Silver and Inter-Class Solidarity in Non-Importation (Object)

Beautifully designed silver sugar tongs attributed to the New York silversmith Myer Myers. Marks and scratches on the tongs indicate that this likely well used and not just for show. Here we see the duality of function and luxury in the silver goods of this time period.

http://dighist.fas.harvard.edu/courses/2017/hist1002/files/original/0555cad263ab8158be64e19474ac709f.pdf

1764 newspaper advertisement for a runaway black servant. In the description of his clothing, we see a homespun jacket and silver shoe buckles on the same poor man, indicating that small, functional silver goods like buckles were likely not exclusively worn by the rich. Please click on the image and then click "fullsize image" in the bottom left of the popup to enlarge.

http://dighist.fas.harvard.edu/courses/2017/hist1002/files/original/320213f01cdcd1aaa5b58102e63ab1a6.pdf

1775 newspaper advertisement for two runaway servants, one of whom wears shoes with silver buckles. While it's likely that these shoes were provided to the servant by his master, it's worth noting that a potential flight risk like a 20 year old servant was permitted to wear them. Their function might outstrip their value.

http://dighist.fas.harvard.edu/courses/2017/hist1002/files/original/5837b1155d201bac9cf240c0243fde10.pdf

June 1775 newspaper advertisement by a New York jeweler and goldsmith, Charles Oliver Bruff. This advertisement is an example of the increased prevalence of locally crafted goods toward the eve of the revolution.

            In its journey from South American mines to a wealthy home, a silver product touches the hands of many economically disparate people. From the slave who mined it, to the working-class silversmith who crafted it, to the wealthy woman who uses it, possibly later to be melted down when money is tight, sold to be refashioned, maybe into college student’s shoe buckle. Silver is valuable and silver goods are largely owned by the wealthy. Yet, in the 1774 Articles of Association, which lay out a non-importation plan and encourage frugality, silver goes unmentioned. [1] What differentiates silver from extravagant clothing? And why do the upper-class representatives who drafted the Continental Association, who surely have no interest in decreasing their perceived social statuses, encourage this superficial frugality? We will see that this position is taken for the message of solidarity it sends. Connecting the wealthy with the non-importation movement shows the support of those colonists for laborers like silversmiths, strengthening the connection between the northern Atlantic cities that would come to lead the thirteen colonies.

            Let’s begin the journey of our silver sugar tongs with their creator, thought to be a silversmith named Myer Myers. The tongs look delicate and are beautifully detailed; the thin, looping patterns that make up its arms show that Myers is clearly a skilled artisan. Weighing just one ounce, this is a tiny object. As dainty as the final product is, the work is as dangerous and labor intensive as any other sort of metalsmithing would be. The small loops and seashell pattern show that this work requires a delicate touch, but it’s done by working-class men with calloused hands and singed clothing. While pleasant to look at, these tongs weren’t made just for show. The grooves on the outsides of the tongs are likely for ease of grip, the inside gently worn by granules of sugar. The tongs are functional, well used. Examining these tongs, we can see some of the dualities of silver goods. They are lovely but useful, handled by the wealthy and the working class. But silversmiths are not exclusive to the northern Atlantic colonies. How likely is it that any given silver item was both crafted and sold in North America, especially as non-importation movements grow and accelerate?

            To trace the trends of colonial support of local silver goods between 1764 and 1775, we can look at advertisements for silver goods in New York newspapers. We will compare advertisements from 1764, before the Stamp Act spurred the some of the early boycotts of British manufactured goods, with advertisements from 1775, after the First Continental Congress’s non-importation agreement went into effect. [2][3] A populous city with a busy harbor, New York City would be likely to receive shipments including silver goods from Britain and to have many silversmiths crafting goods themselves. How does non-importation affect the availability and source of silver goods?

The number of advertisements containing mention of silver goods seems to remain stable across both years. The first advertisement is representative of the common format, a lengthy listing of miscellaneous products, only a few made of silver. The number of merchants advertising that their wares are imported, however, is noticeably decreased in 1775. Whether this truly correlates with a decline in the importation of British silver goods or merchants are keeping quiet to maintain the appearance of support of the boycott, it’s clear that the public shame surrounding British imports extends to silver. Assuming there is a decline in British silver goods, local silversmiths must make up the difference. This indicates that non-importation benefits local manufacturing, as the authors of the Articles of Association hoped it would. [4] Through non-importation the colonists are supporting each other.

            The men that penned the Articles of Association were, on average, quite affluent. This observation leads us to consider the motives of those representatives in their chosen elements of the Continental Association. Non-importation supports their fellow colonists in a straightforward way, but the frugality guidelines seem more dubious. Particularly, discouraging expensive mourning outfits, and expensive clothing in general, seems unrelated to the cause of solidarity. Why discourage clothing but not silver? We should first question the idea that silver is exclusive to the wealthy. The second two newspaper advertisements describe runaway servants wearing shoes with silver buckles. These suggest that function outstrips the expense of silver, challenging the idea of silver as an indicator of wealth. Further, items like the sugar tongs would be kept in the home; most of a household’s silver goods would likely be out of the public eye. Is this a conspiracy by the wealthy to shift emphasis away from silver, which is functional, yet can be repurposed as currency in the face of unstable paper money? This doesn’t seem to be the case. The hardships that wealthy merchants face by non-importation are severe, and the wealthy are clearly ideologically divided on the subject. [5] It seems that this is more about the message that frugality sends to colonists with Whig sensibilities: supporting your neighbors is crucial. Like merchants who don’t advertise their goods as imported, this vocal support, however superficial, still contributes to the show of solidarity. The wealthy show solidarity by patronizing local manufacturers and by trying to appear humbler, if only slightly, showing that they, too, are committed to the cause.

            Non-importation movements between 1764 and 1776 have differed in their emphases on silver, but have created a trend toward supporting local silversmiths. As silver goods pass from the working class to the wealthy, we see an interface between luxury and labor, leading us to question the juxtaposition of non-importation and frugality. It could be seen as a disingenuous way to distract from the inequality between the wealthy and the poor in the northern colonies. Looking at the nuances supported by the trends in the importation of silver goods, however, we can see that the ultimate motive of wealthier patriot leaders in promoting frugality with non-importation is to create solidarity among their fellow colonists.

Word Count: 997

Footnotes

1. Kamensky, Jane. “Common Sense vs. Plain Truth.” History 1002: American Revolutions, Lecture 9, Harvard University (Cambridge, MA, February 28, 2017)
2. Kamensky, Jane. “Sugar and Stamps, 1764-1766.” History 1002: American Revolutions, Lecture 5, Harvard University (Cambridge, MA, February 9, 2017)
3. Kamensky, Jane. “Common Sense vs. Plain Truth.” History 1002: American Revolutions, Lecture 9, Harvard University (Cambridge, MA, February 28, 2017)
4. Ibid.
5. Kamensky, Jane. “From the Horrid Massacre to the Intolerable Acts.” History 1002: American Revolutions, Lecture 7, Harvard University (Cambridge, MA, February 21, 2017)