts “to bring about a Repeal of the offensive Act” would compare favorably to those of “some Gentlemen met at Mrs. Middleton’s, who have never sacrificed one Farthing of their Property in the common Cause, but, on the contrary, have been considerably benefited.” He and his fellow merchants had “generously sacrificed a considerable Part of their Fortunes in the glorious Struggle” up to this point, but it was time to acknowledge the realities of the situation and chart a more pragmatic course by “following the Example of their Brethren to the Northward, and going into a general Importation.” Continuing the strict Association was unlikely to win the “desired Effect” of a parliamentary repeal of the tea tax at this point.
Read the December 6, 1770 issue of the Maryland Gazette starting here: https://msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc4800/sc4872/001281/html/m1281-1181.html
Glenn E. Campbell
HA Senior Historian
コメント