This is the second installment of an essay by one of America's great historians, Prof. Carl Becker. It was published in 1927 under the title "The Spirit of '76." He described it as "an old and imperfect manuscript" which he "found" by rummaging among some of his papers.
    Professor Becker's skillfully written chronicle shows the slowly changing viewpoint of middle-class merchants in Revolutionary times and why they finally lined up with the radicals. It is reprinted by The Christian Science Monitor with the permission of the Brookings Institution.
    The story up to now: Jeremiah Wynkoop, educated at Kings College (now Columbia), has become a successful businessman in New York City. Proud of the great milestones of English liberty from Magna Carta to John Locke, he insisted--despite the bitter opposition of old Nicholas Van Schoickendinck, his father-in-law--that the Stamp Act was unconstitutional. He was delighted when it was repealed, and felt sure Britain would never again reveat its error. ¹

    When is an act of Parliament regulation of trade or a tax? This is a question that agitates the pre-Revolutionary American colonies in the Wynkoop papers, of which this is the second installment. In it Jeremiah Wynkoop's reactions to Britain's repressive legislation typify the slow but growing resistance of the merchant class to British rule. At the same time the Garden City Reading Club debates the Boston Massacre.

    IT PRESENTLY APPEARED that the British Government could commit errors without repeating itself. In 1767, following the mysterious retirement and delphic silences of Mr. Pitt, Mr. Charles Townshend [Chancellor of Exchequer] had come forward, no one knew on whose authority, and promised the House to obtain a revenue from America without doing violence to her alleged rights.
    The Americans, he said, had drawn a distinction between "internal" and "external" taxes, denying the former but admitting the latter. This distinction Mr. Townshend thought "perfect nonsense," but was willing to humor Americans in it; which he would do by laying an external tax on the importation of glass, lead, paper, and tea. These duties, which would bring into the Exchequer about �40,000, the Americans must on their own principles, Mr. Townshend thought, admit to be constitutional....
    When we learned, one day in 1768, that Mr. Townshend had actually blarneyed the House into passing the Tea Act, the whole business struck Jeremiah as preposterous--"doubtless one of those deplorable jokes," I remember his saying, "which Mr. Townshend is fond of perpetrating when half drunk."
    I had some recollection that in the time of the Stamp Act troubles certain writers had hinted at a distinction between "internal" and "external" taxes; and Mr. Wynkoop admitted that some such distinction may have been made.
    But he said that for his part he thought little of such subtle distinctions, agreeing rather with Mr. Pitt that the real question was whether Parliament could "take money out of our pockets without our consent" by any tax whatsoever.
    There was, however, a difficulty in taking so advanced a position at that time, and as usual it was old Nicholas, always quick to perceive difficulties, who pointed it out.

    "I fancy," old Nicholas had said, "that every act in regulation of trade takes money out of our pockets, but I don't imagine you have yet become so ardent a Son of Liberty as to deny Parliament the right of regulating our trade."
    At that time we were all reading Mr. Dickinson's Letters of A Pennsylvania Farmer,

and Mr. Wynkoop, who read everything, was able to meet that objection.
    "The essential question," he said, "is whether an act of Parliament is laid primarily for the regulation of trade or for the raising of a revenue. If for the latter, it is a tax. The intention of the framers must decide, and there can be no question that the Tea Act is a tax since the framers expressly declare its purpose to be the raising of a revenue."
    "A fine distinction, that." But it would be easy for the framers of an act to levy duties on imports with the real intention of raising a revenue, all the while professing loudly their intention of regulating trade. What then?"
    "Americans would not be so easily deceived, sir. The nature of the Act would reveal the real intention clearly enough."
    "Ha! You would determine the nature of an act by the intention of the framers, and the intention of the framers by the nature of the act. Excellent! That is the logic of your Pennsylvania Farmer. The New Englanders are still more advanced, I see. They are now saying that our rights are founded on a law of nature....
    "First you say that Britain has no right to lay internal taxes. Then that she has no right to levy taxes of any sort. Next you will be saying that Parliament has no right of legislation for the colonies on any matter whatsoever. And as you can't derive that from precedent you will derive it from the law of nature."
    Mr. Wynkoop smiled at this outburst.
    "I have no fear of its coming to that," he said. "The Tea Act's not really an act of Britain; it is Mr. Townshend's foolish hobby. A firm and sensible resistance on our part will effect its repeal. But if one could conceive Britain to be so blind as to push matters to extremes--well, I don't know.
    "If it were really a choice between admitting that Parliament has a right of making all laws for us or denying that she has a right of making any laws for us, it would be a hard choice, but should we not be forced to choose the latter alternative? What other answer could we make?"
    "You may well ask! What answer will you make when your precious Adams comes out with a declaration of independency from Great Britain?"
    "Independence'" Mr. Wynkoop exclaimed. ...."What an idea!"

    And indeed, at that time, the idea of separation from Great Britain struck us all as fantastic.
    A firm and sensible resistance, Jeremiah had maintained, would bring a repeal of the Townshend duties, as it had formerly brought a repeal of the Stamp Act. When it was learned that Lord North, on March 5, 1770, had moved the repeal of all the Townshend duties save that on tea, Mr. Wynkoop could with some reason say, and did say, that events had proved the justice of his view. And Mr. Wynkoop felt, rightly enough, although he modestly refrained from boasting of it, that he had contributed to this happy result.
    With no more than the grudging consent of old Nicholas, he had taken a leading part in organizing the Merchant's Association--an agreement not to import any goods from Great Britain so long as the Townshend duties should be in force. That Association had been faithfully kept by the New York merchants of substance and standing.
    Mr. Wynkoop had himself kept it to the letter, and had sacrificed much in doing so. He told me that his enlarged stock of goods, ordered in anticipation of the agreement, had soon been sold out--at high prices indeed, but not sufficiently high to recoup him for his subsequent losses. For four months last past business had been dull beyond all precedent--scarcely a ship moving; debts not to be collected; money hardly to be had at any price; and the poorer sort of people in dire need for want of employment....
    Obviously the longer the Association was maintained by honest merchants, the more unscrupulous smugglers would profit by it. We were therefore somewhat surprised to learn that the Boston merchants were in favor of maintaining the Association in full vigor, in spite of Lord North's concessions, so long as the 3d duty on tea was retained....
    All of the substantial merchants of New York were strong for a modification of the Association....
    After taking a canvass of the city, they resolved to abandon the old association, agreeing for the future to import all commodities, "except teas and other articles that are or may be subject to an importation duty." ... In spite of protests from Boston and Philadelphia, the merchants of those cities followed the lead of New York. Demonstrations in the streets soon subsided, importation became general, business revived, and the controversy with Britain seemed definitely closed.

    The years of '71 and '72 were quiet years--ominously so as it proved. But in those days we all nourished the conviction that the controversy with Britain was definitely closed. Nothing occurred to remind us of it even, unless it would be the annual celebrations of the repeal of the Stamp Act, or the faint reverberations, always to be heard in any case, of political squabbles in the Massachusetts Bay.
    Then, out of a clear sky as it seemed, the storm burst--the landing of the tea ships, the destruction of the tea in Boston harbor, and the subsequent meeting of the Philadelphia Congress. These events, all occurring in rapid succession, seemed to fall like so many blows on Mr. Wynkoop's head, and I recall his saying to me....
    Here the manuscript breaks off again, and there are evidently some pages missing.
    ... return from Philadelphia, I met him at his father's house where we were to take dinner, as often happened. Arriving early, we had a long talk while waiting for old Nicholas to come down. I found Mr. Wynkoop in low spirits, an unusual thing for him....
    "I will confess to you, what I would not to another, that if I could twelve months ago have foreseen the present situation I should probably not have attended the Congress."
    The remark alarmed me. Mr. Wynkoop's admiration for Britain and his faith in her essential justice were always stronger than mine. For my part I doubted not, from the moment of the passing of the Coercive Acts, that we were in for it, that Britain would not back down again, and that we must either break with her or submit to her demands.
    My decision was made. I would go with America when the time came for the final breach, I knew that; and above all things I wished Mr. Wynkoop, who was my closest friend, to throw the weight of his powerful interest on the side of my country. But I knew him well enough to be sure that if he now convinced himself that it would come to a breach with Britain he would probably wash his hands of the whole business.
    What I counted on was a certain capacity in the man, I won't say for deceiving himself, but for convincing himself that what he strongly desired would somehow come to pass. I therefore did what I could to convince him, or rather to help him convince himself, that his past and present conduct was that of wise and prudent man.
    "No man can foresee the future," I remarked, somewhat sententiously.
    "That is true," he said." And even could I have foreseen the future, I fail to see how I could have acted differently, at least not honorably and with any satisfaction to myself. It is past a doubt that Britain, in authorizing, the India Company to sell its teas in America, deliberately sought to raise the issue with America once more. It was a challenge, and so insidiously contrived that America had no choice but submission or a resort to a certain amount of violence.
    "Once landed the teas were bound to be sold, since even with the 3d duty they were offered at a less price than the Holland teas. The issue could not be met by commercial agreements, still less by argument. Well, we sent the teas back to London. The Massachusetts people threw theirs into the harbor. Violence, undoubtedly. I had no part in it, but what could be done? Who after all was responsible for the violence? Let ministers who revived an issue happily settled answer that."
    "There is no doubt in my mind," I said; "that Britain welcomed the violence in Boston harbor as a pretext for strong measures."
    "It seems incredible," Mr. Wynkoop resumed, "but what else can we think? Hitherto it might be said of ministers that they blundered, that they did not know the consequences of their acts. But not on this occasion.
    "They knew perfectly the temper of America; and in any case the destruction of a little tea was surely a mild offense cornpared with the abrogation of the Massachusetts Charter and the closing of Boston harbor. To subject a loyal province to military despotism, and then deliberately to set about starving the people into submission reveals a vindictiveness foreign to the British character.
    "I can't think the Coercive Acts represent the will of the English people, and I am confident, always have been, that the sober second thought of the nation will repudiate these acts of ministerial despotism."
    It was not the first time I had heard Mr. Wynkoop express that sentiment.
    "I trust it may prove so," I said. "At least we have done our part. No one can say that the Congress has countenanced rash measures. It has merely adopted a commercial agreement, a measure which we have frequently resorted to before. I don't see how it could have done less."
    Mr. Wynkoop seemed a little uncertain of that.
    "Yes," he said." I suppose we could not have done less; Heaven knows we have shown a proper restraint. And I may say that what little influence I have had has always been exerted to that end."

    I knew well enough what he was thinking of. After the tea episode there were rash spirits who talked of resort to arms and even hinted at independence. There were such men even in New York. They had formed the Committee of 25, but fortunately the more moderate minded had got the committee enlarged to 51; and

Mr. Wynkoop, together with Mr. Jay and Mr. Alsop and other men of substance, had consented to serve on the Committee of 51 in order to prevent the firebrands from carrying th6 province into violent measures. Old Nicholas had advised against it.
    "Beware of meddling with treason," I recall hearing him say to Mr. Wynkoop at that time.
    "Precisely my idea," but Wynkoop had replied, with the smile he always had for old Nicholas' penchant for using stronger terms than the occasion warranted. "I wish to steer clear of treason, or anything remotely approaching it. But it is plain to be seen that New York will support Boston in some fashion, plain to be seen that she will send delegates to Philadelphia.
    "Suppose I and all moderate men follow your advice and wash our hands of the affair? What then? Then the Mechanics will take the lead and send MacDougall and Sears and men of their kidney to Philadelphia, with instructions for vigorous measures. Vigorous measures! God only knows what measures they may be for!"
    It was to keep New York from violent measures of all sorts that Mr. Wynkoop had consented to serve on the Committee of 51; it was for that reason he had gone to Philadelphia. I knew that better than most, and knew that that was what he was now thinking of.
    I am very glad you went to Philadelphia," I said.
    "What else could I have done?" he exclaimed. I have asked myself that a dozen times without finding any answer. But about the Association I don't know. You say it is a moderate measure, but after all it was the measure of the New Englanders, and among the moderates of Philadelphia it was commonly thought to be perhaps too vigorous. I was opposed to it. I voted against it. And having done so perhaps I was ill advised to sign it. I don't know."

Sources:

    1. Anonymous, "An Alleged 'Manuscript'," The Christian Science Monitor, Boston, Mass., Tuesday, 12 June 1956, p. 9.

    2. Becker, Carl, [With Illustrations by Gene Langley,] "Understanding Our Freedoms 9, Jeremiah Wynkoop -- II," The Christian Science Monitor, Boston, Mass., Tuesday, 12 June 1956, p. 9.