Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:34:50.132Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

New Evidence on Colonial Commerce

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2011

Gaby M. Walton
Gaby M. Walton
Affiliation:
The Ohio State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The section on colonial commerce in most textbooks oh American Economic History has changed little in the last three or four (or more) decades. Of course, slight variations exist, but they are usually for style, with the core of the subject seldom varying. In fact, a traditional view of American colonial commerce has been solidly formed, and it is widely read and taught in our universities and colleges.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 28 , Issue 3 , September 1968 , pp. 363 - 389
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 1968

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 This view can be found in almost every textbook on the history of the American economy. Too many sources exist to list them all here, but, for examples, see Dillard, Dudley, Economic Development of the North Atlantic Community (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1967), pp. 197–98;Google ScholarRobertson, Ross M., History of the American Economy (2d. ed.; New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1964), pp. 80–81;Google ScholarWilliamson, Harold F., ed., The Growth of the American Economy (2d. ed.; Englewood Cuffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1951), pp. 50–51;Google ScholarKirkland, Edward, A History of American Economic Life (New York: Appleton-Century-CroftS; 1960), pp: 111–12; orGoogle ScholarWright, Chester W., Economic History of the United States (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1941), pp. 153–54Google Scholar.

2 Andrews, Charles.M., “Colonial Commerce,” The American Historical Review, Vol. DD, 10 1914, pp. 43–51; reprinted in Ross M. Robertson and James L. Pate, eds., Readings in United States Economic and Business History (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1966), p. 137Google Scholar.

3 Quoted from Faulkner, Harold U., American Economic History (8th ed.; New York: Harper & Brothers, 1960), p. 81Google Scholar.

4 Tables showing the tonnages entering and clearing the colonial regions for each year 1768–1772 can be obtained upon request from the author.

5 For our purpose, a route's importance is determined by the amount of shipping it employed. Consequently, ton-miles, not simply tons entering and clearing, is the relevant figure. Ideally, utilized ton-miles should be used, but the problems of obtaining estimates of shipping utilization by route are formidable and no attempt is made to derive these estimates here. Generally, the vessels were more fully utilized on the outward voyages from the colonies with only partial utilization inward.

6 It is possible that some may argue the descriptions of colonial trade patterns really refer to commodity flows rather than ship movements. Truly, in some cases, the descriptions are ambiguous on this account. However, sufficient evidence exists to assure us that ship movements are the subject of description. Vessel movements are explicitly referred to by , Kirkland, American Economic Life, p. 113Google Scholar;, Wright, Economic History, p. 154Google Scholar;, Robertson, American Economy, p. 81Google Scholar;Bolmo, August C., The Development of the American Economy (2d. ed.; Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books, 1966), pp. 25–26Google Scholar; and Knight, Melvin M., Introduction to Modern Economic History (Economics 10, University of California at Berkeley, copyright 1940), pp. 86–87. Also, that ship movements are the likely subject of triangular descriptions follows from the myriad flows of goods between the mainland colonies, Great Britain, southern Europe and the Wine Islands, Africa, British and Foreign West Indies, and elsewhere. Given the hundreds of commodity exchanges between these regions, why would atriangle be singled out for description? To do so would be quite arbitrary. For example, in terms of commodity flows, we could describe the New England-Africa-West Indies-Great Britain trade as an hourglass figure. This would be no less arbitrary than singling out commodity flows as triangular. Surely the descriptions of triangular trade patterns refer to ship movements arid not commodity flows, for without the voyage pattern there is no reason to distinguish the commodity flows as triangularGoogle Scholar.

7 Independent evidence from the naval office, lists of Jamaica for 1764 and Barbados for 1773 clearly support this claim. Out of all the entries into these two main islands from Africa, only 184 colonial-owned tons entered Barbados in 1773, and a mere 60 tons owned in New England entered Jamaica in 1764. See C. O. 133–17 and C. O. 142–18, Public Records Office, London.

8 While the route was of minor importance to New England, it was an important part of the commerce of Newport, Rhode Island. For instance, in 1768, eighteen vessels comprising 704 tons cleared New England for Africa. All of these vessels cleared from Newport.

9 For a few of their uses see, Shepherd, James F., “A Balance of Payments for the Thirteen Colonies, 1768–1772” (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington, 1966), pp. 129–37Google Scholar;Harper, Lawrence A., “Mercantilism and the American Revolution,” The Canadian Historical Review, XXIII (03. 1942), 1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar;and North, Douglass C., Growth and Welfare in the American Past (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1966), pp. 43–49Google Scholar.

10 It would be a simple step at this point to incorporate the information in Tables 1 and 2 and derive a set of tables giving tonnage movements between the regions by place of ownership. This exercise, which is left to the interested reader, would show the relative importance of each route to the colonies (or Great Britain, or the West Indies) in terms of employment of their own shipping.

11 The data do not reflect the total number of enters and clears between the time periods given. They only give the enters for which matching clears could be found. This amounts to approximately one-half the total enters.

12 A glaring exception to this generalization is the route between the lower South and southern Europe, which was dominated by British shipping. This exception is likely explained, however, by the discrimination against colonial shippers in the rice trade. If proper licenses were obtained, rice could be carried directly to Europe south of Cape Finisterre by the following Acts of Parliament: from South Carolina by 3 George II, C. 28 (1730); from Georgia by 8 George II, C. 19 (1735); from North Carolina by 5 George III, C. 45 (1765); and from East and West Florida by 11 George III, C. 39 (1770). However, rice bonds could only be obtained in England and not in the colonies. I am grateful to Professor Lawrence A. Harper for bringing this point to my attention.

13 A formal test of the hypothesis that b = 0.5 against the alternative that b > 0.5 can be made, Since the standard errors of the slope coefficient in equations 1 and 2 are 0.0121 and 0.0178, respectively, the observed t values under the null hypothesis are

for Figure 1; and

for Figure 2. These values of t do not fall within the critical region for t at a 99 percent confidence level. The critical value of t at a 99 percent confidence level for 511 degrees of freedom is —2.58. Since the observed t values are less than this, we can reject the hypothesis that b = 0.5 in favor of b > 0.5.

14 Also, for most purposes the Navigation acts directly related to shipping did not discriminate among areas within the Empire (see footnote 11 for an exception).

15 Nettels, Curtis P., Money Supply of the American Colonies, printed in the University of Wisconsin Studies in the Social Sciences and History, No. 20, Madison, Wis., 1934, p. 70Google Scholar.

16 Michael Atkins, a British shipowner, in a letter to his colonial colleague, in 1751 stated: “Traders at the Northern Colonies have all the West India business to themselves, Europeans can have no encouragement for mixing with them in the commodities of provisions and lumber. You time things better than we and go to market cheaper.” See Pares, Richard, Yankees and Creoles (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1956), p. 8Google Scholar.

17 With rare exceptions, seamen were hired by the voyage out and return. See Davis, Ralph, The Rise of the English Shipping Industry (London: MacMillan, 1962), p. 116, or the many wage contracts among the records of the High Courts of the Admiralty, Public Records Office, LondonGoogle Scholar.

18 Walton, Gary M., “Sources of Productivity Change in American Colonial Shipping, 1675–1775,” The Economic History Review, 2d. ser., XX (04, 1967), p. 77Google Scholar.

19 English vessels generally engaged in little tramping and remained on regular runs “simply because among their most valuable assets were the master's and owners' connections in particular ports overseas.” See , Davis, English Shipping, pp. 196–97Google Scholar.