Although patriots like to say otherwise, not everyone agrees with non-import and non-consumption movements. Some settlers agreed with them, buying, importing or selling British products. In August 1769, the offenders were revealed on the front page of the Boston Chronicle. The news of the violations has devastating effects on the boycott, as does the importation of traders who mock patriots and their search for “tiny packages” that could contain contraband. The Boston non-import agreement was a boycott that limited the importation of goods into the city of Boston. This agreement was signed on August 1, 1768 by more than sixty merchants and traders. After two weeks, there were only sixteen traders who did not participate in the effort. These figures show the impact of the situation on trade. There was a great depression in the 1760s, when the majority of non-import and taxation battles fought. Nevertheless, it is assumed that non-importation and the resulting depression were not only caused by unpopular acts. During this period, creditors and the investor asked for their money from colonial importers who were unable to repay their debts. To raise more money, they made the non-import so that they could sell their shares at higher prices. During the 1760s, the British Parliament passed numerous legislative acts that had a significant impact on the colonial economy and caused problems in industry, agriculture and trade.
This means that the Boston non-import agreement could not be the first such agreement to oppose Parliament`s conduct. 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 agreement expired on January 1, 1770. Many traders want to go out: they have warehouses for sale with British products and they are eager to resume their trade. In the hope of being “zealous on the merits” – despite the people among them – Bostonians write to the Massachusetts colonial agent in London to assure him that they are more determined than ever to force the hand of Parliament. The whole struggle for the 1760s can be seen as a firm commitment by the settlers to economic and political independence, as an attempt to eliminate illegal taxes and customs duties, which they believed was possible. One of these attempts was the Boston Non-Import Agreement, which, although not very successful, also contributed to this struggle, which would later lead to an escalation of conflicts and, later, to the American Revolution itself. It can also be concluded that non-imports were also a means of cleaning up inventories, resetting profitability and offsetting exchange rates. B. How does this agreement complement and complicate James Otis` assertion (speech against aid works) that “a man`s house is his castle”? Throughout 1770 Boston merchants tried unsuccessfully to renew the non-import agreement. In May, they learned that Parliament had abolished customs duties on townshends (with the exception of the tea tax). The non-import movement rapidly collapsed, and the settlers were even the most patriotic settlers who wanted to consume their British luxury again.
Until October 1770 the non-import died, but not for long. 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.