While John Dickinsson`s letters from a farmer in Pennsylvania helped establish the principles around which the settlers united against the Townshend Acts of 1767, the widespread application of economic sanctions to punish the United American British in action. In 1769, in protest at Parliament`s imposition of taxes on lead, glass, paint, paper and tea, almost all colonies had agreed to boycott British products. The overall success of the non-import movement, which reduced British exports to the colonies by a third, was partly reflected in local implementation. The agreements could be tailored to the particular circumstances of those who agree to renounce trade with Britain – and to treat with the utmost contempt all the neighbours who have not complied with it (as promised by subscribers to this non-import agreement in South Carolina). In addition to the English, American settlers were also an audience for the Boston Agreement. On the one hand, there were traders, traders, craftsmen and traders who would benefit from the economic benefits of a successful boycott. On the other hand, in the political spheres, it could serve as an example of triumphant opposition to the British. To achieve such a victory, it was crucial that the boycott was accompanied by as many traders and traders as possible, not only in Boston, but in all the colonies of the New World. In the months and years to come, this non-import initiative was adopted by other cities, New York joined the same year, Philadelphia followed a year later. However, Boston remained the leader to form an opposition to the metropolis and its fiscal policy. The impact of the Boston non-import agreement and all similar agreements has been considerable.
About 60 merchants and merchants signed the agreement on August 1, 1768, and within two weeks, all but sixteen Boston merchants, merchants and business owners had joined the boycott. Boston craftsmen, craftsmen and other merchants signed the agreement with joy in the hope that the boycott would generate business for them. In the space of weeks and months, almost all ports and regions of the Thirteen Colonies adopted similar boycotts to protest and undermine the Townshend Revenue Act, although many merchants and traders in the South with loyalist tendencies refused to cooperate. Smuggling was widespread in the colonies. The effects of British merchants who acted with the American colonies were alarming. Traders lost money that shipped their goods to the colonies, where they would not be received. Most of the time, the goods were never left ashore. If they were, they would rot on the docks or in warehouses, or were looted by the settlers. The situation was a nightmare for customs officers who could not collect taxes on goods that were not left ashore or were never sold. Non-import agreements and the sons of freedomThe sons of freedom were determined to enforce non-import agreements, which incited awareness of colonial abuses against British rule.
The actions and protests of the sons of freedom have shifted from peaceful rallies, from boycotts and small secret actions to public demonstrations of riots and violence. The sons of Liberty`s intimidating statement above against merchant William Jackson clearly shows one of the methods they have adopted to impose non-import agreements while encouraging the settlers to act. The merchant in question, William Jackson, may also have been publicly “cryed and plucked.” one. What was the stated purpose of this agreement? How else could this agreement have helped to strengthen American opposition to British imperial policy? The non-import agreements of the late colonial era were important precursors of the American Revolution.