Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Philadelphia Merchants and the Logic of Moderation, 1760-1775

1983; Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture; Volume: 40; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês

10.2307/1916878

1933-7698

Thomas M. Doerflinger,

Race, History, and American Society

I N December I769 the wealthy Philadelphia merchant Henry Drinker relayed the latest political news to his partner, Abel James, who was in England. The American boycott of British manufactures, undertaken earlier in the year to protest the Townshend duties, was still in effect, Drinker reported, but its demise was imminent. The boycott was cutting into mercantile profits, and Drinker knew that Interest, powerful Interest will bear down Patriotism. Echoing the familiar republican rhetoric of the day, the merchant lamented that Romans we are not as they were formerly, when they despised Riches and Grandeur, abode in extreme poverty and sacrificed every pleasant enjoyment for the love and service of their Country.1 Four years later it was Drinker who seemed to be sacrificing his country to all powerful Interest. In I773 the firm of James and Drinker secured a lucrative appointment as one of four Philadelphia consignees for the tea that the British East India Company planned to sell in the American market. The partners expected to earn a handsome commission by auctioning off hundreds of chests of tea that still bore the hated Townshend duties. Only the vociferous protest of Philadelphia radicals and ungracious hints from the Committee for Tarring and Feathering convinced them, after two months of stalling, to resign the commission.2 The behavior of Henry Drinker encapsulates an essential paradox in the political motivations of Philadelphia merchants before the Revolution. They genuinely feared British encroachments on American rights and were willing to make real financial sacrifices to oppose them. Yet their opposition was qualified and inconsistent, their attitudes complex and conflicted; the merchants never offered sustained, united support for the resistance and Revolutionary movements. They neither strenuously lob-