Chapter Z Colonial and Pre-Federal Statistics 2 1618. Te would have been possible to distribute these eros forthe colonial land pre-Federal period among the chapters covering each of the ‘appropriate subject Gelds, Te was felt, however, that a separste chapter expecially organized to cover this period would be more ‘valuable in itaelf and would also provide a more sutable,los-exacting ‘context for the statistics, many’ of which are relatively roughhewn. Tn the past, statisti for the colonial and pre-Federal period wore largely dependent on compilations raude during the 17th and 18ch centuries by historians uch as Whitworth and Maephereon. Present= ‘day scholars, however, no longer rely solely upon such compilations. ‘They are fereting out statistical information from original records hitherto let unused in archives and reconstructing statistical seri ‘of their own from other sources, Several of the sores presented here are appearing in print forthe fist time. Compilers of the new series are identified in the source citations. ‘The Public Records Office in London Gomatimes hereafter ab- Dreviaved PRO) contains many’ collections of records which throw light on commerce between England and the colonies and to some ‘extent on the development of agriculture and manufacturing in the tolonies, particularly when considered with reference to the mer canis laws passed by the mother country, as has bem done here ‘Tho Taw in queaton ate cited at various polnte in the text below bby reference to their rognal year and chapter numbere—for example, 5 Geo, Ie 22 (the fifth year of the reign of King George Tf, chaptar 2) ‘The collections in the Public Records Office in London, which are the original sourees for many of the data presented here, are identifed there by title and call numbers, For exemple, one eallaction is titled “American Inspector Goneral’s Ledgers” and is further identified as “PRO Customs 16/1." The most important of these collections fr ledgers of imports and exporss are the following: The English Inspector General's Ledgers (PRO Customs 8); the Scotish Inspector Genora’s Ledgers (PRO Customs 14); the American Inspeecor Gen- crals Ledgers (PRO Customs 16/1); and the colonial naval office iets (usually found in C. 0. 8) ‘The English, Scottish, and American Inspector Generals’ Ledgers are convenientiy arranged for statistieal purpore, but are so volun ‘ous tha itis far more convenient to utile eomtemporery tabulations Grawn from them when such secondary soarees are available, ‘The lists kept by the naval oficers of that period (for the purpose of help- {ng to enforce the navigation laws) merely provide chronological data, concerning the shipe which entered and cleared port, together with thelr cargoes and deetinatione ‘The task of using the naval oie lists has in some instances been lightened by colonial newspapers, such as the South Carolina Gacete, ‘whieh published data taken from customhoure records. Also of general assistance in the preparation of many series presented in this chapter are the compilations from naval office lst prepared by & ‘Works Progress Administration project conducted at the University of Califeria, entitled “Trade and Commerce of the English Colonies in America," and refered to below as WPA compilations General note. 1-19, Estimated population of American Colonies, 1610-1780, Source: Compiled by Stella H. Sutherland, Due West, South Caro- lina, chiefly from the following sources: B. . Brawley, A Shirt History of the American Negro, MacMillan, 1913; Flizabeth Donnan (editor), ‘Documenta Tusiatie ofthe Hictory ofthe Slave Trade to America, 4 ‘vols, Carnogie Institution of Washington, D.C., 1980-85; Evarts B. nz Greene and Virginia D. Herrington, Americon Population Before the Federal Conans of 1790, Columbia University Press, New York, 198 Stella H. Sutherland, Population Diatribution tx Colonial Ameriy, AMS Press, Ine,, New York, 1968; E.R. Turner, “The Negro in Pennayivania,” Prise esaye of the American Historical Assocation, ‘Washington, D.C, 1911; Bureau of the Cenous, A Century of Popula- son Growth, 1909; Thomas J, Wertenbaker, The Planters of Colowal Viroinia, Princeton, 1922; and George W. Williams, The History of the Negro Race in America From 1619 t0 1880, 2 vols, New York, (Algo, @ wide varlety of source material was consulted for steneral information.) ‘The original data were obtained from the reports of the colosal officials to the Lords Commissioners of Trade and Plantations. Not infrequently census supplied sworn evidence of the number of ‘inhabitants; for other reports, the militia or the tax lists or both were used, commonly accompanied by an estimate of the whole population ts indleated by the rolls or lista. Estimates made by colonial officals ‘and by other informed contemporaries who did not dloslose the figures lupon ‘which their conclusions were based have occasionally been Included in these series. However, sch estimates were selected in ‘accordance with the general pattern of population growth. ‘The ratio of the miltia to the whole population was generally 1 to 524, but there were many exceptions. In Massachusetts, it war 1 t0.6 in 1751 and 1 to 4 in 1763; in Connecticut, 1 to 6 in 1722 ‘and 1758 and 1 to 7 in 1749, 1761, and 1774; i¢ was 1 to 6 in Virginia fand 1 to 7 in South Carolina at various times. No generalization ‘can aafely be made at to the ratio borne by the northern polls and ratables and by the southern tarables and tithables to the whole population of the Colonies, In every Provinee the figure was dif- ferent. In the North, it ranged from 1 t0 4 to 1 to 5363 in Pennsyl- ‘vania, it was 1 to 7 in the 1750's, Dut I to 5.8 was the more common figure; in Marvland and Virginia, where both male and female slaves ‘appeared on the tax Ist, the ratio was 1 to 8 or 3.5 in the 17h cen- tury and I to 24 or 26'in the 18th century. ‘The North Carolina ‘white taxables were multiplied by 4 and the Negro taxables by 2. ‘The figures for Negroes for the 17th contury, which are doubt- lesely too low, are largely estimates based upon references to purchase and sale, to laws governing slavery, and cscasionally to reports of ‘more or les exact number. 2 20-28, Percent distibution of the white population, by nationality, 1790. Source: American Council af Lesrned Societies, “Report of Com- mittee on Linguistic and National Stocks in the Population of the United States” (hazed on studios by Howard F. Barker and Marcus L. Hanson), Annual Report of the Amerizan Historical Association, 1981, vol. 1, Washington, D.C. 1882, p. 124, ‘Distribution was made primarily on the basis of family names. ‘For explanation of methods used, see source, 2 24-182. Population censuses taken in the colonies and States dur- ing the colonial and pre-Federal period, 1624.25 to 1786. Source: Compiled by Robert C, Klove, U.S. Buren of the Census, with the counsel of Stella Sutherland, chiefly from the following sourees: Evarta B. Greene and Virginia D. Harrington, Amerizan Population Before the Federal Ceneut of 1790, Columbia University ross, New York, 1932 (reprinted by Peter Smith, Gloucester, Mast, 1968) and W. S. Rossiter, A Centery of Population Growth, From the2 192-212 ‘eld gave guidance in drawing the sample in the pilot study for the Middle Colonies. Stephen E. Bienberg and F. Kinley Larne, Jr, gave guidance in sample drawing forthe other regions, ‘Mr. Larntz guided che final execution of the sampling end development of the ‘weighting procedures. ‘Wealth is estimated on tho basis ofa sample drawn from all estates probated in the Thirtoon Colonies in 1774. To select the sample, every county then in existence wae given a chance to be drawn proportionate to its total wealthholding population in 1774. Each county, ar cluster of eounties, drawn into the sample represents an ‘equal stratum of living wealthholders. Wealthboléers aro defined to Include all free adult males aged 21 and over, white and Negro, and 10 percent of all ree adult females, chiefly widows, except no Negro {emalesin the South. Slaves and indentured servants are not counted se wealihholders. Because ofthe sample design and weighting proce- ‘dures followed, the combination of data from sample countries within a region yields an unbiased regional estimate of wealth of probated ‘estates, and the regional estimates combined, except for the weakness of the New York data, yield an nblased estimate for all Thirteen Colonies. ‘The data for probated decedents are adjusted, chrough the weighting procedure, to the age structure of the living and to include an allowance for wealth of persons not probated, and hence ‘to represent the larger statstieal population of living wealthholders. ‘The counties included in the sample and nambers of probate cases tor each ae: New England: Total 381. Connecticut: Litchfield $1, New Haven 37; Massachusetts: Essex 102, Hampshine 27, Plymouth 35, Suffolk 100, Worcester 49. Middle Colonies: ‘Total 217. Pennsylvania: Northampton 21, Westmoreland 7, Phladelphia 185; New Jersey: Burlington 25; Delaware: Kent 29. Sowh: Total 288, Marylend: Queen Anne 8%, Anne Arundel 27; Vire sinia: Charlotte-Halifax 25, Southampton-Brunswick-Mecklen- burg 23, Charlotte-Spotsylvania-Falrfax 30; North Carolina: Halifax 99, Orange 82; South Carolina: Charles Town District 81. In addition, 28 probate inventories from nine counties in Now York, together with regional data for New England and Middle Colonies, serve to form an eatimate for New York which is part of the Thirteen Colonies total bu ls not shown separately. All he inventories probated in 1774 within the sampled counties ‘or county-clustors are included, with a few exceptions. In. Essex ‘County, Massachusetts, there was a cut-of at 102 cases, taking all surnames alphabetically from A to part way through the P's. In several counties or county-clusters some cases rendomly drawn trom, 1778 or 1775 were added to provide an adequate number of cases. In the then frontier county of Westmoreland, Pennsylvania, three cease for 1774, two for 1778, and two for 1775 aro all that exist for those dates. For New York, the 29 cases used represent all the ceases located that were probated in any year from 3772 through 1715 not only in tho two simple counties of Sufelc and ATbany but in any ‘county in the province, Data from each county or county-cluster received equal weight in its regional average, Ismuch as each represents an equal stratum ‘of living wealthholders. The procedure means thatthe counties with Targor numbers of eases do not dominate or bias their respective regional averages, yet that full use could be made ofall the availble ceases. For the New York estimats, the 23 eases received 10 percent ‘weight, the New England average 20 percent, and the Middle Colonies average 60 percent. The asaumption here ie that if more cases for New York had survived, they would have shown welth resembling ‘hat found in the adjoining Now England ard Middle Colonies, same what more ike the lattor than the former. ‘The Thirteen Colonies (otal gives each component regional average, including the estimate for New Yerk, an importance in proportion to ita 1774 living wealeh- hholder population, For all regions, data on portable physical wealth and on financial ‘assets came from the probate inventories with oecasional adjustments for data found in estate accounts. For New England, the inventories 156 COLONIAL AND PRE-FEDERAL STATISTICS aro also the source of data on land. In the other regions, land wat ‘usually not shown in the inventories, For the Middle’ Coloske, ‘original data on land come from tax lists and, for the South from ‘Geeds and land grants, Data on financial liabilities for New England ome from documenis filed with probate inventories or from scsourts ‘of estate administrators or executor: in the other regions they came from the estate accounts, “Average wealth of the nonprobate-type living (persons who, upas death, would probably not have their estates probated) is assumed to equal one-fourth the average wealth of age-adjusted probated (ie, probatetype living) in New York, the Middle Colonies, and the South, but one-balf in New England, The larger fgure is used for New England because higher proportion of the wealthholdersthore ‘were not probated. The numbers of living wealthholders (of either probate-type or nonprobatetype) is estimated as follows: Thirteen Colonies total 484,835; New England 187,984; New York 4541 ‘Middle Colonies 98,48; South 153,325. The proportions of these ‘wealthholders estimated to be of nonprobate-type are: New England 6 percent, New Yerk 40, Middle Colonies 86, South 27. ‘The numbers of free capita used to construct this table, te, the ‘otal free population in 1774, men, women, and children, white and Negro, are estimated as fellows: Thirteen Colonies total 1,820,018; New England 582,285; New York 180,118; Middle Colonies 405,038; South 652,580, These numbere are ectimated to form the folowing proportions of the total population, free and nonfree: Thirteen Colonice total 773. pereent: New England 95.8; New York 86.8; Middle Colonies $2.5; South $9.0. The total population figures ‘were interpolated to 1774 on the basis of compound annual rates ‘of population growth, separately for whites and for Negroes, from series Z [-17 of the previous edition of this velume (U.S. Bureau of the Consus, Historical Staite of the Uniled States: Colonial Times {0 1967). ‘The proportions of indentured whites and of free Negroes ‘which underlie she figures on free population are estimated from secondary soures lsted more fully ih the frst and last bibliography titles cited above, The underlying age structure of the living popula tion, used for age adjustment from decedent to 177 living wealth- holders, is based on proportions of free whites In the 1800 census, ‘modified slighty in the proportions of children. Complete population ‘ablas for 1774 wil appear in Weald of the Colowies, Columbia U ‘verity Press, fotheoming. ‘Wealth figures in original documents were always stated in local pounds, shillings, end pence of the particular province, which were of varying values in elation to each cther and to the English pound sterling. All local pounds have been reduced to equivalent pounds sterling, using as exchange rates the following numbers of local pounds ‘and decimal equivalents thereof as equal to one pound. sterling ‘Mascachusetts and Connecticut 1.8; New York 1.78; Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware 1.70; Maryland common money 1.67, ‘Maryland current money 1.38; Virginia 1.82: North Carolina 1. South Carolina 7.00. Z 192-194. _Agrieutture censuses in Maine, Massachusetts, and New ‘ersey, 1784. Source: Jedidiah Morse, American Geography, Boston, 1792, pp. a2 and 284, Tt may be assumed that the limited information om agriculture presented in thie table for Maine, Massachusotts, and New Jessy for 1784 was colleeed at the same time that the population was enumerated. Maine was a part of Mascachusotts until it became a State in 1820, Other agricultural statistics of this type, exeopt for a few estimates for parts of eolonee, do not appear to exist for the colonial and pre-Pederal period 7 196-212, Basic weekly diets in Britain and America, 1622-1790. Source: Compiled by Austin White (graduate student, University of Califomia) based on the following: Series 2 195, M.'S. Rose, A Laboretory Hondtouk for Ditetee, Mscmllan, New York, 1997. Seties Z 196-212, 1622, see souros for series Z 258-265, vol. I, p. 918; 1622,VALUE OF EXPORTS AND IMPORTS E. M, Leonard, The Barly History of English Poor Relief, Cambridge aiversty Press, Cambridge, 190, pp. 198-199; 1638, John Josselyn, “Am Account of Two Voyages to New Eugland Made During the ‘Years 1538-1668," Maeoachuoets Historia! Society Collections, Third Series, TT, 1888, pp. 220-221; 1678, Philip A. Bruce, Institutional History of Virginia in the Secenteenth Centory.... vol. I, Putnam, New Vork, 1910, . 87; frst half of 18th century, William Douglass, Summary, Historical and Political, of he Fire! Planting, Progressiee Improwment, and Present Slate of the British Seiemente in North ‘America, vol. TR & J Dodsley, London, 1760, p. 536; 1785, Abbot Smith, Colonie ie Bondage, University’ of Norch Carolina Pres, Chapel Hill, 1947, p. 212; 1744-1748, Howard Chapin, The Tartar, the Armed Sloop of the Colony of Rhode Toland in King Georges War, Providence, 1922, p. 17; 1747, Ietbel M, Calder, Colonial Captirtes, Marches and Journeye, Macmillan, New York, 1885, p. 40; 1755, Basil Sollers, “The Acadians (French Neutrals) Transported to Maryland," Moryland Historical Magazine, vol. TH, March 1908, pp. 8-10; 1757, John Fitzpatrick, ed., The Writings of George Washington, vol. I, US. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1981, p. 72; 1761, “Brigade Order Books, Montreal, September 29, 1781," Journals ofthe Hon. William Hervey, from 1755 fo 1814, Paul and Mathew, Bury St. Edmunds, England, 1206, p. 154; about 1770, Walter Besant, London inthe Bighteenth Century, Ad C Black, London, 1809, p. 556; 1175, Fitzpatrick, eted above, vol. I, p. 403; 1776, “Journsl of the Committees of Observation of the Middle Distrlet of Frederic County, Maryland," Maryland Histrleal Magazine, vol. XI, Decera- Der 1816, p. 810; 1780 (Continental Army), John W. Wright, “Some ‘Notes on the Continental Army," William and Mary Quarterly, vol XI, 1981, p. 105; 1780 (French prisoners), Rupert C. Jarvis, ed. Customs Letir-Book af the Port of Liverpoal, Manchester, 1984, p. 106; about 1790, Fitepatriek, cited above, vol. XXXI, pp. 186-187; before 1861 (majority of slaves), Kenneth Stampp, The Peculiar Institution, Alfrod A. Knopf, New York, 1986, p. 282. ‘Data {or calories per day, series Z 195, have been recalculated froma those shown in Historical Staistes ... Colonial Times to 1967 and rounded 20 the nearest 100, Exact precision cannot be expected in reducing colonial data to modern calorie terms. Also, the totals ‘might have been reduced before actual consumption by spoilage, Jmuman carelessness, and dishonesty, or increased by fish, game, and produce in season, "Researchers interested in the subject should write to Professor Lawrence A. Harper, Department of History, University of California, Berkeley. 4% 212-226. Value of exports to and imports from England by American Colonies and States, 1697-1791. Source: 1697-1778, Charles Whitworth, State of the Trade of Great Britain in Its Imports ond Exports Progrsseely from the Year 1897, G. Robineon, London, 1778; 1774-1776, David Macphorson, Annale ef Commerce, Manufactures, Fisheries and Navigation, val. TIL, Mun- all & Son, Edinburgh, 1805, pp. 564, 685, and 809; 1777-1701, compiled by Jacob M. Price, University of Michigan, trom Public Record Office, London, B.T. 6/185 .108¢-117v. ‘The English Inspector General's Ledgers (Public Records Office, London, Customs? and 8) provide the original souree for these figures Unfortunately, Whieworth’s erroneous title has euused many to believe the figures relate to Britain rather than to England but other- Wise his volume has much value. The souree tables cover all countri ‘and appear in two formats: One gives England's trade with any one country, annually; the other shows all the countries with which England traded each year. Those interested in studying broader ‘rends wil find value in the decennial averages in John, Lord Sheffield, Observations on the Cemmeree of the American Slates, 6th edition, London, 1784. G. N. Clark's Guide to English Commercial Statistics, 1696-1788 (Royal Historieal Society Guides and Handbook, No. 1, London, 1988) provides « valuable history and analysis of the basic ‘statistics and a usoful appendix which has a chronological list of statistical material for 1663-1789 snd spacifies where the data may be found. 2 21-265 Users of this material should note the basis on which the values rest, Smuggling docs not consticute a material feetor during the yours under consideration, However, other difficulties arise with Teepect to the question of the volume of exports and the value ofall the trade, The repeal of the export duties on woolen manufactares Jn 1701 (11 W. TIT © 20) and of the remaining export duties in 1721 (Geo, Il ¢ 15) removed the penalty for falso entries on exports, and some merchants overstated their quantity for reasons of real or fancied prestige —a practice which may have injected an element of error of about & percent (Clark, cited above, pp. 16, 27, and 5) “Another problem arose in determining the value ofthe merchandise Imported <= well a8 exported. ‘The authorities of the early 18th century were greatly Interested in the balance of trade and st frst ‘ied to ascertain the real commercial value of merchandive. How- ver, the dificulties of doing so, and the increasing recoition that there were intangible elements which the records could not disclose, Jed to the ahandonment of atterapts to keep the values current by the tend of the second decade of the 18th century. "The so-called “official values” hecame sterectyped between 1705 and 1721 (Clark, cited above, pp. 17-28), a fact which diminished their value for use in atiking a balance of trade but increased thelr tsefulness as a rough-and-ready Index of the relative increase or decrease of the volume of trade ‘This table has been rovised from that published in the Hittreal Statistics. ., Colonial Times ‘0 1067 volume to include figures for the years 1777-1701. Also, several figures have been corrected, as indi- ‘cated by footnote 1. ‘The source for thove corrections is: John J. McCusker, “The Current Value of English Exports, 1697 to 1800, Wiliam and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, vol. XXVIII, No. 4, October 1971, p. 612, footnote & ‘See also general note for soles Z 1-615. 2 227-244, Value of exportsto and imports from Scotland by American Colonies and States, 1740-1791. Source: Compiled by Jacob M. Price, University of Michigan, from records a3 follows: 1140-1773, House of Lords Record Office, London, 20 Nov. 1775; 1774-1791, Public Record Office, London, BLT, 6/185 1.186v-208, 7 245-252. Value of exports to and Imports from Eugland by New York, 1781-1775. Source: Virginia D. Harrington, The New York Merchant on the Be of the Rewistion, Columbia University Prese, New York, 1985, . 384 (copyright). 2 253-266. ‘Tonnage capacity of ships, 1769 and 1770, and value of exports and imports of American Colonies, 1769, by destination and origin Source: David Muepherson, cited above in source for series 2 218~ 226, val. IIT, pp. 571-572. ‘The tonnage figures shown are chose used commercially —not ‘those computed when the Royal Navy was purchasing vessels (see text for serie Z 268-286). ‘The statintice given by Macpherson are substantially the same as thoze given in Public Records Office, Lon on, Customs 16/1, except thet Macpherson put the 1763 invward~ Dourd tonnage dats for Southern Europe in the West Indies column (and vieo versa)-—an error which has been corrected here, "The value figures for 1769 provide only a rough-and-eady index of the relationship among the different trades. Totals include figures {or the Islands of Newfoundland, Bahama, and Bermuda (a factor which statistically makes only minor diference). ‘These data are bated on the official valuations used in the custamhouse which, ‘according to Macpherson, considerebly understate the true smount ‘This defect, however serious for some purposes, does not destroy the vvalue of the figures for comparative purposes. Also, it must be remembered thatthe value figures exclude the intercolonial eoastwise trade which the tonnage figures show to hi other.7, 266-204 ‘See also sures Z 219-226, which provide a broader and more repre- sentative base for studying the relative relationship of the ‘Thirteen (Colonies trade with England. Tz should be noted that the use of these gures on volume of the ‘traf for the various trades for estimating the amount of shipping given full-time employment must allow for repeatod voyages of the same vessel, 1 266-285. Number and tonnage capacity of ships outward and inward ‘bound, to and from 5 etles, by destination and origin, 1714-1772, Source: Compiled by Lawrenee A. Harper, University of California, ‘rom photographie copia ofthe naval ofc ists in the British Public Records Offie (C. 0.8), except for: 1714-1717, Boston, and 1716-18, New York City, B. B. O'Callaghen, ed., Documents Relative fo the Coloniad History ofthe State of New York, vol. V, Weed Parsons, and Company, Albany, 1855 p. 618; 1783 and 1734, Palladelphia, Pesneyl- sanie Gost for those years; 1782, Port Hampton, Francis C. Huntley, “The Seaborne Trade of Virginia in Mid-Bighteenth Contary: Port Hampton,” Virginia Magasine of History and Biography, vol. LIX, No. 3, July 1951, pp. 802-803; 1768 and 1764, New York, and 1765 ‘and 1788, Now York, Boston, and Philadelphia, soe souree for series 12:245-258, pp. 956-858; and 1768-1772, all port, American Inspector ‘Generals Ledgers, Public Records Office, London, Customs 16/1. ‘Where the elasifieation in Documents Relative to the Colonial Hise tory... did not correspond to that used here, the necessary adjust- ‘mente wero made by reference to the Colonial Naval Office lists (PRO C. 0.5). ‘The ealonil naval oficers appointed to enforce the English naviga- tion laws as wel as the collectors appointed by the Hnglish Commis- sonersof Customs under the act of 1673 (25 Car. IL 7) were charged with reporting the entry and clerance of ships as well as thelr cargoes. ‘Many of the copies of the naval office lists have survived from the 48th century. When they have not, records ofthe names and destina- ‘ons of the ships (but not thelr tonnages) may be obtained from the shipping news in the colonial newspapers. Such data of entries and learances provide the best rough-and-ready index of the course of trade und its relative volume, ‘Although the fgures concerning the entry of goods such as molasses right be distorted by leit trade, the severity of the penalty (Cor: {eituze) for falure to enter one's ship and the diffealty of concealing ‘the offense help to warrant the accuracy of ship entry fgures. Ton- nage figure, however, present « apecial problem. Ralph Davis in “Organization and Finance of the English Shipping Tadustry in the Lave Seventeenth Century” (doctoral thesis, University of London, 41955) states (pp. 476-478) that the lmnage as calculated when the English Nevy was contracting for the purchase of a veel was 25 to 3 porsent grestar than the sontential “lone burden” recorded in the custombouse books. Since the “tons burden” gures for the same ship remain constant in the passbooks and customs entries uring the span af time here Invelved (although not necessarily for all periods), the difference between this purchase tonnage and the conventional tanege wil ordinary no fe: we ofthe data shown See alo general note for series Z 1-61 Z 286-290. Value of commodity exports and imports, earnings, and value of slares imported into British North American Colonies, 68-1772, Source: James F. Shepherd and Gary ML. Walton, Skipping, Mart- ime Trade, and the Economic Development of Colonial North America, Cambridge University Press, London, 1972, table 1 (copyright). ‘The regions used are defined as follows: Northern Colonies—New- foundland, Quebes, and Nova Scotia; New England—New Hamper, Masachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connectleut; Middle Colonies— New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvanta, and Delaware; Upper Soxth— Meryland ‘and Virginia; and Lover Soutk—North Carolina, South 15s COLONIAL AND PRE-FEDERAL STATISTICS Caroling, an Georgia. Florida includes Hast and West Florida, and thas been grouped with the Bahama and the Bermuda Islands prin pally because the overseas trade from these colonies was smal relative to the other regions. The Northern Colonies are not listed under ‘Afrea because there was no trade between ther. "The source for the commodity export and import data was the American Inspector-Generl’s Ledgers (Great Britsin, Public Records Offic, Customs 16/1) extopt that imports from Great Britain wero taken from the English and Scottish customs rocords for these years (Great Britain, Public Records Office, Customs 8 and Customs 16, respectively). Pri data were taken from various courees. Com rmodlty exports aro eatimated {0 values and commodity imports are estimated eif. values. Shipping earaings include earnings from ‘exports on colonal-wned ships plus earnings of eolonil-owned shipe ‘earrying imports ines the impor's are valued iit. Shipping earnings of colonial-owned ships carrying goods between forelzn ports were estimated to have sveraged 13,000 pounds sterling annually during 3168-1772, This estimate is included in the totals of shipping earm- ings, but not in the earnings estimaced for the various routes between fovereeas areas and the colonies. ‘These earnings are allocated to the total shipping camings of each region as follows in pounés sterling New England, 6,000; Middle Colonies, 3,000; and the Southera Colonies, 3,000. (1,000 pounds sterling were lost ia rounding.) Other invisible earnings include interest, insurance, and mercantile ‘profits exraed by colonial residents in their trade with overseas areas ‘Because ofthe likely small amounts involved, no estimates weremade for Africa, The source contains « discussion of the problems and procedures of estimation and the validity of the estimates ‘Other items which alfected the colonial balance of payments but ‘which are aot reflected in the estimates are the sale of shipe to over seas residents, the immigration of indentured servants, and expendl- tres by the British goverament for civil government and. defense {in the colonies. ‘The soure also presents a discussion of the probable ‘magnitudes of these items. Z 291-298. Average annual coaslal exports, imports, and balances of teade, by region, 1768-1772. Source: James F. Shepherd and Semuel H. Williamson, Coastal Trade of the British North American Colonies, 1768-177 ‘The Journal of Eeonomic History, XXXI, 4, Decernber 1972, p. 798 (copyright). ‘The estimates of values for coastal exports from, and imports ‘nto, each colonial pore diatict are based upon quantity data taken from the American Tnspector-General's Ledgers (Great Britain, Public Records Office, Customs 16/1), and price data talcen from various sources, The computed values were then aggregated according to ‘the regional definitions specified in the text for series Z 286-290. Te ‘simportant to note that these are not net exports from, or net imports into, each region. Exports and imports that tool place ctwean porte within each region, ax well as those to or from other rgions, are {included in each repional total. Total export and import values should be approximately the same; the diseropancy is due principally ‘to discrepancies in quantities recerded in the customs records. See source for a discussion of the procedures of estimation and the ~validity ofthe estimates 2294. Value and quantity of articles exported fom British Con- ‘tnental Colonies, by destination, 1770. Source: David Macpherson, cited above in souree for series Z 218-226, vo. II, pp. 572-578, supplemented by American Inspestar Goneral’s Ledgers, Public Records Office, London, Customs 16/1 Data do not include cosstwise shipments as do the figures in the ‘American Inspector General’s Ledgers (PRO Customs 16/1). Mac- Dherwon (ee source for series Z 219-226) states that he omitted fractional parts of the quantities but their value is retained in the vvalue column. Because ofthis and an error which Maepherson saw Dut had no means of eoerectng, the value column may not be entirelyEXPORTS AND IMPORTS comparable with the quantity columns. ‘The value figures are not the market values (which Macpherson believes to have been higher) but ae che official eustombouse values at the ports of exportation. Customs 16/1 presents the quantities in all cases for « longer time span, 1768-177, but the data there are not so conveniently totaled s5in Macpherson ‘See also goneral note for sores : 1-615. 4% 295-804. Coal exported from James River ports In Vieginia, by destination, 1758-1765. Source: Howard N. Eavenson, The Firat Century and @ Quarter of American Cool Industry, Waverly Press, Inc., Baltimore, 1942, pp. 82-84, and WPA compilations (eee generel note for series Z 1-615) of naval offlce liste at the University of California. ‘These figures were compiled from the colonial naval office lists by Bavonson. They represent only the years for which records are complete in the case of both the Upper and Lower James, —Compari= son with the colonial exports for 1768-1772 (compiled by Eavencon, .36, {rom PRO Customs 18/1) shows thatthe James River shipments constituted the great bull of the exports from the Thirteen Colonies, Out of total of 2,798 net tons recerded, 1220 met tons were shipped {rom the Upper James, 180 from the Lower James, 1,100 from Nova Scotia, 117 from New Hampshire, and only minor quantities trem other ports (which may have been used as ballast and originally may have come from Great Britain), Chaldrone were not convertad into tons at the Newoastle rate of 5,986 pounds equal to 2.97 net tons but on the measure used after the Revolutionary Wer, 2 chaldron equaling 36 bushels or 1.44 net tone, 2 305-825. Coal imported, by American ports, 1768-1772, ‘Source: American Inspector General's Ledgers, Public Records Office, London, Customs 16/1 ‘Chaldrons and bushels were converted to net tons as described in toxt for series Z 295-204 ‘The WPA compilations (sce general note for series Z 1-615) from the naval office lists show earlier entries of coal in the aoveral ports, from time a time. ‘The great bull cae from Britain, the remainder (except in the ease of exports from James River ports) apparently were transshipments, but itis not until 1768 that records give a good ross section of the trafic. Z S26-417, General note Tron was listed in colonial commerce as “pig iron” which derived its name from the shape assumed by the moleen iron when poured {rom the furnace, after being separated from the ore, and “bar iron”” which consisted of malleable iron produced in bloomeries or at the forge. Iron manufactures not specifically described by name, such 1s anchors, axea, pots, nail, stythes, ete, were listed as “cast iron” poured into forms and “wrought iron” if forged from malleable ‘ron, except in the English Inspector General's records (PRO Customs 8) whore the term “wrought fron” seems to have included both east ‘and malleable iron products The statistical picture of iron in the colonfes can be reconstructad jn part from data concerning iron works in the colonies and in part from the records of colonial trade. The Deginning of this industry came early in the various American colonies: Virginia 1622, Massa chusetts 1645, Connecticut 1657, New Jereay 1680, Maryland 1715, Pennsylvania 1716, and New York shortly before 1750. By 1775, the ‘colonies had at least 82 charcoal furnaces which produced about 800 ‘tons each, oF a total of 24,800 tons, of pig iron and more than 175 iron forges, some being bloomeries which made bar iron directly from the ore. Most of them, however, were refinery forges which used pig iron. “Each of the 176 forges produced an average of 150 tons fof bar iron a yoar, or 26250 tons in all. In addition, there were slitting mills and other iron works, ‘Arthur C. Bining, in British Repalation ofthe Colonial Iron Industry, 2 206-47 sited below for series Z 826-889, p. 184, provides a table comparing ‘American production with the world total (eee text table I. These tstimates include pig ron, cas: iron wares made at blast furnaces, and bar iron produced at bloomeries directly om the oe ‘Table J. Iron Production of American Colonies and the World Intent ‘The Agures shown in series Z 825-417 for the movement of the ‘various types of iron in eommeree throw light on England's eforta ‘to encourage Americans to produce pig and bar iron by freeing these prodiuets from import dutiea in England, and to limit further mana facture by prohibiting the erection of any new elitting or rolling mills, ‘lt hammer forges, o sel farnaces (25 Geo, TL ¢ 29; 0 Geo. I 16). Tron was not added (0 che list of enumerated produets which eauld be shipped only to Britain (or another colony) until 1764 (4 Geo. III (© 15), and even then the law only forbade shipments to Europe. Comparisons of ealonial production with export figures will help provide estimates of the home market, which ean be reduced to an approximate per capita base by reference to series Z 1-19, See also general note for series Z 1-615. 4% 226-290, Pig iron exported to England, by colony, 1728-1776, Source: 1728-1785, and series Z $28 only, 1761-1776, Arthur Cocil Bining, Brtiah’ Regulation of the Colonial Irom Fndusiry, Uni= versity of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1688, pp. 126-138 (copy Might): 1756-1760, and series Z 327-280, 1761-1776, English Tn- spector General's Ledgers, Public Records Office, Londen, Customs 3. Basically, all the figures como from the Tnspector General’s ac- ‘counts although Bining obtained his from House of Lords manuscript, No. 185, and Harry Seivenor, Comprehiencioe Hisory of the Iron ‘Trade, Longman, Brown, Green, and Loagmans, London, 184. J.L. Bishop, A History of American Manufactures... ted below {or series Z 948-953, p. 625, gives an exclier figure when be states ‘that the first iron sent to Bngland from America was from Nevis and St. Christopher, followed in 1718 by 3)4 tons from Virginia and Maryland. "Series Z 826 is that of Bining and, where possible, foot- notes explain the reatons for differences between his totals and those of the extended Sgures. The customs records were stated in terms of tons, hundredweights, quarters, and pounds, but they have here ‘bean rounded to tons Z 331-337. Pig iron exported from American Colonies, by destination ‘and colony, 1768-1772. Source: American Inspector General's Ledgers, Public Records, Offce, London, Customs 16/1. ‘The diference in total export given in series Z 881 for Great Britain and that in serio 2 828 for Bugland should reflect trade with Scotland txeept for the variation in terminal dates and the lapse of time re- (quired to eroaathe Atlantic. The rade, however, seems t» have been minor. J. L. Bishop, A History of American Manufactures... cited below for series Z 948-858, p. 628, gives figures showing that the pig ‘ron exported to Scotland totaled only 284 tons in the 10 years from 1799 to 1749 and 228 tons in the 6 years from 1750 to 1786. No figures are available for pig iron imported from England by ‘the colonies. Such imports were probably negligible. Z 338-847. Pig iron imported by American Colonies from other Con ‘Unental Colonies, 1768-1772. Source: See souree for series Z 881-887. In addition to the colonies shown, these seres also caver New 11892 435 Hampshire, New Jersey, Georgia, and Florida, However, these colonies imported no pl irom for 1768-1772 4% 148-358, Dar iron imported from England by American Colonies, 1710-1760, Souree: 1710-1785, J. L. Bishop, A Hislory of American Manu- facture From: 1608 t9 1860, vol. I, Baward Young & Co., Philadelphia, 1861, p. £29; 1750, English Inspector General's Ledgers, Public Records Office, London, Customs 8. ‘Shipments of bar iron from Bngland to the Colonies delined sharply Jn the last quarter century before the Revolution. Figures aro not available for 1796-1749 to determine when the decline frst became evident, Tmports were relatively few after 1750, The English and American Inspector Gonerals' Ledgers show that New England imported 6 tons in 1764, and again in 1769, and 1,059 bars in 1779. South CCarotine imported 19 bare in 1770 and 9 hundredweleht in 1773. 854-850. Bar iron exported to England, by colony, 1718-1776. Sourge: 1718-1755, and series Z 854, 1761-1776, Bining, cited above for series Z 896-890, pp. 128-188; 1756-1760, and series Z 358-258, 1761-1778, English Inspector General's Ledgers, Public Records Office, London, Customs 8, ‘Tae original sources show data in tons, hundredwaights, quarter, ‘and pounds, but they have here been rounded by Lawrence A. Harper (Calversty of California) to the nearest ton. "The souree indicates that no bar iron was exported during 1710~ TIT and for years which have been omitted in these svies 1 980-878. Bar iron imported by American Colonies from other Con- tinental Colonies, 1768-1772. ‘Souroe: See source for series Z 281-297. Z 814-883. Bar iron exported by American Colonies, by destination and colony, 1768-1772. Source: See souree for series Z 831-297 ‘The diference in total exports given in sori Z 874 for Grest Britain and those in series Z 894 for England should reflect exports vo Seot- Jand, except for the variation in terminal dates and the lapso of time required to cross the Atlantic. According to J. L. Bishop, theae exports were minor—only 11 tons from 1788 to 1748 (see text for series Z 381-887), 1% 384-397, Cast iron imported and exported by American Colonies, by origin and destination, 1768-1772. Source: See soures for series Z 981-887. Additional information may be obtained concerning imports from Bagland in the Buglish Inspector General's Ledgers (PRO Customs 48) aud in the WPA compilations (see goneral note for series Z. 1-618) fof the colonial naval offie lists, English exporte to the Colonies list, in addition to the generic heading “east iron," such items. as ordnance, ron pots, melting pots, and Flemish iron pots. The WPA compilations show an active coastal trade in pots a2 well at a aur- prisingly large quantity of sugar pots and sugar molds going to Kings ‘on, Jamaica, expecially from Pbiladelphla, ‘The figures for 1769-1771 may inchide some shipments from Scot~ land but the amounts probably are negligible. ‘The source also indleates additional minor quantities of cast iron ex- ported to Southern Europe, Wine Islands, and West Indios, 2, 398-405. Source: 1710-1785, Bishop, cited above for serie 2 848-853, p. 629; 1780-1764, and 1778, English Inspector General's Ledgers, an60 Wrought icon imported from England by American Col- ari0-173. COLONIAL AND PRE-FEDERAL STATISTICS Public Records Office, London, Customs 8; 1769-1771, see sour for series Z 391-881, "The figures for 1769-1771 may include some shipments from Seat Tand but the amounts probably are negligibie. ‘The American Inspector General's figures for 1768-1772 (PRO (Customs 16/1) disease no exports of wrought iron from the Colonies + England, but the figures do show some shipments to the Watt Tndles. Z 406-417, Selected iron products imported and exported by American Colonies, 1768-172. Source: See seures for series Z 881-837. Figures are probably underestimated since the items included ‘may bave heen listed under more general designations. The colonists were not necessarily dependent upon importation but may have manufactured their own nails and other artieles from bar fron which ‘was either home-produced or imported. ‘Since colonial imports of axes and scythes ceme so predorsinantly from the other colonies, and steel and walls from Grea: Britain, no note has boon taken of the negligible importations of these items from other eourees 2418-401, Value of furs exported to England by British Continental Colonies, 1700-1775. Souree: Murray G. Lawson, “Fur~A Study in English Mercantil lam, 1100-1775," Unisraty of Porona Studies, History and Economics Series, vel. IX, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1948, pp. 108-109 (copyright). ‘As pointed out in the source, the fur trade is inextricably inter- woven with the manufseture of beaver hats, ‘Thus, the Hat Act of 1782 (5 Geo. IT ¢ 2) forbidding the exportation of hats by any colony, combined with the enumeration of beaver skins and furs in 1722 (8 Geo. 115), sought to protect the English hat manufacturers. ‘These series show the importance to the English of thelr colonial supply of fur. Comparison of these figures with those shown in series Z 219-226 will demonstrate the relative unimportance of fur in the colonial elance of trade, ‘Tho source also specifies the different kinds and quantity of fur England imported fram the colonies and elacwhere, as well as the ‘quantity and value of the different markets of the word—data given in even greater detal in the original tables which Lawson has left with the WPA compilations at the University of California in Berkeley. ‘See alzo general note for series Z 1-615. 2 492-495, Indigo and 1747-1788, Source: Series Z 422-404, 1147-1775, Lewis C. Gray, History of Agriculture in the Southern United States 'o 1860, vel. 1, Carnegie In- stitution of Washington, D.C. 1988, p. 1024 (copyright, (xcapt 1766, ‘WPA compilations of ealonial naval office lists, Public Records Office, London, C.O. 5; und 1768-1772, photographic eopies of the American Tispector General's Ledgers, Public Records Office, London, Customs 16/1); 1789-1788, compiled by Jacob M. Price, University of Michi- ‘gan, from records of the Public Record Office, London BT. 6/21 HLS1I-$12, Series Z 425, Lewie C. Gray, cited above, vol. I, p. 187. See alzo general uote for series Z 1-618. ‘The data on indigo are reasonably complete, Although South Carolina contemplated the production of indigo as early as 1672, lietle eame of it, presumably because of the competition from the British West Indies. When the Brith Islands began to emphasize sugar rather than indigo, England had to depend upon the French ‘West Indies for her supplies of indigo until South Carolina (Vnanks to the enterprise of Hliza Lucas) again entered the Geld. The frst suceessful erop in 1744 was largely devoted to seed but South Caroling Mkexported from South Carolina end Georgi,PXPORTS AND IMPORTS ‘was soon exporting in quantity. Tn due course, Georgia became 2 competitor but British Florida did not enter the pieture until late. ven during the last 5 yeare of the colonial period, British Florida's production ranged only between 20,000 and 60,000 pounds (Gray, cited above, vol. I, pp. 54 and 291-205). ‘The great bulk’of indigo went to Britein (which wanted it as a ‘source of blue dye), not only becauso of ite enumeration in the act of 1660 (12 Charles II e 18), but alo because of the bounty England paid of 6 pence per pound (21 Charles If ¢ 80). However, Customs 16/1 and the WPA compilations (soe general note for series Z 1-615) show that minor quantities went to other Continental Colonies Gray's Carolina figures, which were taken by him from an English ‘souree, apparently do not include coastwise shipments, ‘This omis- sion is rolatively unimportant since the coastwise igures for 1768-1773 (as shown in Customs 16/1) represented only 1.8 pereont of the total exports. The figures for Georgia (compiled by an Atneriean customs ‘offcial) include shipments coastwise as well ax to England —a matter of etatistical significance as they constituted §.1 percent of Georg total for 1768-1773. ‘Comparison of Gray's figures for 1741-1765 with those for 1768~ 11773 in Customs 16/1 maggests thet Gray's figures are not for Charles ton and Savanna alono, as shown hy his headings, but for South Carolina and Georgis. Tn the case of South Carolina, the two series sgree exactly in 1768, the one year when we have figures from both sourees. Since Gray's source (British Museum, Kings Manustripts, 206, £.29) isthe same for the earlier years, 17H7-1765, it seems prod lable that the figures for these yoars also refer to South Carolina as & whole. Customs 16/1 does not conclusively answer the problem in the cave of Savanna. It shows for 1768-1772 that Savannah wes the only Georgia port exporting indigo except in 1772. For this year, Gray's figures difer sligatly from those shown in Customs 16/1 for ‘Savannah alone and also those for Georgia as a whole. ‘The decision ‘to change the heading from Savannah to Georga rests upon the fact that Bernard Romans (A Concise Natural History of Bast and West Florida, vl. New York, 1715, p18) spees Georgia rather than ‘Whether or not the figures are for Savannah or Georgia seems statistically Insignificant. In South Carolina, however, ports other than Charleston provided 78 percent of that colony's exports to England for 1768-1773. Whatever may be srue of Gray's figures, ‘those given for 1768-1778 from Customs 16/1 do include all South Carolina ports and all of Georgia, but the only gure avaiable for ‘South Carolina for 1766 (from the WPA compilations) is for Charles- ton alone. ‘The figures on silk are from records compiled by the Georgia Comp- troller of Customs (Gray, cited above, vol. I, p. 187). See also text for series Z 435-440, 1% 486~440,_ Silk exported and imported by North and South Caroling, 17a1-178, Source: Chapman J; Milling, ed, Colonial South Carolina, Unt versity of South Carolina Press, Columbia, 1961, p. 104 (copytight). Despite vigorous efforts to encourage colonial silk production by Doth British and colonial governments, more se moved west then feast across the Atlantic. Early figures gathered by Gray (cited above for series Z 492495, vol. I, pp. 184-187) show that in 1656 ‘Virginia reported the production of only 8 pounds; in 1656, 10 pounds (wound sil); im 1668, 300 pounds (snt to Charles I, type unspeci- fed); in 1790, 200 pounds (raw), and that the Carolinas sent “several bales” to London in 1710 and again in 1716. Georgia's first efforcs ‘succeeded in sending only 20 pounds of silk to England in 1788. Tn ‘741, she produced 600 pounds of eoeooas (of which 16 pounds made 1 pound of sil) 2s against 97 pounds of wound sil in all the previous years of the colony. In 1748, the Salzburger (a religious eolony of industrious peasunts and artisans) alone produced 762. pounds of ‘cocoons and 60 pounds, 13 ounces, of spun sk. In 1764, the Colones’ 2 A647 ‘otal product amounted to 15,212 pounds of cocoons. See alo text for sores 7 432-435. ‘The figures for the Carolinas (1781-1765) wore takon from British records and appear in Governor James Glen's Dearipsion of South Caroline (Milling, cited above, p. 104). Z At1-472. General note. Colonial statistics concerning production and consumption of ‘tobacco have not been developed yet, and perhaps they can never ‘advance beyond the rough estimate stage. For the present, only’ ‘general deductions from export statisties and other evidenoe can be made. Figures for trans-Atlantic shipments of tobacso in the 17th cen- tury leave much to be desired (see text for series 2 457-458) but those for the 18th cantury are reasonably satisfactory. The 18th century statsties of English imports rest upon contemporary eom- pilstious from customhouse encris. ‘The Aguree for Scotland are Jess exact and in te exry years they do not rise above mere estimates. However, Scotland's tobaceo imports were relatively minor in those years. Fortunately, as thelr relative importance grew, the Scottish atirtica became more reliable, ‘British imports represented virtually all the colonial experts. ‘The ‘Agures given in series Z 441—t48 and 2: 449-456 give the landed weight Jn Britain. Due to the tobseoo's los of mosvure while resting the ‘Atlante, the landed weight in Brita is about 5 peroent ess than the Shipping weight in America (Arthur P. Middleton, Tobacco Coat, the Mariners’ Museum, Newport News, Va., 1963, p. 104; Rupert C. Jarvis, Customs Letir-Books of the Port of Liverpool, 2711-1818, the Chetham Society, Manchester, 1954). Unforcunataly, the English Inspector General's Ledgers of Imports and Exports (PRO Customs 8) do not diferentiate between shipments from Virginia and Maryland as do the Scottish (PRO Customs 14) and the American (PRO Customs 16/1). ‘The validity of British statistics a= a reflection of the American twbaeeo trade depends, of course, upon colonial obedience to the regulations requiring shipment (with minor exceptions) of colonial tobacco to England (Britain after 1707)—at fist by royal order and after 1660 by the Navigation Act of 12 Car. II, ¢ 18. Until the English drove the Dutch from New Netherland (rst 1654 and finally in 1674) great opportunites existed fr Mit trade jin America. The rules also appear not to have been consistently enforced in Europe (see text for series Z 457-159). In the 1680's ‘there was a lareup of Mogal shipments to Ireland but it reflected a sudden change in the law. The offending vessols were apprehended ‘and tho great bulk of the Irish trade thereafter seems to have followed legal channels. There were lurid accounts of smugeling to Scotland at the tara of the eentury but the quantity of tobacco involved should be viewod in proportion to the trade as 2 whole. "One eznnot resson= ably expect the flegal shipmonte at that time to exceed the shipments ‘made a decade later with fall sanction of the law. Infact, the legal shipments prosumably were much les because Scotland as'a whole at the end of the 17th century had only one-fourth of the shipping it had within 5 years alter direct trade was permitted. The Clyde ‘ports which were most concerned with the American trade, bad only one-tenth of ther later shipping (L.A. Harper, The Engich Navigation Laws, Columbia University Pross, New York, 1999, pp. 260-261). In view of this difference in the shipping avalable, the volume of IMlegal trade would seem not to have been more than 250,000 pounds, ‘and a cemparison with series Z 441-148 shows that it represented at most 1 percent of the tobacco erossing the Atlantic lawfully During the 18th century there was undoubtedly some smuggling ‘of twbacco but it does not seam likely to impair the validity of the ‘colonial impart statistics. ‘The ict trades's greatest profit did notlio in evading the provisions of the Navigation Act but in escaping ‘the high taxes laid on tobaceo in England. The most effective teck- nique consisted in importing the tobseco and reexporting it legally to a nearby port (such as the Isle of Man) whence small craft could nePOPULATION First Coneus ofthe United Stats tothe Twelfth: 1790-1900, US. Bureaus of the Census, 1908. ‘The original data were obtained 2 26-87, Connecticut. 1056 Connecticut Colony Public Record XIV, p. 492. Rossiter thas made corroetions, p. 164. Greene and Harrington sive tho same figures as Rossiter, pp. 88-61. ATT Ibid, pp. 485-491. From Rossiter, pp. 168-169. Ross ter bas made some corrections in addition from the orig nal records. Greene and Harrigian ute the same saree and give approximately tho same figures but do not give ‘as much detal, pp. 88-E1, 1782 Jedidiah Morse, Americon Geography, Boston, 1792, pp.217-218. From Groene and Harrington, p. 61 follows: Delaware. Totat White Neoro 44,085 41,195 2,800 From unpublished manuscripts in the Scate House in Dover, Delaware, examined by Stella Sutherland. Only the census totals for Kent County (@,782) and Sussex County (12,660) are available. Neweastle County is missing, but Sutherland hae estimated a total for New- cast (21,158) whichis included inthe State total. She also made separate estimates for whita and Negro. 7. 38-49, Maine. 1764-65 Josiah HT. Benton, Jr, Eorly Census Making in Massachusetts, 1648 to '1765, Boston, 1905. With fddition corrections by Roster, p. 162. Benton used the Crane MS (manustript) for Massackuse:ts snd Maine which was discovered about 1800, Greene snd Harrington also preferred the Crane MS as published by Benton (see footnote a, pp. 21-22) Rossiter’s figures are used inthis table because they’ give more deta. The earlier Dana MS was pub- lished in Joseph B, Felt, “Statistes of the Population in Massachusotis™ (in American Statietizal Azeocia- ‘on Collections, I, 121-216), Boston, 1897. Felt does not include Negro and other persons and the total ‘population i lightly less. William D. Williamson, in The Hielory of the State of Maine, 1602-1820, Hallowel, 1888, gives population for the three counties in Maine on p. 373 and also estimates for the plantations which were omitted in the enumeration. His source is the Columbian Con- final published in 1822 which, according 10 Greene ‘and Harrington, was based on the Dana MS. His total is considerably larger and does indicate that the Dana MS included Negroes. 7 50-62, Marsland. 1104 Morylond Archives, XXV, p. 256. From Greene and Harrington, p. 129 1110 bid, pp. 258-259. Yrom Greene and Harrington, p. 328, 1182 W212 Toid, p. 259. From Greene and Harrington, p. 128 1185 Gendleman's Magasine, vol. XXXTV, p. 261. With cor- rections by Ressiter, p. 185. Roaster gives more detail than Groene and Harrington, pp. 125-126, but the latter have some figures that vary considerably from those seven by Rossiter. The total population is only 60 more. (Groene and Harrington take thelr gure from a diferent source, Maryland Records Miveslneous, ¥758-15, 11 in Foree, Transcripts (copied from Bara’ Stiles’ MS) in Library of Congress Transcripts. CENSUSES 7108 1162 Jedidiah Morse, American Geography, Boston, 1792, p. 350. Also in Greene and Harrington, p. 127. Morse ives. partial breakdown of the totals and indicates that this census was taken by several assessors in March 1782, 2 63-77, Massachusetts. 1764-65 See source for Maine, 1761-65 tons by Rossiter, p. 161.) 11T6 Jesse Chickering, Sttisticel View of the Popalation of ‘Massachusetts, 1765-1340, Boston, 1846, p. 9. From Groene and Harrington, p. 17 1164 Jedidiah Morse, American Geography, Boston, 1792, p, 12. From Greene and Harrington, p46. (Addition corree- 4% 78-90, New Hampshire. 1161 Provincial Papers of New Hampshire, vol. VIL, pp. 158 310. With corrections by Resster, pp. 149-180 1778 Ibid, vol. X, pp. 625-686. With corrections by Rossiter, p. 15. A175 New Hampshire Hixiorieal Society Collections, vol. 1, pp. 281-285. From Rossiter, pp. 152-154. "Rossiter id not total the figures, which ere given by towns. He Indicated that the consus was incomplete, with date for several towns not reported. The town figures in Greene ‘and Harrington (pp. 74-79), which are town totals only, differ in a few instances from thove given by Rossiter, 1186 Provincial Papere of New Hampehite, vol. X, pp. 687-689. With correction by Rossiter, p. 156, and Greene and Harrington, p. 74. Many towne did not dstinguish whites, Negroes, and others 2-91-97, New Jersey. A126 New Joraey Archives, Let Series, V, p. 164. With corres- ‘ions by Rasttar, p. 184, and Greene and Hartington, . 108. 1798 New Jeraey Archives, Let Series, VI, pp. 242-243. With comeetions by Rossiter, p. 184, and Greme and Haring- ‘wn, p.110. “Roth report Negroes as “Negroos and Other and Slaves” New Jersey Archiver, st Series, VI, pp. 242-248. With corrections by Rossiter, p. 184, and Greene and Harring ton, p. 111. Both report Negroes as “Slaves.” New Jeraey Archives, 1st Series, X, pp. 452-458. From Stella H, Sutherland, Population Distribution i Colonial Ameries, Columbia University Press, New Yor, 1936; reprinted AMS Pres, Inc, New York, 1986, pp. 98-99. Separate figures for whites and Negroes available for only 8 counties. New Jersey Department of State: Compendium of Cen- ‘uses, 1726-1905, Trenton, 1906, p. 41; and Jedidiah Morse, American Geography, Boston, 1792, p. 284, 6 wm, 1784 98-104, New York. 1688 F. B. Hough, Census of the State of New York, 1855, wv. abo Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series: America cand Weat Indies, 1687-98, 592, 978, vi. From Rossiter, . 170, and Greene and Harrington, p. 82. 1708 Ibid, iv. From Rossiter, p. 170, and Greene and Har- ington, p. 95. AM2-14 Now York Colonial MS, vol. LVI, Seoretary’s ofce. From Roaster, p. 181 1728 New York Documentary History (ed. B. B. O'Callaghan), ‘Albany, 1649-51, vol. J, p. 698. From Rossier, p81, and Greene and Harrington, p. 96. 1532 105-168 1131 [bid vol 1, p. 694. With corrections, Rossiter, p. 181, ‘and Groene and Harrington, p. 97. 3197 Tbid, vel. I, p. 694. With corrections by Rossiter, p. 182, and Greene and Harrington, p. 98. 1146 bid, vol T,p. 695, not including Albany County. From Rossiter, p 182, and Greene and Harrington, p. 99. 1749 Ibid, vol. T, p. 695. With corrections by Greene and Harrington, p. 100. 1156 Ibid. vol. , p. 696. With corrections by Greene and Harrington, p. 101. 17M Ibid, vol. T, p. 697. With corrections by Rossiter, p. 165, and Greene and Harrington, p. 102, 1786 F. B. Hough, Census of the State of New York, 1856, vl. From Rossiter, p. 183, and Greane and Harrington, p. 104. 2105-113, Rhode 3108 Rhode Toland Colonial Recorde, vol. TV, p. 59. With correction from Rossiter, p. 162, and Greene and Har- ington, p. 65. 1780 Conses in “R. I. State Papers” in Maneachuaetis Hise toriel Socity Colletios, 24 Series, VIL, 113. From Greene and Harrington, p. 68. 1948 Sco source for 1780. From Greene and Harrington, p. 68. 1755 “Act, of the People inthe Colony’of R. 1." with Gover- ror Hopkin's letter, Dee. 24, 1758, Proprisies Vi 150 iv), in Historical Society of Pennsyleania Transcripts, ‘From Greene and Harrington, p. 6T. A174 John R. Bartlett, Coneus of Rhode Island for 1774, Provi- ence, 1855, p. 238. With correcticns from Roster, p. 162. 1789 Rhode Island Colonial Records, VII, p. 299. With cor- ‘eetions from Greene and Harrington, pp. 69-70. land. 2 114-120, Vermont 1971 London Documents, xv, p. 144; New York Dacumentary ‘History (e6. 8. B. O'Callaghan), Albany, 1840-51, p. 474; FB. Hough, Conous of the Sate of New York, 1955, vi, From Rot, p, 188, and Greene and Haringto, p 4% 12-182, Virginia. 1624-25 Virginia Magasine of History and Biography (Virginia Historical Society), VIE, pp. 264-867; Alexander Brow, First Republic in’ Amerize, Boston and New York, 1898, pp. 617-627. From Greene and Har ington, p. 144.” Irene W. D. Hecht in "The Virginia Muster of 1624/5 as 2 souree for Demographic Hise tory." Wiliam and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, vol. XXX, No.1, January 1878, gives the total population as 1218 and other details, 3634 Virginia Colonial Records, p. 91. “After this lst was brought in there arrived a'Ship of Holland with 145 per- sons from Bermudas; and siee that 60 more n an English ‘hip from Bermudas alo.” George Chalmers, Coll. Van, I, p. 18, New York Public Library. From Greene and Hariogtom, p 145. 1699 Colonial Office Papers, 5:1812, No. 19, XI in Libracy of Congress Transcripts; Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Seriee: America and Weat Tndies, 1701, 635, No. 1040, XI From Greene and Harrington, p. 187. 1701 Colonial Oftee Papers 5:1812, No. 19, X, From Greene and Harrington, p. 147-148, 1154 COLONIAL AND PRE-FEDERAL STATISTICS 139-168. General note, ‘The two baslesourees forthe study of the colonial Negro are popule- ton statistics (seo series Z 1-19 and Z 21-182) and commercial statis ties concerning slave importations. Although direct knowledge of ‘the colonial Negro's natural increase is scarce, available evidence {ndicatae that this inerease must-have been considerable, Te is reported in 1708 that about half of Boston's 400 Nogro servants wore bora there, and Governor James Glen of South Carolina stated in Y749 that the number of Negroes in his colony increased rather than diminished during the nine years when prohibitive taxes and ‘war “provented any from being imported” (Elizabeth Donnan, ed, Documents Tustatve of the History of the Slase Tvade to Amari, Carnogle Institution of Washington, D.C., 1985, vole. TIT and IN, pp. 24 and 808, respectively). Otherwise, discrepancies between import snd population figures (especially in later years) would eal {or the existence of an illegal trade in Negroca of an extent to which other evidence gives little support. Donnan's Documents... cited above, provides the greatest single source on the subject of the slave trade. She supplies references to many of the varied eources which provide such knowledge as we dhave of the 17th century, most helpfal of which are the atatstical reports prepared to help settle disputes betwoen the Royal African Company and the separate traders, After the first quarter of the 1Sch century, data on the slave trade usually rest upon the colonial naval office lists (PRO C. 0. 8). Colonial newspapers sometimes reported the tallies which had beea made in the customhouse; Donnan, Documents .., cited above, reproduces the individual entries for most of the liste which have survived, and the WPA compilations (see general note for series 21-616) give annual totals. Tn preparing the series on slaves, photo. ‘traphic copia of the naval ofice lists (PRO C. O. 6) ware used when ‘the Donnan entries and the WPA compilations did not agree. It is important to note, however, that the naval ofce ists report imports: tions by sea rather than overland movements of slaves. Als, i s not always known how many of the Negroes survived after thelr entry was recorded. The Virginia statistics for 1710-1718 (Donnar, cited above, vol. TV, pp. 175-181) show that of 4,415 Negro slaves entered, 281 died within the time allowed to recover the duty and 408 wero drawn back for exportation—7.5 pereant of the total Importations. In the case of the Southern Colonies, the statistics for Virginia and South Carolina are reasonably complete; those for Maryland and Georgia are spotty; and those for North Carolina are virtually nonexistent. In New England, the Negro population appesrs to have been due {0 natural increase rather than extensive importations. Governor Dudley of Massachusetts reported in 1708 that about one-half of ‘Boston's Negro servants were born there (Donnan, cited above, vol. IIT, p. 24), and a comparison of the 1768-1778 trade figures, eres Z 188-145, with the population Sgures, seen Z 1-19, suggests that ‘natural increase had become even more important than importations by the revolutionary era In the Middle Colonies the dst Negroes were probably brought to ‘New York {rom Spanish or Dutch prizes in 1625 or 1626. Dutch records are meager but show a consigument of 5 in 1660 and another ‘of 800 in 1684. After the Englich conquest, New York for atime had fan indeterminate trade in slaves with the piratos of Madagascar Donnan, cited above, vel. TIT, pp. 405-406, 420, and 423). In ‘Pennsyivania, the number of slaves was always small end thelr entry ‘often discouraged by high taxes, Donnan (eited above, vol. TI, p>. 408-408) believes that data about the slave trade there must be sought in merchants eccount books, newspaper advertisements, and items of ship news, some of which appenr in Edward R, Turner, "The ‘Negro in Pennsylvania," Prise Reanye of Ameriean Historical Aso- ciation, Washington, D.C, 1911. In New Jersey, the slave trade ‘centered in the eastern part ofthe colony, but here too the number of slaves imported was relatively small.STAVES 7198-145. Slave trade, by origin and destination, 1768-1772. Soures: Compiled by Lawrence A. Harper, University of California, from the American Inspector General's Ledgers of Imports and Exports, Public Records Office, London, Customs 16/1 4 146-149. Slave trade in Virginie, 1618-1767. Source: 1619-1638, Blsabeth Donnan, ed,, Documente Mutrative Of the History of the Slase Trade to Amariea, Carnogie Tostitution of Washington, D.C., 1985, vol. TV, pp. 4-6, 49°85 (copyright), and Philip A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century, vol. 11, Macmillan, New York, 1895, pp. 66-35; 1700-1726, Donnan, Documents Mlusratve..., vo. TV, pp. 178-187; 1727-1767, ‘Donnan, val. 1V, pp. 187-234, and WPA compilations of colonial naval office liste (6ee general note for series Z 1-815). ‘The title of these seri refers to “slaves” because that was the status of most Negroes listed, but it should be remembered that until ‘the middle of the 17th century Negroes came as servants, not as slaves. Unless otherwise noted, these figures show the total trade at all Virginia ports. When one or more quarters of a port's naval office lists are missing, the total for the fll year has been estimated, the ealeulations resting upon a ehronologiea! or geographic extension — Whichever involved the least element of conjecture. The totals {depend upon such estimates in all years after 1726 except 1737-1740, YT43-1745, 1780, 1758, 1761-1762, and 1764, when full records exist for all the ports except Accomack, Which can be disregarded because ofits lack of direct participation in the slave trade, No figure iz ven in which the total includes more than 20 percent estimate. In the ease of slaves exported, the highly variable nature of this trade did not warrant estimative totals. Of the slaves exported, 1,055 went to Maryland, 12 to North Caroling, 9 to Rhode Toland, § and a shipment (number unspecified) to Barbados, 8 to Madeira, 2 to Great Britain, 2 to Georgia, and 1 to Boston. 2 150-164. Slave tre in New York, 1701-1764. Source: 1101-1718, E. B. O'Callaghan, ed, Documents Relate 49 the Colomiat History of the Stas of New York, vol. V, Weed, Parsons Coy Albany, 1856, p. 814; 1719-1764, Donnan, cited above for series Z 146-149, vol. TI, pp. 462-508, and WPA compilations of colonial naval ofin lists (606 general note for series Z 1-616), ‘Figures for New York for 1781 were partially estimated, for missing quarters, by Lawrence A. Harper, University of California, The ‘estimates were derived by obtaining the ratio ofthe numberof slaves imported for each quarter to the number annually imported. ‘This ratio was based on figures covering a period of eight years in which quarterly data were available, Figures for exports, 1701 to 1716, are not available. Z 155-164. Slaves imported into Charleston, 8.C., by origin, 1706- 1775. Source: Compiled by W. Robert Higgins, Murray State University, Murray, Kentucky. ‘The number of slaves from each source was obtained, unless other~ wise designated, from the “Shipping Returns,” and "Duty Books “A! ‘By’ and ‘C" The figures for 1717 to 1784 include all Negroes brought to South Carolina through the port of Charleston; for 1785 ‘to 1775, the recorded mumber waa af Negroes imported for sale. ‘The number of cargoes was determined from information given in the same souress. ‘The total number of slaves imported cane from the same sources except for 1708 through 1724, which came from a report in 1787 by a committee of the South Catolina assembly containing 4 record of slave importations published in London. The number of cargoes for this period are from Blizaheth Donnan, wd., Documents Milustratoe ofthe History of the Slave Trade to America, vol. TV, p. 25. ein ‘The ports or locations from which the slaver were exported to (Charleston are listed below: From Ajrcon ports—Anamaboe, Angola, Bance Island, Bonny, Calabar, Cape Coast, Cape Mount, Gambia, Gold Coast, ‘Senegal, Sierra Leone, and Widah (Ouidah). By far the mout ‘frequent designation in the bocks was simply “Afra.” rom Ceribbeon ports—Anguilla, Antigue, Bahamas (Providence), ‘Barbados, Bermuda, Cubs (Havana, Oporto, Portle, Santa Gruz), Curacao, Dominica, Grenada and the Grenadines, Gandeloupe, Halt! (inciuding Cap Nicholas), Famaiea (nchud- ing Spanish Town), Montserrat, Nevis, S:. Christopher, St. Croix, 8t. Bustatius, St. Vinoent, and Tobago, From North Amerieon ports—Connecticut (New London), East Florida (St, Augustine), Georgia (Savannah), Massachusetts Boston, Plymouth, and Salem), New Hampshire (Ports- mouth), New York (New York city), North Carolina (Cape Foor), Pennsylvania (Philadelphia), Rhode Island, Virginia, and West Florids (Pensacola). For further information see W. Robert Higgins, “The Geographical Origins of Nogro Slaves in Colonial South Carolina,” The South Allantie Quarterly, vol. LXX, No. 1, Winter, 1971, or W. Robert Higgins, The Slave Trade of Colonial’ South Caroling, University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, South Carolina (frtheoming). Z 165-168. Brtish-American and West African slave prices, 1058- 2 to 177275, Source: Compiled by Richard N. Bean, University of Houston, from Richard N. Bean, The British Traneatlontie Slave Trade, 1650~ 41775, unpublished PhD. dissertation, University of Washington, 19T1, and Richard N. Bean, Additional Slave Priese, University of Houston, Department of Economies, Working Paper Series 741, No. 4, a9. [Because of the scarcity of data, Bean included in his series almost ‘every available observation on slave prices in order to get @ con- ‘Tinuous series The numbers presented here were gleaned from ‘such sources as commercial correspondence, government archives, published document colletions, monographs, and oseasionlly un- documented citetions in secondary sources.” Some prices are for actual large seale transactions while others are simply estimates by informed contemporaries, Bean found no reasonable method to ‘weight the observations according to thee quality. Tnstead, he relied fon the central limits theorem, operating through fveyear averaging, to lessen the effet of the measurement errors. Since many of the ‘los observations are averages for unspecified numbers of slaves, no attempt was made to weight the transaction prices by the number of slaves involved. British-American slave priess are adjusted to eliminate the effect of differential transport costs from frien to places other than Jamafea. ‘Bean has suggested that anyone wishing to review his sources and methods of deriving these prices borrow copies of his unpublished Ph.D. disertation and the working paper through interibrary Yoans fom the universities cited. Z 169-181. Components of private wealth per free capita for the ‘Thirtoon Colenies, by region, 1774. Source: Calculated by Alice Hanson Jones. See Jones’ “Wealth Estimates for the American Middle Colonies, 1774,” Beonomic De- selopment and Cultural Chenge, vol. 18, no. &, pt 2, July 1870; “La fortune privée on Pennsylvanie, New Jeracy, Delaware, 1774," An- alex: 3, Socittes, Ciitzations, vol. 24, no. 2, Pari, France, Armand Colin, Mars-Avril, 1968, pp. 295-249; “Wealth Bstimates for the New England Colonies about 1770," Journal of Economic History, vol. 82, no. 1, March 1972, pp. 98-127; Wealth of the Colonies 0 tho Bee ofthe American Resolution, Columbia University Press, New York (fortheoming) and American Colonial Weelih: Documents and Methode, Arno Press, Ine,, New York forthcoming), Jerome Corn- 115Z aa1-459 “run” it ashore again duty-ree (for details, ee Jacob M. Price, The Tobacco Trade ond the Treasury, 1685-1798: British Mercaniism in its Plseal Aspects, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, 1954). ‘Americen historians have pointed to the small amount of the “plantation duties” collected on fntereclonial trade as evidence of the breakdown of the laws. If the American colonists consumed ‘the 5 pounds per capita of tho Bermudians in the early 18th century, ‘the 2 pounds ofthe English st the beginning of the 18th century, or evan their 1 pound per capita at the end of the 18th contury (Alfred Rive, “The Consumption of Tobacco Since 1600," Beonomiz Journal Supplement, Eeonomie Hisiory Serze, vol 1, Jen, 1928, p. 63; H. C. Wilkinson, ‘Bermuda in the Old Smite, Oxford University Pres, London, 1950, p. 14), the colonies would have provided a sizable ‘market of 2,060,000 to 10,000,000 pounds at the timo of the Revalu- ‘ion. But that is a Agure which can and must be greatly discounted. In the first place, it should be eut in half beause the Southern Colonies had about haf the population end provided ther own source of eupply. Similarly, allowance must be made for tobacco produced in the Northern colons. Pennsylvania, Delaware, New York, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Massachusetts all at one time or another ‘trew tobacco (George L. Beer, The Origins of the British Colonial Syolem, 1578-1660, Macmillan, New York, 1908, p. 88; J. B. Kille brew, Report on the Culture and Curing of Tobaceo tn the United States, Department of the Intericr, Census Office, Washington, D.C, 1884, ‘pp. M47 and 237; Vertrees J. Wyckof, Tobacco Regulation in Colonial ‘Marylond, Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Pal teal Science, Extra Volumes, New Series, No. 22, Baltimore, 1996, pp. 87, 36, and 65). Philadelphia, Lewes, and New Castle appear in the WPA compilations (see general nove for series Z 1-615) as suppliers to other ports like New York and Boston, New York itso exported tabaceo (and even more mu) coastwise as well 38 £0 England, and the exports from New England continued large even ‘nto the 1760's. Tn the 1760's, Rhode Island tobacco erope provided surpluses sufficient to warrant shipping 200,000 pounds to Surinam, 0 colony in South America (James B. Hedges, The Browns of Providence Plantations, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1952, pp. 30-40), Te need not be assumed that the colonists were averse to violating the law, Tt may be that violations on a significant scale were not good business. ‘The fact that the 200,000 pounds of Rhode Island tabaceo sent to Surinam went there illegally means Hite. Tt was 2 ‘ype of tobaeco not in general demand and constituted les than one- ‘third of one percent of the annual legal trade. 4% 441-448. Tobacco imported by England, by origin, 1697-1775. omapited by Jacob M, Price, University of Michigan ‘The basic sources used by Price are the same as those used by ‘him for hie doctoral diseeration (ae below). ‘The English Inspector General's Ledgers (PRO Customs 8), which ‘aro the original source of the data, distinguish betweon entries in London and in the rest of the Kingdom (the outports) but Price has ‘combined them in the interest of saving space, Sour % 449-468, American tobacco imported and reexported by Great Britain, 1697-1791. Source: 1697-1775, Jacob M. Price, The Tobacco Trade and the Treasury, 1685-1788: British Mercantiliom in ile Fisoal Aspects ‘unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, 1964; 1788~ 1791, compiled by Jacob M. Price, University of Michigan. ‘The basic sources of the data for England in Price's doctoral dis- sertation were the Inspector General's Ledgers of Imports and Exports (PRO Customs 2 and 8) except as fllows (see general note for series Z 1-818 for an explanation of the call aumbers which follow): 1703— 4722, from PRO CO 90/5/41; 1717-1722, confirmed in PRO 1/281/18, BME Add. MS. 89,088 fol. 158; 1722 (London import only), from PRO T 64/276B/827; 1763-1769 (import only), from PRO 'T. 64/276B/228; 1770-1778 (import only), from PROT. 64/276B/ 182 COLONIAL AND PRE-FEDERAL STATISTICS 882; 1770-177 (export), from PRO TY. 64/276/880; 1772, 1774-1775 (import and export), from PRO T. 17/18; 1778-1715 (export), from Adam Anderton, An Hisioreal and Chronologien! Deduction of the Origin of Commerc, vol. IV, J. Walter, London, 1707-1709, p. 447; 1788-1791, PRO Customs 17/814. For Scotland, Prie’s data came from the Scottish Ledgers of Imports and Exports (PRO Customs 14), except as follows: 1707-1711 (Gmmport and export), from PRO T. 1/89/29; 1715-1717 (Import and export), from PRO CO 90/5/18; 1721-1724 (Import and expert), from PROT. 1/282/28; 1725-1781, 1752-1784, 1763, 1769 Gmport and export), from PRO'P. 86/18; 1788-1747 (import and export), from PRO T. 1/828 fol 125 ‘Total imports and reexports for 1708-1731 and 1752-1754 were obtained by adding figures not strictly comparable with each other. ‘Scottish imports and renxports for 1708-1717 are averages of estimates {or several years. 4, 487-459, American tobaceo imported by England, 1616-1695. Source: 1616-1621, Vertros J. Wyekotf, Tebaczo Repulation i Colonial Maryland, Johns Hopking University Studies in Historical and Political Science, Bxiea Volumes, New Series, No. 22, Baltimore, 1936, pp. 20-86 (copyright); 1622-1691, Novile Willams, “England's ‘Tobacco Trade in the Reign of Charles I," The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, October 1957, pp. 408448, Vieginia Historical Society, Richmond (copyright); 1637-1610, Stanley Gray end V. J. Wyskot, “The International Tobacco Trade in the Seventeonts Century," Southern Beonomic Journal, VII, July 1940, pp. 18-25, University of North Carolin, Chapel HB! (copyright); 1663-1695, compiled by J. M. Price from PRO CO 888/2 #718 (1663, 1688), loutports for 1659 from Lonsdale MS, B. M. Sloane MS.1816 36-1 (1688-1688), PRO T. 1/86/9 fo.60 (1689-1698), and Gray and Wyeke of, cited above (1672-1682); 1698-1695, House of Lords Record (Offic, parchment collestion, "Tho figures here are not as satisfactory as thoso given in series Z 441-448 and Z 449-458. ‘The total imports for 1686 and 1688 were obtsined by adding fgures not stritly eomparable with exch other. Imports of the outports (English ports other than London) {or 1682-1688 aro averages of estimates for several years. Tn a few Instances the figures from Gray and Wyckoff include minor quantities of Spanish and Brazilian tobacco. ‘As indicated in the guneral nove for series Z 441-472, the figures shown prior to the time whon the Dutch were driven from New Netherland should not be relied upon too greatly. Rive (cited in source above, pp. 57-75) sugrests that the doubling of the London import igures between 1637 and 1638 may have been due to betier patrolling of the Channel. There is much evidence to show that the laws restricting tabasco importations to London end excluding Spa- {sh tobacoo wore disregarded at least in part (Beer, cited above in general note for series Z 441—472, pp. 197 fl; Wiliams, cited in source above, pp, 419-120; Wyckoff, eited in source above, pp. 92-84). ‘An alternate approsch to studying the import figures is to cmsider the estimates of tobaeco which might be produced or purchased. English proposals for limitations on tobaooo importation included the following: 55,000 pounds in 1620; 200,000 pounds in 1625 and 1626; 250,000 pounds in 1627; 60,000 pounds in 1635; and 1,600,000 pounds in 1688 (Becr, cited above in general note for series Z 441~ 472, pp. 120, 188, 154, and 158). Virginia mesntime wanted the King in 1628 to take at least 500,000 pounds annually and by 1639, sought to reduce the tobacoo erop to 1,600,000 that year and 1,200,000, ‘pounds for each of the next two years (Killebrew, elted above in general note for series 41-472, pp. 215-216) ‘Another weakness ofthe figures for these series lies im their falure ‘to show whieh eslonis suppliod the tobacco; however, other data ‘provide some opportunities to estimate tho quantity which the various ‘colonies contributed. Virginia and Bermuda ran neck and neck in 1620 a¢ 60,000 to 55,000 pounds each. In 1628, Virginia's shipments ‘were twice those of Bermuda, and thereafter Virginia drew far akead (Beer, cited above in general note for series Z 441-472, p. 120; and2 481-485 contained about 850 pounds, Francis Yonge the collector at Charles: ton, gave the figure of 400 pounds for 1719-1721; a Savannah Rice Association study declared it to be 825 pounds for 1720-1729; a ‘contemporary report in 1781 and Governor Glen of South Carolina ‘im 1749 sald the barrel contained 500 pounds, Dut other documents sty that it as 600-600 pounds in 1768; “something over 600 pounds in 1768-1769"; 550 pounds for 1764-1772; and 540 pounds net in AMZ. 0. M. Dickerson, The Nasigation Acts ond the American evolution (ved above in cext for series Z 478-480, p. 58) states ‘that the formula used by the customs service for converting barrels to hundredweight had each barrel containing 43¢ hundredwelght, oF 504 pounds (but the records do not disclose when the formula was calculated nor how often it was revised). Fortunately, an examination of the surviving official statistics enables ono to obtain averages ealeulated on broad bases, The decennial totals for 1720-1728 and 1780-1799 (Gov. James Gien, cited above) give both the number of barrels and the total weight shipped, showing the average barrel to weigh 278 pounds during the frat decade and 448 pounds during the second. Sinilaly, the naval office lists for 1758-1767, which record both the nurober of barrels and pound weights shipped to Southern Burope and the West Indies, give weighted average of about 525 pounds each for some 20,000, Darel. Comparisons of the mumber of barrels shipped to Britain from ‘Ameriea with the weight recorded for the rie arriving there provide ‘nother means of estimating the average weight of the rice barrel. For present purposes, it ean be assumed to have been 850 pounds ‘until 1720, and then to have risen 10 pounds a year until 1730, when it remained at a plateau of 450 pounds until after 1740; then it began to ascend atthe rate of 5 pounds a year until i reached its pre-Revolu- thonary peak of 525 pounds in 1755. It must be remembered, how- lever, that the weight of the barrels might vary radically.” New York’s Naval Office list for 1764 shows one shipment averaging 18834 pounds a barrel and enother 698 pounds, 4% 481-185, Rice exported from producing areas, 1698-1789, Source: 1698-1774, compiled by Lawrence A. Harper, University of Calfornia, from references diseusied below; 1788-1789, compiled bby Jacob M. Price, University of Michigan, ‘These seria attempt to provide a comprehensive statistical sum- ‘mary comparable to those available for the posteolonial_ period. Barrels have been converted to pounds on the bates described in the general note for series Z 481-489. ‘There was the problem of totaling the exports from the three South Carolina ports (Charleston, Besufort-Port Royal, and Georgetown ‘Wynyaw) and those of Georgia. Shipments from other colonies can be considered as having originated in South Carolina and Georgia, except possibly those of North Carolina, and even in this caso most of the exports probably went through South Carolina. In any event, North Carolina's exports are grouped with South Carolina's ship” rents in the English import figures, under the generic heading, “Carolinas.” Shipments to Scotland seem to have been infrequent sand Inslgnifcant until the French and Indian War (1754-1763), ‘The Charleston gures, with the exceptions noted below, are those compiled by Gayle (ited above in general note for series Z 481-499) from the South Caroline Gazette, although his figures for lesa than 12 months have been extended to full year bases for 1760, 1756, 1751, 1763, and 1767. For 1898-1724, the figures have been celealated fon the assumption thet all Amerfean vice importa recorded in the Baglish Inspector General's Ledgers were oqual to 34 of Chacleston’s total exports, as suggested in 1719 by Francis Yonge, the customs colletor st Charleston, 2 conclusion corroborsted by a comparison of the WPA compilations of Charleston exports with the English imports for 1717, 1718, 1718, and 1724, and by Edward Randolph's remark in 1700 that }{o of Charleston's exports went to the West Indies alone (Carroll, cited above in general note for series Z 481~ 498). For 1731, the figures eome from the WPA compilations of the Charleston Naval Office lst (see general note for series Z 1-615), and 164 COLONIAL AND PRE-FEDERAL STATISTICS {for 1784 and 1158, directly from the South Carolina Gazette; for 1765, from the Charletn Year Book (1880) a8 copied by Holmes (ated above in general note for serie Z 481-499); for 1765, from phato- ‘raphie copies of the Charleston Naval Office list (PRO C. 0.5); for 1768-1772, from the American Tnspector General's Ledgers (FRO Customs 16/1); for 1779 and 1774, from Gray (elted above for ere 2, 499-495, p. 1022), although his partial figure for 1773 has been ‘extended to. complete the year. The years terminate October ‘excopr 1698 (September 28); 1698-1724, 1791 (Decomber 24); and 1168-1778 (lanuary 4 of the following yee), Neither Beauforr-Port Royal nor Georgetown-Wynyaw (Scuta Carolina) seem to have had much importance until 1782. Although ‘the former had its frst collector in 1725, there was a lapee of 245 {years before his successor took over (PRO AO 1/804/1088, AO 1/805/ 1089); and the latter appears to have bad ite frst collestor ia Juze 1182 (South Carona Gasete, June 24, 1782). Scattered naval ofice records show Georgetown exporting 385 barrels for the year 179 ‘and 609 for the fst quarter in 1735: and Beaufort, 342 duriog the frst ba of 1796, Tn 1789, Georgetown exported 2,202 barrels ani Beaufort, 2,185 barrels (broadside, cited above, general note fer series Z 481-499), an approximate equality which also existed in tbe period 1168-1772 (PRO Customs 16/1). For lack of a better basis, ‘heir exports wil be considered for present purposes to have been ‘qual from 1733 to 1768, when exact figures are available and were ‘used. Tn 1739, the exports of the two together equalled 634 perce of South Carolina’s exports—a percentage which dropped by 176% 1772 to 44 percent. Thus, {com 1789 to 1768, the Beaufort ani Georgetown contributions have been assumed to be 5 percent ofthe ‘total South Carelina exports. A different formula was used for the years prior to 1789, when thelr percentage was growing from the 2g percent which they enjoyed in 1784 (ealeulated by doubling the Georgetown figures which have survived for thet year). On the ‘necessrily arbitrary assumption that the rate of increase was uniferm, ‘the two ports each your from 1734 to 1789 added 0.7 percent to thle share of South Carolina's exports, Extending the same formuls Dackwards, thelr share of the Caroline total was 1.8 percent in 105, and 11 pereent in 1782. Romans, cited shove, general note for serles Z 481-499, provides figures for Georgia for 1156-1767. A comparison of his fgures for Georgia's total exports with those of receipts from Georgia in Bngland (soe series Z 499-498) forthe decade 1756-1765 shows a ratio of one ‘barrel exported for every 2.07 hundredweight received; and fer 1740, 3142, 1750, and 1759-1755, the barrels shipped {rom Georgia have been’ computed in accordance with that formula, on the basis of Bnglish receipts (series Z 498-498). Fiqures for 1768-1772 come irom PRO Customs 16/1. In 1773 and 3774, Georgia is sasumed to have ‘contributed 13.9 percent of the total exports, as it did from 1758 ‘to 1772. Years end January 4 of the year following, except for the years for which figures are calculated, as noted above. For these ¥yars, no exact date ean be assigned and the data are therefore not Strictly comparable. ‘The figures for 1768-1772 provide the best bass for the later period, bat for present parposes the 1768 list was not included in the base calculations described above because it lacks data for coastwise exports; however, it provides the best base for estimating the imports for that year. All that need be assumed is that the ratio of the coastwise exports to the other exports was the same in 1768 as tbe average ofthe other four years. ‘The coustwiteontras for 1768-1778 show both inward and outward entries. ‘Thus, to avoid duplications in the Cuvoling and Georgia entries, only the net exports coastwise have been included. This adjustment cannot be made pri to 1769, but samples from the WPA compllations (te genoral note for series Z 1-615) indicate that it is very minor. ‘The data for the various ealones are shown here, not because the individual details sre necessarily accurate, but in order that scholars ppossesiag more complete information may adjust the figures wherever Dossible.EXPORTS, SHIPPING, AND FISHERIES ‘The object of presenting these series i to provide the hest posible pattern of the overall development. ‘The errors in detail are as Tikely as not to offset one another. Except for 1718-1781, when the estimates of the size of the barrels varied radically, the totals shown here should be within & percent of the true figure. ‘Data for 1783-1789 were compiled from records of Public Record Office, London Board of Trade, 6/21 311-812. Shipping seasons for the crops of these years were: 1789 (erep of 1788), no Imiting ates given; 1788 (crop of 1787), November 80, 1767-November 22, 1788; 1787 (crop of 1786), November 28, 1786-November 30, 1187; 1786 (erop of 1785), Noversber 19, 1785-November 23, 1786; 1185 (crop of 1784), December §, 1784 November 19, 1785; 1784 (crop of 1788), November 12, 1783-Deoersber 3, 1784; and 1788 (crop of 1782), January 17, 178-November 12, 1783. Z 486-492, Rice exported from Charleston, 5.C., by destination, 1717-1766. Source: Compiled by J. R. House from the WPA compilations of naval office lista at the University of Californie, Berkeley (ace general note for series Z 1-615). ‘The dilferences in totals here and in sores Z 481485 may result ‘m part from the differences in yearending dates, as shown in the ‘tabular headnates, Z 499-499. Rice exported to England, by origin, 1698-1776. Source: Compiled by Lawrence A. Harper, University of Californie, from English Inspector General’s Ledgers of Imports and Exports Public Records Office, London, Customs 8 (except 1727, from PRO "7.64/278B 828), ‘A large proportion of the exported rice was reexported by England, rot only to Northern but also to Southern Europe. Z 500-508, Pitch, tar, and turpentine exported from Charleston, 8.0 1725-1774 Source: 1725-1765, 1760-1764, 1767-1771, Charles J. Gayle, "The ‘Nature and Volume of Exports from Cherleston, 1724-1774,” The Proceedings of the South Caralina Historical Aseociation, Columbia, 1997, p. 81; 1756-1759, 1765, 1772-1776, South Carolina Gazette, Charleston, 5.C, various issues. ‘The basic source fo these series has been the South Carolina Gate, whieh obtained the figures from the eustorahouse books and ran them 5 cumulative totals from November ist of most years. ‘The editorial poliey of the Gasete was not consistent, however; it id not always list the same commodities each year, and sometimes {¢ discontinued ‘the cumulative totals befare October Stet ‘The WPA compilations (se general nove for series Z 1-616) from the English copies of those same records (PRO C. 0. 5) provide an alternate source for some yours. They aio distinguish in deta ‘the destination of the various shipments 4% 504-809. Timber and timber products exported from Charleston, ‘S.C, and Savannah, Ga, 1754-1774. ‘Source: Serles 7604-506, 1754-1755, 1760-1764, 1767-1771, Gavle, ited above for series Z 500-508, p. 31; 1756-1758, 1765, 1772-1774, Scuth Carolina Gace, Charleston, 8.C., various isues. Series Z 507-509, Oliver ML. Dickerson, The Navigation Acts and the American Revolution, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1951, pp. 26-27 (copyright) ‘The original ures for Savannah were compiled by the Compteclier at that port. For diseusion of Charleston figures, see text for series 2500-503, Z 510-515. Number and tonnage of vessels built, by ype, 1768-1778. Source: Compiled by Jacob M. Price, University of Michigan, from ‘George Chalmers, Opinions On Interesting Subjects... Arising From American Independence, London, 1784, p. 105 2 486-538 Z 516-829. Vessels built in Thirteen Colonies and West Florida, 1reo-1771, Source: Compiled by Jacob M. Prise, University of Michigan, from John, Lord Shefeld, Obserotions On the Commerce of the american ‘States, 6th edition, London 2184, p. 96. 7590-588, Number of vessels engaged in whaling, and quantity and value of oil acquired, Nantucket, Mass, 1715-1739. Souree: 1715-1785, Obed Macy, The History of Nantucket, Hillard, Gray & Co., Boston, 1885, pp. 64-55 and 262-288; 1787-1789, US, Congress, American Stote Papers, Class 4, “Commerce and Naviga ion” (two volumes), vol. I, Gales and Seaton, Washington, D. 1882, p. 18. ‘The figures shown on pp. 282-288 of the source are stated to be from the Massachusetts Historieal Society's Colletions. Those on Dp. 64-55 cite no authority; however, the Macy family descended from the first settlers and Obed Macy's deta, which are generally consistent with information from other sourees, provide the best figures now available. ‘Tho development of whaling in Nantucket followed the process typical of all tho colonies [Walter 8. Towar, A History ofthe American Whale Pshery (publiestions of the University of Penneylvania, sexiea {in Political Beonomy and Public La, No. 20), Philadelphia, 16077 ‘The early setters first processed drift whales, then they engaged in ‘the ofthore fisheries which probably reached thelr height at Nan- ‘eke in 1726 when 88 whalos were taleen (Alexander Starbuck, The History of Nontuoket,C. B. Goodspeed & Co., Boston, 1924, p. 856). ‘The frst deep-sea venture occurred about 1712 when a strong wind blew an offshore vesol to sea where it eaught a spermaceti whale (taey, cited above, p. 98). By 1746, Nantueket whalers were make Ing thair way to Davie Strafts and by 1774 they were sailing 48 far away as the coast of Brazil (Macy, cited above, p. 54). ‘The figures for Nantucket may be viewed in better perspective by noting that in 1730 the New England whaling fleet totaled 1,300 tons, and in 1768 that of Massachusetts consisted of 180 sailing veils. (Raymond McFavland, A Hitory of the New England Fisheries, D. Appleton and Company, New York, 2911, p. 88.) At the time of the Revolution, New England had 804 whalers totaling 27,40 tons out of an extimaced American fest of 860 vessels (Tower, ted above, p. 45; Starbuck, cited above, p. 176). 7 53-898, State of the cod fishery of Massachusetts, 1765-1775. Soures: Stella H. Sutherland, Population Distribution in Colonial America, AMS. Press, Inc, New York, 1985 (copyright). (The original source of the data is Tmnothy Pitkin, A Slatitica! View ofthe Commerce of the United Sites, p. $4.) Dr. John J. McCusker, University of Maryland, in “Welghts and ‘Measures in the Colonial Sugar Trade: The Gallon and the Pound ‘and Their Internstional Equivalents,” William ond Mary Quarterly, ‘Third Series, vol. XXX, No. 4, October 1978, pp. 605 and 606, has supplied the following information on the definition of “quintal “The usual multiple of the pound was the hundred, called frequently the guinicl and more fully the hundredveigit (abbre- ‘lated cut, or Cin eighteanth-century accounts). The hundred weight usually but not always equalled one hundred times the Date unit, “By the middle of the seventeenth century, the great hundeed of 112 pounds hed become established for the Bnglish sugar trade as the standard hundredweight in the mother country but not ‘consistently in the colonies, The English colonists on the North, ‘American continent hought and sold sugar hy the great or ong. hrundredwoigkt, yet used the short hundredweight of 300 pounds {or tobaceo and codfish, commodities for whieh the mother coun- ‘zy employed the long hundredweight. 13652539-582 629-550. Daily wages of selected types of workmen, by area, 621-1781, Source: 1621-1870 and 1776-1781, Richard B, Morris, Government ‘axd Labor in Barly Americe, Octagon Books, New York, 1975 (oops ight 1946, and new foreword copyright © 1975, by’ Richard B. Morris); 1710, Richard Walsh, The Charleston Sows of Liberty, Univer- sity of South Carolina Press, Columbia, 1856 (copyright) ‘The figures do not represent actual paymenis, whieh may have been blgher, but they represent what the lamaiers believed was ‘the proper maximum wage rate, Figures are payments to master craftsmen; journeymen received loss (for example, 20 penoe Instead of 2 shilings in i644). For New Haven there were two wage rates—one for the summer, ‘which is shown in these series, and one for the winter. For each ‘ceupation the winter rate was 8 shillings leas in 1640 and 4 shillings Jess in 1641. Apparently the lower rate for the winter was paid Decause of the shorter workday. ‘The leitative rates also throw light on other Inbor fests. When New Haven sot the rata for mowers in 1610, eozeelation of the dally wage (2. 6 4) with the rate for mowing an acre of fresh marsh shows that they considered it a day's work, although they belloved that ‘mowing a salt marsh would take longer and be worth 3 ehilings. The next year they confessed the ratio was inadequate when they lowered the daily wages without board to 20d. and raied che rate for mowing 10 8's per acre for fresh marsh and 8 «6 d for salt marsh (Mors, cited above, pp. 79-80). or discussion of the working day, soe text for series Z 551-656. 4% 881-556. Dally and monthly wages of agricultural laborers in ‘Maryland, 1638-1676 Source: Manfred Jonas, "Wages in Early Colonial Maryland,”” ‘Maryland Historical Magazine, vol. LI, March 1956, pp. 27-88. ‘The source also gives additional information on the cost of living. Its basi data came from seattered items In the Archies of Maryland (a series of annual volumes published by the Maryland Historieal Sosiety, Baltimor). {In Marylang, during the fst half of the 17th eantury, the working ‘month seems to have extended from 28 to 25 days and che working ay from 10 to 12 hours. The 8 winter months were generally ot Included within the terms of labor contracts, Persons hired by the diay worked the same hours and did not gat lodging, but reeived at least 2 mesis at the job (Jonas, cited above, pp. 30 and 84-85). In the other colonies the working day was probably much the same. ‘New Haven, for example, specited in 1640 that @ day's work was from 10 to 12 hours in summer and 8 hours in winter (Moris, Govern ant and Labor ..., cited above for serles Z §89-550, pp. 69, 79, and 86). Z S57. Index of wholesale prices estimated for colonial and. pre~ ‘Federal years, 1720-1789. Source: U.S. Congress, Hearings Before the Joint Beonomic Come nites, 86h Congress, Ist session, Part IT, Hislrical and Comparative Raise of Production, Productivity, and Price (statement precented by Ethel D. Hoover, US. Bureau of Labor Statistis), ‘This index (which extends o 1958 in the source) was obtained by combining and splicing index aumbere constructed by various inc vvestigators for different market, 1o approximate a continuous series, ‘The annual indexes were calculated by working forward and backward from the selected base periad, 1850-69. No adjus:menta were made ‘to the original series for diferences in coverage or in tocthods of calcalation. “However, when wholesale prices in two or more markets ‘ere combined, the necessary conversions to a common base period were made, and occasional estimates, as noted in othor parts ef the soures, were used, For this series, woightod combinations were made of the available Index series for three major markets (Pailadelphie, New York, and (Charleston), except for the years prior to 1782 and the Revolutionary 1168 COLONIAL AND PRE-FEDERAL STATISTICS ‘War years, For these years, the estimates were based on Philadelphia, prices only. ‘The weights used to combine markets were rough ap proximation, based chiefly on estimates of the population and trede for exch area and on the representative character and adequacy of the available indexes, 7 558-877. Average annual wholesale prices of selected commodities In Philadelphia, 1720-1775, Sourge: Anne Bezanson, Robert D. Gray, and Miriam Hussey, Prices in Colonial Pennsyiccnia, University of Pennaylvania Pres, Philadelphia, 1995, pp. 422-424 (copyright). ‘The primary source of the original data was the Ist of “prio current” which frst apponced in 3719 in the American Mercury and which was continued in that and other newspapers. Gaps were usually filled by reference to merchants’ aecount books and leer ‘books (as discussed and listed in the souroo elted, pp, 8-5, 361-884, and 494-438). The annual averages were computed “by taking the arithmetic mean ofthe 12 average monthly prioes in each year, When ssny monthly price was missing the evailable data were averagel quarterly and the annual figure derived from the quarterly ave ages... In some eaves it was necestary to erimate a quarteriy pelea by averaging the last monthly quotation in the previous querer withthe fist monthly quotation in the following quarter, No annual price was estimated completely...” ‘The source volume was sponsored by the International Seiantite Committee in Price History, as were a number of other studies of ‘olonial prices drawn together in A. #1. Cole, Wholesale Commadily Prices in the United Sites: 1700-1861, Harvard University. Pre, Cambridge, 1998. In addition to dlsevesion and analyses of prices, this publication offers a statistleal supplement of monthly prices for the principal commervil centers. ‘The tables in it, however, ret primarily upon the Philadelphia prices until the 1760's, Prior to 1760, Boston has only two series, wheat and molasses, which begin fn 1720, Although there ae gaps in the data, Chasleston has series for bresa, corn, rie, rum, Wine, molasees, and staves beginning 17a2; sugar beginning 1744; beet, pork, and indigo in 1744; ant coffe, leather, and lumber in 1749. New York has series for four, dread, rice, sugar, salt, rum, and molases begining 1/48; and for wheat, bee, and pork beginning 1748, Price series for the folowing Philadelphia commodities are shown fn the souree (not included hore because of space limitations): Brown bread, white bread, London loaf sugar, Pennsylvania loal suge, ‘indigo, bar iron, pig iron, hogthead staves, pipe staves, turpentine, and ‘gunpowder. In addition to the annual averages, the souree contains average monthly prieas ond monthly and anneal indexes (both arith: ‘matic and geometric) of 20 commodities in Philadelphia, ‘The unit of measure of Madeira wine (pipe) consists of 110 gallons. Barrels, in the ease of bee and por, consist of 81.5 gallons and has Gredweights equal 112 pounds, exept for tabacco where it equal 100 Pounds, 2 978-582, Prices of Maryland tobacco, 1711-1775. Souree: Carville V. Earle, The Bvolution of « Tidewater Setlement System: All Hallow's Parish, Maryland, 1450-1788, Ph.D. dlsvertae tion, University of Chlesgo, 1978 ‘The prices of tobacco are from the probate record, inventories ‘and accounts of Anno Arundel and Prinee Georges counties between 1711 and 1775, The year rune from January 1 t0 Deseraber al. ach year contains at least eight prices; the mean anmual average fs presented here. The prices are in British sterling. Accompanying ‘the price series is a list of exchange rates for converting Maryland ‘current money to sterling. Tn the probate records, where the tobacco prices appear, the monies of account are varied Maryland currencies ‘whieh are overvalued in relation to sterling. Exchange rates between one of these currencies, Maryland current money, and sterling are frequent, and those adminisured rates provide the data for the ex change rato series. For each year, the modal exchange raves entered,PRICES, MONEY, AND TAXES Solong as tobacco prices are in current money, they may be converted to staring with this series. One problem concems the years 1772 and 1778 when current’ money exchanged at $9) and 6635; accord- ingly, for these years, two exchange rates and two tobacco prices are shown, A seoond problem occurs in 1757 when no one exchange rate is predominant; therefore, the mean exchange rate is used in preference to the mode, 4 $89, Farm prices of Maryland tobacco, 1659-1710. Source: Russell R, Menard, “Farm Prices of Maryland Tobacco, 1639 to 1710," Maryland Historical Mopasine, LKVIIL, 1975, pp. 80-85, ‘The series presents yearly means based on crop appraisals and other ata found in ll Maryland probate inventories filed between 1659 ‘and 1710. Full documentation and a deeeription of procedure Ss provided in the souree, Z S84, Farm prices of Chesapeake tobacco, 1618-1658. Source: Russell R. Menard, “A Note on Chesapeake Tobsceo ‘Prices, 1618 to 1660,” (fortheoming) Virginia Mapasine of Hietory and Biography (copyright). ‘The series presents yearly means of price quotations found in correspondence, accounts of silos, promotional literature, court records, official proclamations, and legislative acts. Price quotations {or Chesapeake tobacco in Burope and prices that appear tobe delib- erate exaggeration or understatements of the actual prioe were ex- ‘cluded from the mean, The means arw based on few observation: in hho one year did the number exsoed ten; in most only two or three ‘Bross were found. See souree for further documentation and description of procedures. 7585, Annual rate of exchange on London for Pennsylvania cur- renes, 1720-1775. Soutee: See souree for series Z 558-517, p. 492. This series is derived from data in papers of Pennsylvania mer- ‘chants and the Minutes of the Provinclal Council (2798), supple- ‘anted in some yoars by Victor S. Clack, History of Manufactures Jn the United States, 1898-1928, vol. TIT, Carnegie Institution of Washington, D.C., 1916-1943, pp. 861-862. Bezanson et al, in Prices. .., cited above, p. 431, alo give monthly retes of exchanges ‘uring the same period. 2,586. Annual price ofan ounce of silver at Boston, Mass., 1700-1749. Source: A. H. Cole, Wholesale Commodity Prices in the United State: 1700-1861, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1998, p. 119 copyright). ‘The original shilling prices were taken from the Suffolk fles by A.M, Davis, Currency ond Banking in the Province of Massochusetis Bay, vol. I, Macmillan, New York, 1901, pp. 868 and 870. Where reore than one price was given for'a yest, the high and low figures ‘were averaged to determine the price for that year. 2 687-598. Partial list of bills of credit and Treasury notes issued by “American Colonies, 1708-1775. Source: B. U, Ratchford, American State Debte, Duke University Press, Durham, 191, pp. 26-27 (copyright). 2 555-615 ‘Theve series attempt to show the issues of bil of eredit and treasury ‘notes emitted by the Colonies between 1708 and 1778, The £52,000, ‘im bills issued by Mascachusotte between 1690 and 1702 ere not ‘included, nor ar the iasues of Georgia, which never had a lange debt ‘Under the trustees, the principal eirealating medium in Georgia was ‘he “sola” bill issued only in the original by the trustees. A total of £195,000 of these bills of exchange were Iaeued but only £1,149 remained unredeemed in 1762. Thereafter, Georgia emitted at least ‘oro issues of Dills: One of £8,000 in 1758 and one cf £7,420 in 1761, Gatehlord, cited shove, p. 18). Ratehford concedes thet the lst may be incomplete and that ‘any of the issues listed were not made at the time nor in the exact amount stated. Sometimes the lew authoriaing the issue constitutes the only evidence, and nothing indicates “how, when, or to what extent the issuo was actualy made.’ ‘Tho original source for 1787-1748 for Massachusetts is A. M. Davis, cited above in text for serles Z 886, Davis expressed all fsues in the terms of old tonor (the form of bills which existed ia February 1797), Ratchford did nat follow this procedure because he did not fee) suficiently acquainted with the circumstances in ‘each case to make the conversion with assurance. For all other ‘yours, the data res: upen a variety of sourenselted in the foctnotea ‘of Ratehford’s frst chapter, which provide a helpful bibliography for further reference. "The footnotes to these series indicate the principal purposes for which the larger issues svere made, For years when several sues ‘appeared for diferent purpeses, the footnotes indleate the purpose for issuing the majority of tke bis Z 599-610. Paper money outstanding in American Colonies, 1705- 1. Source: See source for series Z 587-598, p. 28 ‘The original sources of the data are various monographs clted in Reiehford’s first chapter. Unfortunately, the authors of those ‘monographs did not always attempt to find or to make estimates ‘themselves. Some of the estimates are those of legislative committees fr public officials and, lose frequently, of contemporary writers. Many of the estimates for 1789 and 1748 come from Wiliam Douglass ‘whoee work is diseussed in Charles Bullock, Introduction, Beonomic Studies of he Americen Beonomic Assocation, vol. TT, No.1. Georgia Aid not warrant a separate series, the only estimate Delng one for $5,500 for 1781 ‘For approximately a fifth ofthe Sgures, the actual year of issuance

You might also like

• The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good Life

  

  From Everand

  The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good Life

  Mark Manson

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (5819)
• The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You Are

  

  From Everand

  The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You Are

  Brene Brown

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1093)
• Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It

  

  From Everand

  Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It

  Chris Voss

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (845)
• • Magazines
  • Podcasts
  • Sheet music
• Principles: Life and Work

  

  From Everand

  Principles: Life and Work

  Ray Dalio

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (609)
• The Glass Castle: A Memoir

  

  From Everand

  The Glass Castle: A Memoir

  Jeannette Walls

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (1717)
• Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance

  

  From Everand

  Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance

  Angela Duckworth

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (590)
• Sing, Unburied, Sing: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Sing, Unburied, Sing: A Novel

  Jesmyn Ward

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1104)
• Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race

  

  From Everand

  Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race

  Margot Lee Shetterly

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (897)
• Shoe Dog: A Memoir by the Creator of Nike

  

  From Everand

  Shoe Dog: A Memoir by the Creator of Nike

  Phil Knight

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (540)
• The Perks of Being a Wallflower

  

  From Everand

  The Perks of Being a Wallflower

  Stephen Chbosky

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (2104)
• The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy Answers

  

  From Everand

  The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy Answers

  Ben Horowitz

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (348)
• Bad Feminist: Essays

  

  From Everand

  Bad Feminist: Essays

  Roxane Gay

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1018)
• Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future

  

  From Everand

  Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future

  Ashlee Vance

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (474)
• Her Body and Other Parties: Stories

  

  From Everand

  Her Body and Other Parties: Stories

  Carmen Maria Machado

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (822)
• The Outsider: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Outsider: A Novel

  Stephen King

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1866)
• The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer

  

  From Everand

  The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer

  Siddhartha Mukherjee

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (271)
• The Sympathizer: A Novel (Pulitzer Prize for Fiction)

  

  From Everand

  The Sympathizer: A Novel (Pulitzer Prize for Fiction)

  Viet Thanh Nguyen

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (122)
• Angela's Ashes: A Memoir

  

  From Everand

  Angela's Ashes: A Memoir

  Frank McCourt

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (441)
• Brooklyn: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Brooklyn: A Novel

  Colm Tóibín

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (1947)
• The Little Book of Hygge: Danish Secrets to Happy Living

  

  From Everand

  The Little Book of Hygge: Danish Secrets to Happy Living

  Meik Wiking

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (401)
• A Man Called Ove: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  A Man Called Ove: A Novel

  Fredrik Backman

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (4770)
• Steve Jobs

  

  From Everand

  Steve Jobs

  Walter Isaacson

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (808)
• The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century

  

  From Everand

  The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century

  Thomas L. Friedman

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (2259)
• The Yellow House: A Memoir (2019 National Book Award Winner)

  

  From Everand

  The Yellow House: A Memoir (2019 National Book Award Winner)

  Sarah M. Broom

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (98)
• Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America

  

  From Everand

  Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America

  Gilbert King

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (266)
• The Art of Racing in the Rain: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Art of Racing in the Rain: A Novel

  Garth Stein

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (4208)
• A Tree Grows in Brooklyn

  

  From Everand

  A Tree Grows in Brooklyn

  Betty Smith

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (1929)
• Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln

  

  From Everand

  Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln

  Doris Kearns Goodwin

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (234)
• Yes Please

  

  From Everand

  Yes Please

  Amy Poehler

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1902)
• A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True Story

  

  From Everand

  A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True Story

  Dave Eggers

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (231)
• The Woman in Cabin 10

  

  From Everand

  The Woman in Cabin 10

  Ruth Ware

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (2522)
• Fear: Trump in the White House

  

  From Everand

  Fear: Trump in the White House

  Bob Woodward

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (738)
• Wolf Hall: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Wolf Hall: A Novel

  Hilary Mantel

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (3811)
• John Adams

  

  From Everand

  John Adams

  David McCullough

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (2409)
• On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal

  

  From Everand

  On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal

  Naomi Klein

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (74)
• The Light Between Oceans: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Light Between Oceans: A Novel

  M.L. Stedman

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (789)
• Manhattan Beach: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Manhattan Beach: A Novel

  Jennifer Egan

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (792)
• The Constant Gardener: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Constant Gardener: A Novel

  John le Carré

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (104)
• Eropah Moden: Arus Sosiopolitik Dan Pemerintahan.

  

  Document293 pages

  Eropah Moden: Arus Sosiopolitik Dan Pemerintahan.

  Ahmad Saifuddin Amran

  100% (11)
• The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America

  

  From Everand

  The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America

  George Packer

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (45)
• Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can't Ignore

  

  From Everand

  Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can't Ignore

  Jay Sekulow

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (137)
• Little Women

  

  From Everand

  Little Women

  Louisa May Alcott

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (104)
• Revolusi Rusia

  

  Document3 pages

  Revolusi Rusia

  nurulsyakillanabila

  No ratings yet
• Sejarah Liga Bangsa-Bangsa

  

  Document3 pages

  Sejarah Liga Bangsa-Bangsa

  nurulsyakillanabila

  No ratings yet
• Faktor

  

  Document3 pages

  Faktor

  nurulsyakillanabila

  No ratings yet
• Soalan 4 (Srivijaya)

  

  Document5 pages

  Soalan 4 (Srivijaya)

  Justin Martinez

  No ratings yet
• Definisi Liga Bangsa-Bangsa

  

  Document9 pages

  Definisi Liga Bangsa-Bangsa

  nurulsyakillanabila

  No ratings yet
• 04 Tajuk 4 Islam Dalam Tamadun Melayu

  

  Document19 pages

  04 Tajuk 4 Islam Dalam Tamadun Melayu

  nurulsyakillanabila

  No ratings yet
• PERKEMBANGAN - KERAJAAN Awal Asia Tenggara PDF

  

  Document18 pages

  PERKEMBANGAN - KERAJAAN Awal Asia Tenggara PDF

  nurulsyakillanabila

  50% (2)
• Pre-Colonialism: at The End of The Course Successful Students Will Be Able To

  

  Document2 pages

  Pre-Colonialism: at The End of The Course Successful Students Will Be Able To

  nurulsyakillanabila

  No ratings yet
• PERKEMBANGAN - KERAJAAN Awal Asia Tenggara PDF

  

  Document18 pages

  PERKEMBANGAN - KERAJAAN Awal Asia Tenggara PDF

  nurulsyakillanabila

  50% (2)
• Sejarah Tanah Melayu Dalam Zaman Penjajahan

  

  Document5 pages

  Sejarah Tanah Melayu Dalam Zaman Penjajahan

  nurulsyakillanabila

  No ratings yet