The Articles of Association and the Smuggling Elite

"The King Drinks a Twelfth Night Feast," about 1645,
 by Jacob Jordaens.

by Sarah Lindecke

Twelfth Night of January 1775 likely looked different from past Twelfth Nights for the Schuylers. The political tension was unavoidable as American colonists faced numerous acts, foisted upon them by the English Parliament, restricting their purchasing of imported consumer goods, like sugar and tea. Combined with many colonists feeling over-taxed and over-burdened, many were pushed toward the idea of separating from England, though the sentiment was not universal. On top of these already tenuous conditions, goods and food normally used at the Schuylers’ lavish holiday celebrations had recently come under direct attack, too, but not by the British—by the colonists boycotting British import and export trade. Suddenly, the sugar, rum, Maderia, fancy silks for clothes, and even exotic fruits such as oranges, lemons, and pineapples, were off-limits… Unless the Schuylers crossed the boycott lines

Page 1 of the Articles of Association

The boycott came into effect through the Articles of Association, or the Continental Association, which was passed by the Continental Congress on October 20^th, 1774, and went into effect on December 1^st, 1774—just over a month before Twelfth Night. This set of Articles bound the colonies in unity under a non-importation/exportation agreement that banished all goods from or traded by England until the colonists’ demands for fairer treatment were met. The colonies wanted to significantly damage the financial strength England wielded over them through their import/export trade. The Association was also meant to promote the home-grown industry of the colonies to produce goods for local use. Local committees, known as Committees of Correspondence, were charged with enforcing the non-importation/exportation elements of the Articles while ensuring people were able to access necessities.

             Despite the unification felt by many colonists under the Articles, some of the wealthiest members of colonial society chose to forgo compliance with the Articles for their own comfort. Philip Schuyler [and his family were among those able to pick and choose how they wanted to comply or not comply with the new law. Though the family eventually became deeply involved with the rebels once the American Revolution began later in 1775, they were more interested in their own comfort and lavish lifestyle before joining the rebels. Many of the items they purchased for decoration, as well as for consumption, were imported. It was a status symbol to purchase a majority of goods from far flung lands, and the Schuylers were always concerned with status. They were personally and socially pressured to show off their wealth through the imports in their home and on their table.

             Unfortunately, access to imported merchant goods became complicated after the Articles of Association went into effect. The Schuylers were at a crossroads—adhere to the Articles and risk appearing common or find other ways to continue purchasing imported goods. A letter addressed to Philip Schuyler on January 1^st, 1775, from Ludlow Shaw & Ludlow, a trading company in New York City, hints at what lengths the Schuylers were willing to go to acquired now-blockaded goods. Ludlow wrote:

We hope the different parcells [sic] of goods we have Sent you up are got to hand _ and that they are aggregable to order _ the 10 hails we have a promise of which must remain here till the Spring, from the appearance of things we have no Expectation of any importation from great Brittain for a long timeIn a lengthy postscript, the Ludlow Shaw & Ludlow company further elucidates the relationship the Schuylers were building with them:

It is Customary with us from to time to time to give our Country Friends every Information we can respecting the price of prospect of Markets. For Grain for the Insuing [sic] Spring; our only fear s are that Government may put a stop to our Exports. Should that be cas [sic] great must be our distress_ but should not that take place … we think wheat will… be in good demand next Spring from the different advicses [sic] we have received _ But… we think in some measure to repay the Risk the purchases of Wheat Run they should take its in low _ Pott ash perhaps may be thought an object worthy your attention

"Vue de la Nouvelle Yorck" by Balthasar Friedrich Leizelt

This letter was sent to Philip Schuyler just a month after the Articles of Association went into effect, and it shows just how quickly plans were already being carried out to provide Schuyler with “parcells [sic] of goods.” To give the Schuylers and Ludlow benefit of the doubt, it’s possible these items were surplus goods that had been ordered by the company before the Articles went into effect, but were received shortly after the goods became banned. Over the months after the Articles went into effect, colonists seized trade goods and newspapers ran advertisements for auctions being held for the goods taken from British merchant ships. .While that is one way to explain the letter, it is just as likely that the Schuylers were making connections with Ludlow to continue receiving banned goods no matter how they were obtained. Unfortunately, because this letter also does not explicate what goods are being sent, it is difficult to know their provenance or how they were obtained. 

The postscript calls the Schuylers “Country Friends” of the company, or people who lived far from the centers of importing and exporting, but who wanted to continue receiving trade goods. In exchange, these “Country Friends” provided farm exports that were desired by people living in cities. The postscript suggests that the Schuylers have contracted to provide grains to the company as part of their payment. This would have been a desired crop because New York City, while connected to many farms up north of the city itself, required more food crops from much further north to ensure all were furnished with regular goods. The writer is desirous of receiving those goods, but wants to keep Schuyler informed that both the company and the Schuylers were placing themselves in danger should the illegal exports be found out. The government, the Continental Congress, had the power to put a stop to all of their activities. While appearing cognizant of the dangers, the company used the postscript to assure Schuyler that all cautions were being taken for the financial benefit of all involved.  

"The Bostonian Paying the Excise-Man," 1774.

These excerpts from the letter can hint at the other frustrations felt by the writer about the importation ban, as the ban most likely cut off access to a reliable income from selling highly sought after imported goods. The first section, in the main text of the letter, reads “great Obstinacy on our part & some thing very Similar to it in England, will we fear preclude any Negotiation till our mutual necessity Oblige us to addapt [sic] some pacific System.” The writer seemed to feel as though both England and the colonies were stubborn about addressing each other or working to solve their mutual concerns. Which, more importantly for him, was impeding his ability to conduct business. He was willing to “adapt” to whatever was best to continue business, but was frustrated at the increased risk involved. In the postscript, the writer expressed other worries as well. He was singularly concerned that “the Government will put a stop to our Exports.” This would not only put the business in financial trouble, but there could also be legal concerns for the “smugglers” and their buyers.  

The legal trouble for both the company and the Schuylers as they conducted these black-market deals came from the Committees of Correspondence that were established locally and sanctioned by the Continental Congress in the Articles of Association. These committees’ primary role was in disseminating information and rulings made by the Continental Congress in support of the “Patriot” movement. Due to loose regulations, many of these committees expanded their role into the realm of enforcing Congressional decisions and rooting out Loyalists agents. Philip Schuyler, later on in the Revolution, worked with these Committees when he created lists of Albany Loyalists, but, prior to the Revolution—and even during it—he was breaking the laws enforced by the Committees.

While Schuyler’s wealth likely protected him from a majority of the possible censure, the social risk of having his loyalties questioned was present.  If Schuyler was caught breaking any Continental Congress rulings, he could have been censured or steeply punished by the Committees and their agents. In New York, the Committees mainly resorted to social and political censure, but other colonies where more radical groups, like the Sons of Liberty, were in charge of the retaliation, often responded with more unrestrained violence. Images of extreme violence done towards citizens stem from more radical or violent responses to non-compliance to the Continental Congress’ propositions, but were somewhat rare on the whole throughout most colonies. These concerns were not enough, however, to force the Schuylers to go without their desired goods. 

This letter is one clear example of Philip Schuyler’s actions with the black market during the pre-Revolution years, but there are more. Another example is in a letter written to Philip Schuyler by friend and business partner, John Taylor, who purchased goods for Schuyler during the Quebec Campaign during March of 1776 (If you are interested in learning more about this, please check out our blog post Taken Up North Sold For A Carpet). The items purchased in 1776 were similarly precarious for Philip Schuyler due to the trade embargos in place at the time.

"Still Life With Fruit and a Cockatoo" 
by Joeef Schuster, 1851.

Despite the war, the Schuylers were determined to enjoy all of the luxuries they were accustomed to not only for Twelfth Night, but year-round. While the holiday may have looked different for many in 1775, the Schuylers didn’t suffer from the bans as many others did. Smuggling came with significant risk for all involved—from the suppliers of goods who courted danger obtaining items, to the consumers who directly skirted the carefully assembled Articles of Association and non-importation bans. But, to the Schuylers, it was a risk worth taking. 

Bibliography

Breen, T.H. The marketplace of revolution: How consumer politics shaped American independence (Oxford University Press, 2004)

Ketchum, Richard M. (2002). Divided Loyalties, How the American Revolution came to New York. Henry Holt and Co.

Levy, Barry. (2011). tar and feathers and English identity.

Norton, Mary Beth. 1774: The Long Year of Revolution (Vintage, 2021).

Oliver, Peter. Origin & progress of the American Rebellion; a Tory view (1961).

Schlesinger, Arthur Meier. The Colonial Merchants and the American Revolution, 1763–1776 (1917).

Warford-Johnston, Benjamin. “American Colonial Committees of Correspondence: Encountering Oppression, Exploring Unity, and Exchanging Visions of the Future.” The History Teacher 50, no. 1 (2016): 83–128. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44504455.