Images of Old Hawaiʻi

by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Honolulu – About 1850

On the continent: the Donner Party was trapped in heavy snow (1846;) California Gold Rush was underway (1848;) and the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo ended the Mexican-American War, giving the United States Texas, California, New Mexico and other territories (1848.)  Europe was in political upheaval with the European Revolutions of 1848 (aka “Spring of Nations” or “Springtime of the Peoples.”)

In Hawaiʻi, Kauikeaouli, Kamehameha III, was King and the Great Māhele (1848) was taking place; it was the most important event in the reformation of the land system in Hawaiʻi that separated land title to the King, the Chiefs and the Konohiki (land agents,) and eventually the people.

At about that time, Honolulu had approximately 10,000-residents.  Foreigners made up about 6% of that (excluding visiting sailors.)  Laws at the time allowed naturalization of foreigners to become subjects of the King (by about that time, about 440 foreigners exercised that right.)

The majority of houses were made of grass (hale pili,) there were about 875 of them; there were also 345 adobe houses, 49 stone houses, 49 wooden houses and 29 combination (adobe below, wood above.)  In 1847, Washington Place was built by future-Queen Liliʻuokalani’s father-in-law.

Kawaiahaʻo Church (Stone Church) generally marked the eastern edge of town; it was constructed between 1836 and 1842.  The “Kauikeaouli clock,” donated by King Kamehameha III in 1850, still tolls the time to this day.

Honolulu Harbor was bustling at that time.  Over the prior twenty years, the Pacific whaling fleet nearly quadrupled in size and in the record year of 1846; 736-whaling ships arrived in Hawai‘i.

Shortly after, however, in 1859, an oil well was discovered and developed in Titusville, Pennsylvania; within a few years this new type of oil replaced whale oil for lamps and many other uses – spelling the end of the Hawaiʻi whaling industry.

At the time, Honolulu Harbor was not as it is today and many of the visiting ships would anchor two to three miles off-shore – cargo and people were ferried to the land.

What is now known as Queen Street was actually the water’s edge.

From 1856 to 1860, the work of filling in the reef to create an area known as the “Esplanade” (where Aloha Tower is now situated) and building up a water-front and dredging the harbor was underway.

Fort Kekuanohu (Fort Honolulu) was demolished in 1857; its walls became the 2,000-foot retaining wall used to extend the land out onto the shallow reef in the harbor – some of the coral blocks are still visible at Pier 12.

The old prison was built in 1856-57, to take the place of the old fort (that also previously served as a prison.)  The custom-house was completed in 1860.  The water-works were much enlarged, and a system of pipes was laid down in 1861.

The city was regularly laid out with major streets typically crossing at right angles – they were dirt (Fort Street had to wait until 1881 for pavement, the first to be paved.)  Sidewalks were constructed, usually of wood (as early as 1838;) by 1857, the first sidewalk made of brick was laid down on Merchant Street.

Honolulu Hale was then located on Merchant Street (now the park/vacant lot between the Kamehameha V Post Office and Pioneer Plaza.)  County governance was still 50-years away (1905) and what we now know as Honolulu Hale today was 75-years away (1928.)

To get around people walked, or rode horses or used personal carts/buggies.  It wasn’t until 1868, that horse-drawn carts became the first public transit service in the Hawaiian Islands.

At that time, folks were 50-years away from getting automobiles (the first gasoline-powered arrived in 1900;) that same year (1900,) an electric trolley (tram line) was put into operation in Honolulu, and by 1902, a tram line was built to connect Waikīkī and downtown Honolulu. The electric trolley replaced the horse/mule-driven tram cars.

Honolulu was to be a planned town. Kinaʻu (Kuhina Nui Kaʻahumanu II) published the following proclamation (1838:) “I shall widen the streets in our city and break up some new places to make five streets on the length of the land, and six streets on the breadth of the land… Because of the lack of streets some people were almost killed by horseback riders ….”  By 1850, there was much improvement.

By the 1840s, the use of introduced horses, mules and bullocks for transportation was increasing, and many of the old traditional trails – the ala loa and mauka-makai trails within ahupua‘a – were modified by removing the smooth stepping stones that caused the animals to slip.

At the time, “Broadway” was the main street (we now call it King Street;) it was the widest and longest – about 2-3 miles long from the river (Nuʻuanu River on the west) out to the “plains” (to Mānoa.)

There were five food markets in Honolulu (in thatched sheds) one of which was more particularly a vegetable market.  Irish potatoes were $2-$3 per bushel (about 50-lbs;) eggs were $0.25 to $0.75 per dozen; oranges $0.25 per dozen and turkeys and ducks were about $.05 each, chickens started at about $0.25 a piece.

Butter was mostly made on the Big Island and Kauai – about 19,000-lbs produced – and sold at an average price of $0.30 per pound; milk was 12 1/2 cents a quart.  Fresh beef sold for $0.06 per pound.

The fledgling sugar industry was starting to spread across the islands.

It wasn’t until 1852 that the Chinese became the first contract laborers to arrive in the islands.  Of the nearly 385,000 foreign contract workers that eventually came, many thousands stayed to become a part of Hawai‘i’s unique ethnic mix.

Founded in 1839, Oʻahu’s first school was called the Chief’s Children’s School.  The school was created by King Kamehameha III to groom the next generation of the highest ranking chief’s children of the realm and secure their positions for Hawaii’s Kingdom.

Missionaries Amos and Juliette Cooke were selected by King Kamehameha III to teach the 16 royal children and run the school.

Here, Hawai‘i sovereigns (who reigned after Kamehameha III over the Hawaiian people after his death in 1854) were given Western education, including, Alexander Liholiho (King Kamehameha IV,) Queen Emma, Lot Kapuaiwa (King Kamehameha V,) King William Lunalilo, King David Kalākaua and Queen Lydia Lili‘uokalani.

Lots of information here from ‘The Polynesian’ (January 1, 1847,) Greer and Gilman.  The image shows Honolulu from the Harbor in 1854.

© 2023 Hoʻokuleana LLC

by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Adherent Planters

When we think of the prior sugar industry, we often only think of the large corporate entities – the Big Five (C. Brewer & Co, 1826; Theo H. Davies & Co, 1845; Amfac, 1849; Castle & Cooke, 1851 and Alexander & Baldwin, 1870).

These were the ‘factors’ who served as agents (and many times bankers) for thirty-six of the thirty-eight sugar plantations,;the Big Five openly monopolized the sugar trade.

But these and the companies they represented were not the only sugar planters.  Hawai‘i also had adherent planters.  These farmers, many of whom worked certain periods for the plantation, sold their cane to the plantation on a contractual basis.

Because of the topography of Hawaii, it often happens that small areas of land suitable for growing sugarcane are isolated by deep ravines or small rivers from the main body of the plantation land.

When, for these or other reasons, it was not practicable to put a piece of land under the direct management of the plantation, it was the usual practice to provide for the cultivation of such land under what was known as “ the adherent-planter system.”

In 1939, there were approximately 3,500 such adherent planters in the Territory, cultivating about 13 percent of the total cane area on more than 5,000 separate parcels of land, and producing about 10 percent of the total sugar cane grown in Hawaii. (US Bureau of Labor, 1939)

Around statehood (1959) approximately 100,000 tons of sugar was produced annually, principally on the unirrigated plantations on the island of Hawaii under the so-called adherent planter system.

This adherent planter system was an outgrowth of the Hawaiian plantation system over the prior 50 years and was unique in the American sugar-producing areas.

The small sugar growers had two types of agreements with the plantations: as adherent planters or as independent growers.

The adherent system originated when adherent planter agreements were offered by already established and operating sugar plantations to employees as a convenient arrangement to grow sugarcane on a portion of lands under cultivation by the plantation.

The plantation financed the venture, made available the use of mules, plows, fertilizer, heavy equipment, and labor at the time of harvest and transported the sugarcane crop after harvest to the plantation mill.

As a payment for the contribution of the adherent planter for labor performed, the plantation producer settled with the adherent planter by purchasing the sugarcane at a price tied to the price of raw sugar at market.

Direct contributions by way of finances, the loan of equipment, men, and advance of materials and services such as transportation, were a charge against the adherent planter.

Indirect contributions such as technical assistance in agricultural practices, certain types of supervision, scientific research and development, and the general costs that go into operating a large-scale plantation were charged to the adherent planter’s account.

Thus the Hawaiian sugar plantations early entered into a cooperative project of sugarcane production with certain selected employees under the adherent planter system.

This was in contrast to the so-called independent planters of Louisiana, Puerto Rico, and the Philippine Islands. In those areas, for the most part, the sugar centrals came into already independently developed farming areas where sugarcane was already in existence, and placed a mill among the growers for the purpose of processing sugarcane.

The sugar processors in the independent-planter areas never were in a joint enterprise in the growing of sugarcane with their planters, as were the plantation producers of Hawaii under the adherent planter system.

The adherent planter system on the Hawaiian sugar plantations was an outgrowth of the earlier development. There are many different types of adherent planter agreements on various sugar plantations, and, in some instances on the same plantation.

But, the basic relationship which was an outgrowth of the past was essentially the same in all. For the most part, adherent planters were employees of the plantations who have been granted small parcels of land for the cultivation of sugarcane either in their spare time or during portions of the year which they devote exclusively to these adherent planter plots.

These same employees spend the bulk of the year on the plantation pay rolls in various capacities such as harvesters, cultivators, millmen, or in similar employment. As a rule an adherent planter has two parcels of land, one for each crop year. This was because sugar cane in Hawaii was grown in a 2-year crop cycle and it was financially more convenient for adherent planters to receive a settlement once a year instead of once in 2 years.

The adherent planter was charged with the responsibility of planting, bringing to maturity, and harvesting the crop of sugarcane on the land allocated to him by the plantation producer.

The skilled operators of the plantation producer run the equipment, and the planter was given the full advantage of scientific mechanization in sugarcane cultivation.

Plantation agriculturalists under the terms of the adherent planter agreements determined the varieties of cane to be planted and the agricultural practices to be followed by the adherent planter and gave the adherent planters early advantage of newest developments at the Hawaiian Sugar Planters’ Association experiment station.

These and other developments in the industry station have been brought about at industry expense and made available to the adherent planters without charge.

At the time of the harvest, in most instances, the sugarcane was taken off by the heavy equipment of the plantation producer or by gangs of plantation men. The sugarcane was delivered to the mill in the plantation system of transportation.

The adherent planter was generally paid for his sugarcane on the basis of the average New York price of 90° sugar, for the month in which the sugarcane was harvested.

The various adherent planter plots are quite frequently found interspersed among the administration fields and are always physically located within the confines of the farming unit of the plantation.

The entire operation was essentially a joint one between the adherent planter and the plantation producer.  The passage of the Jones-Costigan amendment to the Agricultural Adjustment Act in 1934 resulted in the scrutiny of this system by the Department of Agriculture.

After a thorough investigation and public hearings in the Territory of Hawaii in December 1934, at which were present the representatives of the bulk of adherent planters in the Hawaiian sugar industry, the various plantation producers and the Secretary of Agriculture entered into the so-called production adjustment agreement.

These agreements set up the terms and conditions under which the Hawaiian sugar producers participated in the program for the production of sugar cane under the Agricultural Adjustment Administration. In these agreements, the peculiar status of the adherent planters of Hawaii was given recognition by the Secretary of Agriculture.

The so-called benefit payments of $10 per ton on sugar produced from adherent planter sugarcane were divided between the plantation producers and the adherent planters on the basis as though these payments were an increase in the market price of sugar; thus recognizing the joint nature of the venture under the adherent planter system.  (Most here is from the Congressional Record)

© 2023 Ho‘okuleana LLC

by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

1783

“… at 5 o’clock we arrived there and saw a number of People, I believe between 2 and 300 … we still continued advancing, keeping prepared against an attack tho’ without intending to attack them … they fired one or two shots, upon which our Men without any orders rushed in upon them, fired and put ’em to flight; several of them were killed”. (Diary of Lt. John Barker, Library of Congress)

The first shot (“the shot heard round the world”) was fired just as the sun was rising at Lexington. The American militia were outnumbered and fell back; and the British regulars proceeded on to Concord.

On April 19, 1775, the Battles of Lexington and Concord were the first military engagements of the American Revolutionary War. The battles marked the outbreak of open armed conflict between the Kingdom of Great Britain and its thirteen colonies of British North America.

Following this, the Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence and it was signed by 56-members of the Congress (1776.) The next eight years (1775-1783) war was waging on the eastern side of the continent. The main result was an American victory and European recognition of the independence of the United States.

The formal end of the war did not occur until the Treaty of Paris and the Treaties of Versailles were signed on September 3, 1783 and recognized the sovereignty of the United States over the territory bounded roughly by what is now Canada to the north, Florida to the south, and the Mississippi River to the west.

The treaty document was signed by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and John Jay (representing the United States) and David Hartley (a member of the British Parliament representing the British Monarch, King George III.)

The last British troops left New York City on November 25, 1783, and the US Congress of the Confederation ratified the Paris treaty on January 14, 1784.

While the Colonists were battling the British, the Hawaiian Islands were divided into four chiefdoms: (1) the island of Hawaiʻi under the rule of Kalaniʻōpuʻu, who also had possession of the Hāna district of east Maui; (2) Maui (except the Hāna district,) Molokaʻi, Lānaʻi and Kahoʻolawe, ruled by Kahekili; (3) Oʻahu, under the rule of Kahahana; and at (4) Kauaʻi and Niʻihau, Kamakahelei was ruler.

Separate chiefdoms ruled separate parts of the Islands. However, conquest was in the air and battles and negotiations for power and control were going on.

In about 1781, through a well-planned campaign, Kahekili was able to regain possession of the Hāna district and this marked the beginning of the disintegration of Kalaniʻōpuʻu’s kingdom. (Kuykendall)

Kalaniʻōpuʻu died shortly thereafter (1782.) Before his death, Kalaniʻōpuʻu gave an injunction to Kiwalaʻo and Kamehameha, and to all the chiefs, thus: “Boys, listen, both of you. The heir to the kingdom of Hawaii nei, comprising the three divisions of land, Kaʻū, Kona and Kohala, shall be the chief Kiwalaʻo. He is the heir to the lands.” (Fornander)

“As regarding you, Kamehameha, there is no land or property for you; but your land and your endowment shall be the god Kaili (Kūkaʻilimoku.) If, during life, your lord should molest you, take possession of the kingdom; but if the molestation be on your part, you will be deprived of the god.” These words of Kalaniʻōpuʻu were fulfilled in the days of their youth, and his injunction was realized. (Fornander)

On Hawaiʻi Island, civil war broke out between Kīwalaʻō’s forces and the various chiefs under the leadership of Kamehameha. In the first major skirmish, the battle of Mokuʻōhai (a fight between Kamehameha and Kiwalaʻo in July, 1782 at Keʻei, south of Kealakekua Bay on the Island of Hawaiʻi,) Kiwalaʻo was killed.

The result of the battle of Mokuʻōhai was virtually to split the island of Hawaiʻi into three independent and hostile factions. The district of Kona, Kohala and portions of Hāmākua acknowledged Kamehameha as their sovereign. (Fornander)

The remaining portion of Hāmākua, the district of Hilo and a part of Puna, remained true to and acknowledged Keawemauhili as their Mōʻī; while the lower part of Puna and the district of Kaʻū, the patrimonial estate of Kīwalaʻō, ungrudgingly and cheerfully supported Keōua against the mounting ambition of Kamehameha. (Fornander)

On Maui, “At that time, Kahekili was plotting for the downfall of Kahahana and the seizure of Oʻahu and Molokaʻi, and the queen of Kauaʻi was disposed to assist him in these enterprises.” (Kalākaua)

Kahekili deceived Kahahana by having him believe Kaʻōpulupulu (his kahuna, priest) had offered the government and throne of Oʻahu to him (Kahekili), but that out of affection for his nephew he had refused; and he intimated strongly that Kaʻōpulupulu was a traitor to Kahahana.

Kahahana believed the falsehoods and it subsequently caused friction between Kahahana and Kaʻōpulupulu and the Oʻahu King turned a deaf ear to his kahuna’s advice and by the later part of 1782 or beginning of 1783, he arranged to have Kaʻōpulupulu killed.

Weakened, Kaʻōpulupulu commanded his wounded son, who had gained a point where a few steps would have placed him at the mercy of the angry sea: “E nui ke aho e kuʻu keiki a pa ke kino I ka ili kai a na ke kai ka ua ʻāina la” …

“Spend not your strength my son until your body strikes the surface of the ocean, for the land belongs to the sea.” This cryptic message culminated in the invasion of Oʻahu by Kahekili, aliʻi nui of Maui. (Nui; Cultural Surveys)

With his main obstacle removed, Kahekili prepared for an invasion against Oʻahu and Kahahana. He called on Kahahawai, his special friend, strategist and war chief. Kahekili’s warriors landed at Waikīkī in the beginning of 1783.

While Kahekili and his Maui army were camped near the heiau at ʻApuakehau, without authorization from Kahahana, the Eight of Oʻahu suddenly attacked the Maui warriors. The conflict was hand to hand, and in that respect was favorable to the eight men well-skilled in the use of spear and javelin.

Side by side, striking and smiting all before them, the little band forced its way into the heart of the body of its foes. It has been said that this was a fight “to which Hawaiian legends record no parallel.” Eight men attacked an army and for some time were victorious in their onslaught. (Westervelt)

Kahahana’s army was later routed, and he and his wife fled to the mountains. For nearly two years or more they wandered over the mountains, secretly aided, fed and clothed by his supporters. He was finally betrayed and killed by his wife’s brother. (Kanahele)

Kahekili and his eldest son and heir-apparent, Kalanikūpule, conquered Kahahana, adding Oʻahu under his control. (Kahekili’s son, Kalanikūpule, inherited his chiefdom; Oʻahu was later lost to Kamehameha in the Battle of Nuʻuanu (1795.))

The image shows a Herb Kane depiction of the sea portion of the land-sea battle of Mokuʻōhai.

© 2023 Hoʻokuleana LLC

Sea_battle_at_mokuohai-(HerbKane)
Sea_battle_at_mokuohai-(HerbKane)

by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Tsunami in Hawai‘i

A tsunami is a series of ocean waves generated by sudden displacements in the sea floor, landslides or volcanic activity.  In the deep ocean, the tsunami wave may only be a few inches high.  The tsunami wave may come gently ashore or may increase in height to become a fast moving wall of turbulent water several meters high.
 
In Hawaii, tsunamis have accounted for more lost lives than the total of all other local disasters.  In the 20th century, an estimated 221 people have been killed by tsunamis.  Most of these deaths occurred on the Big Island during the tsunamis of 1946 and 1960, two of the largest tsunamis to strike in the Pacific.
 
Here is a brief summary of some recent tsunami and their impacts in Hawai‘i:
 
1946
The tsunami of 1946 was generated by a magnitude 7.1 earthquake in the Aleutian Islands.  This tsunami struck the Big Island of Hawaii on April 1st.  The tsunami flooded the downtown area of Hilo killing 159 people and causing more than $26-million in damages.
 
1952
On November 4, 1952 a tsunami was generated by a magnitude 8.2 earthquake on the Kamchatka Peninsula in the USSR.  In Hawaii, property damage from these waves was estimated at $800,000-$1,000,000 (1952 dollars); no lives were lost.  The waves beached boats, caused houses to collide, destroyed piers, scoured beaches and moved road pavement.
 
1957
On March 9, 1957 a tsunami was generated by a magnitude 8.3 earthquake in the Aleutian Islands.  It generated a 24-foot tsunami that did great damage on Adak Island, especially to the fuel and oil docks.  The Hawaiian Islands incurred about $5,000,000 of damage in 1957 dollars.  The highest wave in Hawaii was 12-feet.
 
1960
The tsunami of May 23, 1960 was generated by a magnitude 8.3 earthquake in Chile.  The 35-foot tsunami struck Hilo, Hawaii causing severe damage.  61-deaths were recorded and $23-million in damage occurred.  In the area of maximum destruction, only buildings of reinforced concrete or structural steel and a few others sheltered by these buildings, remained standing – and even these were generally gutted.  Frame buildings were either crushed or floated nearly to the limits of the flooding.
 
1975
On November 29, 1975, an earthquake occurred off the coast of the Big Island of Hawaii.  When the quake-generated tsunami struck, 32 campers were at Halape Beach Park.  The sound of falling rocks from a nearby cliff, along with earth movement caused the campers to flee toward the ocean.  They were then forced back to the cliff by rising ocean waters.  The first wave was 5-feet high, but the second wave was 26-feet high and carried the unfortunate campers into a ditch near the base of the cliff, where they remained until the ordeal ended.  Two campers died and 19 suffered injuries.
 
2011
An earthquake measured at 9.0 magnitude, the sixth biggest since 1900, struck Japan on March 11, 2011.  The first tsunami waves reached Kaua‘i shortly after 3 a.m. and took about 30 minutes to sweep through the island chain.  Waves above 6-feet were recorded at Kahului on Maui and 3-feet at Haleiwa on the north shore of Oahu.  Lost homes, sunken boats, Kona Village Resort damage, and damaged piers and roads caused tsunami damage into the tens of millions of dollars; no one was killed or injured during the tsunami.
 
The earliest historical account of a Hawaii tsunami was from a 16th century Hawaiian chant that described a huge wave that struck the coast of Molokai.
 
The earliest confirmed tsunami was on Dec 21, 1812, when a wave from Southern California was observed at Ho‘okena on the west coast of the Big Island (Hawai‘i island). Maximum runups in excess of 15 m were measured for the 1946 and 1957 distant tsunamis and the 1975 local tsunami.
 
The record shows that damaging tsunamis from distant earthquakes reached Hawaii these years: 1837, 1841, 1868, 1869, 1877, 1883, 1906, 1918, 1923, 1933, 1946, 1957, and 1960. Other smaller tsunamis that caused no significant damage in Hawaii were generated by distant earthquakes in 1896, 1901, 1906, 1919, 1922, 1923, two in 1927, 1928, 1929, 1931, 1938, 1944, 1952, and 1964.
 
In a period of 157 years, a damaging or destructive tsunami struck the Hawaiian Islands on the average of once in every twelve years.
 

by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Sugar Act

In 1760, twenty-two-year-old monarch George III ascended the throne of England. The French and Indian War (Seven Year War) that had stretched on for years and encircled the globe finally ended in 1763, with the signing of the Treaty of Paris by France, Great Britain and Spain.

France lost all claims to Canada and gave Louisiana to Spain, while Britain received Spanish Florida, Upper Canada, and various French holdings overseas. The treaty ensured the colonial and maritime supremacy of Britain and strengthened the 13 American colonies by removing their European rivals to the north and the south.

Colonists were proud of their role in defeating the French, but England was faced with a vast territory to safeguard and a soaring debt.

In 1764, George Grenville, First Lord of the Treasury, proposed to strengthen Britain’s hold on its American investment. Addressing the King in his declaration of intent, Grenville argued that,

“Whereas it is expedient that new provisions and regulations should be established for improving the revenue of this Kingdom, and for extending and securing the navigation and commerce between Great Britain and your Majesty’s dominions in America, which, by the peace, have been so happily enlarged and:

“whereas it is just and necessary, that a revenue be raised, in your Majesty’s said dominions in America, for defraying the expences of defending, protecting, and securing the same.”

“We your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the commons of Great Britain, in parliament assembled, being desirous to make some provision in this present session of parliament, towards the said revenue in America, have resolved to give and grant unto your Majesty the several rates and duties herein after mentioned;”

“and do most humbly beseech your Majesty, that it may be enacted; and be it enacted …, That from and after the twenty ninth day of September, one thousand seven hundred and sixty four, there shall be raised, levied, collected, and paid, unto his Majesty …,”

“for and upon all white or clayed sugars of the produce or manufacture of any colony or plantation in America, not under the dominion of his Majesty …; for and upon indico, and coffee of foreign produce or manufacture; for and upon all wines (except French wine  …)

The colonies have already been mired in a post-war depression.

In Boston, town meeting (the local government) carefully considered the Sugar Act (also called Plantation Act or Revenue Act). “We . . . declare our just expectations,” Bostonians announce, as they assert their rights and advise their representatives to the Massachusetts legislature to stand firm for traditional prerogatives.

Meanwhile, in New York, American patriots urge their countrymen to cast off British luxuries and set about producing their own raw materials and home manufactures. Such self-sufficiency, they insist, will empower colonists to dispel their dread and become the “richest People upon Earth.”

Effects of the Sugar Act

In order to enforce the collection of taxes violators were tried in admiralty courts where a judge decided the outcome rather than in colonial courts in where the decision was left to a jury. Admiralty courts were located in Halifax, Nova Scotia while colonial courts were local.

Admiralty judges were awarded 5% of the confiscated cargo as compensation which gave them the financial incentive to find the violator guilty and thus enforcing the law vigorously. This new system removed the traditional British protection to a fair trial.

In addition, the new law also affected the trade of certain commodities. Lumber and iron were added to the list of products that could be traded only with England. Duties were introduced to the importation of coffee, pimiento, wine from Madeira and the Azores and French and West Indian goods.

With few exceptions vessels going to the colonies had to pass through Britain, unload its cargo, pay duty on it, reload it and sail to the colonies. These measures increased the cost of doing business and undermined local industry.  (Stamp-Act-History)

 The Sugar Act and the American Revolution

Because of the strict enforcement the act did accomplish its goal of reducing smuggling which affected colonial economy, especially in Massachusetts, New York and Pennsylvania. The protests against the act were heavier in affected colonies and almost non-existent in unaffected ones. The law nevertheless promoted boycott of British luxury goods in some colonies and gave some boost to local manufacturing.

For the first time the Sugar Act raised different constitutional issues. While many perceived the Sugar Act as an infringement of their constitutional rights because they were, for the first time, taxed to raise revenue for the benefit of the crown, others viewed it as a tax to regulate the flow of trade and as a continuation of the existing and long accepted 1733 Molasses Act.

Those who perceived the law as unconstitutional thought that the law transformed a trade regulation into a revenue measure. Colonial residents had a fragmented view and it was not perceived in a uniformed way. The following year most colonial residents would agree that the proposed Stamp Act of 1765 violated their colonial rights of “No taxation without representation”.  (Stamp-Act-History)

Click the following link to a general summary about the Sugar Act:

Click to access Sugar-Act.pdf

© 2023 Hoʻokuleana LLC