¹ Douglass C. North, “Sources of Productivity Change in Ocean Shipping, 1600–1850,” Journal of Political Economy, 76 (09./10. 1968), 953–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and “The Role of Transportation in the Economic Development of North America” in Colloque international d'histoife maritime, 7th, Vienna 1965, Les Crandes voies maritimes dans le mond'e XV^e-XIX^e siécles (Paris, 1965), pp. 209–46.Google ScholarShepherd, James F. and Walton, Gary M., Shipping, Maritime Trade and the Economic Development of Colonial North America (Cambridge, 1972)Google Scholar. The numerous articles by Shepherd and Walton bearing on this subject are listed in their bibliography. While North's study of productivity obviously goes past 1776, it contains no evidence on American shipping during the early national period. This lack of quantitative evidence similarly forces North to rely on European freight rates in his estimates of shipping earnings prior to 1815. Douglass C. North, “The United States Balance of Payments, 1790–1860,” in National Bureau of Economic Research, Trends in the American Economy in the Nineteenth Century, Studies in Income and Wealth, XXIV (Princeton, 1960), p. 596Google Scholar.

² The standard work on the era of the neutral carrying trade is Clauder, Anna C., American Commerce As Affected by the Wars of the French Revolution and Napoleon, 1793–1812 (1932; rpt, Clifton, N.J., 1972. Clauder provides no systematic assessment of the impact of political and legal decisions on economic activity. Curtis Nettels accepts Jacob Crowninshield's 1806 statement on the productivity of American shipping but offers no supporting evidenceGoogle Scholar; The Emergence of a National Economy, 1775–1815 (New York, 1962), pp. 234–35Google Scholar.

² The standard work on the era of the neutral carrying trade is Anna C. Clauder, American Commerce As Affected by the Wars of the French Revolution and Napoleon, 1793–1812 (1932; rpt, Clifton, N.J., 1972). Clauder provides no systematic assessment of the impact of political and legal decisions on economic activity. Curtis Nettels accepts Jacob Crowninshield's 1806 statement on the productivity of American shipping but offers no supporting evidence; The Emergence of a National Economy, 1775–1815 (New York, 1962), pp. 234–35.

³ Boyd, Julian P. et al., eds.. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, XVII (Princeton, 1950.), P. 423Google Scholar.

⁴ Ledger titled “Record of Arrival and Departure of American Vessels,” Consular Post Records, Leghorn, Record Group 84, National Archives, Washington, D.C. A much shorter list of vessels exists for Tunis from 1806 to 1817 (plus a few irregular entries after that date); Consular Post Records, Tunis, RG 84, Natl. Archives. I am currently analyzing the scattered shipping reports which survive from Tunis and other European ports.

Analysis was made using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) and Statistical Analysis System (SAS). Norman H. Nie et al., SPSS: Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (2nd ed.; New York, 1975).Google ScholarBarr, Anthony J. et al., A User's Guide to SAS 76 (Raleigh, N.C., 1976)Google Scholar.

⁵ Bowdoin, James to Thomas Jefferson, 07 22, 1786Google Scholar; Adams, Abigail to Jefferson, 09. 10, [1787];Google ScholarAdams, John to Jefferson, 10. 28, 1787Google Scholar; Adams, Abigail to Jefferson, 04. 21, 1788Google Scholar; , Jefferson to John Jay, 11. 14, 1788Google Scholar; Short, William to Jefferson, 12. 23, 1790; all inGoogle ScholarBoyd, et al., eds., Jefferson Papers, X, p. 160; XII, pp. 112, 291, 613; XIV, p. 60; XVIII, pp. 358–59. Nathaniel Appleton to President of the United States, Dec. 3, 1791; Thomas Appleton to Jefferson, Dec. 12, 1790; both in “Applications for Office under President Washington,” George Washington Papers, Library of.Congress, microfilm, Reel 119. Benjamin Lincoln to President of the United States, Oct. 12, 1797; Nathaniel Appleton to President of the United States, Oct. 16, 1797; [Petition in support of Thomas Appleton] dated Boston, Oct. 4, 1797, and Providence, Oct. 19, 1797; Thomas Appleton to President of the United States, Jan. 22, 1798; all in Letters of Application.and Recommendation During the Administration of John Adams, 1797–1801, Records of the Dept. of State, RG 59, Natl. Archives, M-406, Reel 1. Issac Appleton Jewett,Google ScholarMemorial of Samuel Appleton, of Ipswich Massachusetts… (Boston, 1850)Google Scholar.

⁶ Monk, W. F., Britain in the Western Mediterranean (London, 1953), pp. 14–17, 24, 39, 57.Google ScholarDavis, Ralph, The Rise of the English Shipping Industry in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries (London, 1962), pp. 242–56.Google ScholarRamsay, G. D., English Overseas Trade During the Centuries of Emergence (London, 1957), pp. 50–54Google Scholar.

⁷ Lydon, James G., “Fish and Flour for Gold: Southern Europe and the Colonial American Balance of Payments,” Business History Review, 39 (Summer 1965), 171–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸ Values were almost always in thousands of dollars, often divisible by five or ten, suggesting that Appleton was forced to guess about value. But his guesses had some integrity since values are frequently unreported even when he knew the cargo—implying he required some evidence before guessing.

⁹ His use of registered tonnage is confirmed by comparing the tonnage given for vessels from Salem with the tonnages listed in the published ship registers for Salem; Frank A. Hutchings and Stephen Willard Phillips, “Ship Registers of the District of Salem and Beverly, 1789–1900,” Essex Institute Historical Collections, 39 (04. 1903), 185–208; 40 (Jan., Apr., July, Oct. 1904), 49–72, 177–200, 217–40, 321–36; 41 (Apr., July, Oct. 1905), 141–64, 309–32, 357–80; 42 (Jan. 1906), 89–110Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Appleton was once able to gain a reduction in quarantine time from twenty to fourteen days if a vessel had a bill of health from its American port. Appleton to Secretary of State, May 29, 1802, Consular Despatches, Leghorn, Records of the Department of State, RG 59, Natl. Archives, microfilm T214, Reel 1. See also Porter, Kenneth W., ed., The Jacksons and the Lees, 2 vols. (1937; rpt. New York, 1969), p. 1351CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹¹ In 1807 Appleton changed the heading “port in U.S. cleared from” to “belongs to,” indicating he too assumed these to be identical. Also supporting this assumption is the fact that vessels owned by well-known merchants all come from the “right” (home) ports.

¹² Andre Fugier, Napoléon et l'ltalie (Paris, 1947), pp. 133–37, 212–17.Google ScholarGodechot, Jacques, L'Europe et I'Amerique a Fepoque napoleonienne (Paris, 1967), pp. 177–78.Google ScholarMelvin, Frank E., Napoleon's Navigation System (New York, 1919), pp. 17–18Google Scholar.

¹³ Vessels could, and did, appear at Leghorn more than once. Each reappearance is considered exactly the same as a vessel which called at Leghorn only once, because the reports reflect total American economic activity not individual vessels.

¹⁴ The characteristics of vessels at Leghorn can be established either as a percentage of the number of all vessels or as a percentage of total tonnage of all vessels. The number of vessels represents the number of commercial transactions, while tonnage measures the potential volume of trade. Tonnage can weigh relative relationships. The number of vessels is best used to view discontinuous relationships reflecting the choice of one alternative or another.

¹⁵ All yearly percentages, unless otherwise noted, are three-year moving averages. A three-year average for 1820 has been created using data for 1821. When periods of time are mentionede—e.g., 1798–1808 and 1815–20—the data included are those for the inclusive years. In a statement about the period 1815–20 there are no data from 1821.

¹⁶ Throughout this paper no references will be made to vessels from the Lower South. The difficulty of distinguishing Charleston, South Carolina from Charlestown, Massachusetts necessitated this decision. Appleton was not consistent either in his spelling of the city's name or in giving the state. In Table 1, I have indicated the number of vessels I believe to be from Charleston, South Carolina. These probable Lower South vessels are always included in all-vessel averages.

¹⁷ Grant, Sibbald & Balfour to Joseph Lee, Jr., Jan. 25, 1802 in Porter, , ed., The jacksons and the Lees, p. 522. This letter provides an overview of commerce at LeghornGoogle Scholar.

¹⁸ , Shepherd and , Walton, Shipping, pp. 75–76. I chose my six size groupings to match those of Shepherd and Walton. I have not made a direct comparison with the T/M ratios of Shepherd and Walton because of the difficulty of equating tonnage measurements. In a recent article, “Economic Change after the American Revolution: Pre- and Post-War Corftparisons of Maritime Shipping and Trade” (Google ScholarExplorations in Economic History, 13 [10. 1976], 417)Google Scholar, Shepherd and Walton have compared post-1789 American tonnage with colonial-era tonnage using the conversion factors suggested by French, Christopher J. (“Eighteenth-Century Shipping Tonnage Measurements,” this JOURNAL, 33 [06 1973], 440). Applying these factors to my three-year average T/M ratio for 1799 (unadjusted 10.9) gives a range of 8.2, 7.1, and 6.0. For the colonial era, Shepherd and Walton give the following T/M ratios for colonially-owned vessels: 10.3 (Boston, 1764–65), 6.6 (New York, 1763–64), and 8.3 (Virginia, 1768). Shipping, p. 196. If this conversion is correct, it suggests the arresting conclusionthat productivity may have remained stagnant or even declined for 30 years. Such a conclusion is suspect. French's conversion factors are derived solely from evidence about British shipping and tell us nothing about pre-1786 vessels owned, and registered in AmericaGoogle Scholar.

¹⁹ Samuel Eliot Morison, with his usual accuracy, suggested a tons-per-man ratio of 15 during this period. His observation, however, misses the dynamic growth in that ratio. The Maritime History of Massachusetts (Boston, 1921), p. 106Google Scholar.

²⁰ For British vessels trading at Jamaica in the 1780s, per-day capital costs per ton did not decline for vessels above 300 tons. Yates, Richard Corson, “The Cost of Ocean Transport Between England and Jamaica: 1784–1788,” (unpub. Ph.D. diss., Univ. of Washington, 1969), pp. 37–38Google Scholar.

²¹ , North, “Sources of Productivity Change,” pp. 959–60, 967.Google Scholar, Shepherd and , Walton, Shipping, pp. 81–85. The American experience in the Mediterranean followed the scenario for dealing with insecurity outlined by North and Thomas; seeGoogle ScholarNorth, Douglass C. and Thomas, Robert Paul, The Rise of the Western World: A New Economic History (Cambridge, 1973), pp. 3–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²² James Leander Cathcart to Secretary of State, July 4, 1802, in Knox, Dudley W., ed., Naval Documents Related to the United States Wars with the Barbary Powers, II (Washington, D.C., 1940), p. 191. Insecurity in the West Indies at this time prompted merchants to arm their vessels for protection.Google Scholar, Clauder, American Commerce, pp. 61–64Google Scholar.

²³ , Morison, Maritime History, p. 110Google Scholar.

²⁴ Yates found no evidence that large vessels suffered from under-utilization. This may reflect the greater availability of cargoes at , Jamaica. “Cost of Ocean Transport,” pp. 24–25Google Scholar.

²⁵ French intervention at Leghorn delayed the departures of American vessels, pushing up port times for 1807 and 1808. Appleton to Secretary of State, Sept. 25, 1807 and Mar. 23, 1808, Consular Despatches, Leghorn, T214, Reel 2.

²⁶ I am counting as “direct,” vessels that touched at Gibraltar. Gibraltar was a frequent stop for information.

²⁷ I the same period 20.4 percent of vessels calling at Port Hampton, Virginia had owner-masters. Morris, Richard B., Government and Labor in Early America (New York, 1946), pp. 244–45Google Scholar.

²⁸ These four commodities were on 66 percent of the vessels.

²⁹ These are single-year averages.

³⁰ [Circular of] Michael Richardson, Liverpool, May 16, 1803. Israel Thorndike Papers, Vol. 10, Baker Library, Harvard Business School, Boston, Mass.

³¹ The continuation of the re-export trade is often overlooked. See Bjork, Gordon C., “Foreign Trade,” in Gilchrist, David T., ed., The Growth of the Seaport Cities, 1790–1825 (Charlottesville, Va., 1967), p. 58Google Scholar.

³² At the end of the eighteenth century southern Russia emerged as supplier of grain for the Mediterranean, perhaps making American flour less competitive than it had been in the middle of the century. See Herlihy, Patricia Ann McGahay, “Russian Grain and Mediterranean Markets, 1774–1861,” (unpub. Ph.D. diss., Univ. of Pennsylvania, 1963)Google Scholar.

³³ , Shepherd and , Walton, Shipping, p. 162Google Scholar.

³⁴ Beginning in 1803, Treasury Department records distinguish between exports of domestic and foreign products. Adam Seybert, Statistical Annals Embracing Views of the Population, Commerce, Navigation… (1818; rpt. New York, 1969), pp. 135–37Google Scholar.

³⁵ Pitkin, Timothy, A Statistical View of the Commerce of the United States (1816; rpt. New York, 1967), pp. 54–55Google Scholar.

³⁶ Appleton said the records of Leghorn indicated that only 23 American vessels had arrived in the port between 1783 and 1798. Appleton to Secretary of State, Jan. 15, 1802, Consular Despatches, Leghorn, T214, Reel 1.

³⁷ Idem, June 1, 1802, ibid.

³⁸ There are 360 vessels in this group. I have included vessels that left port with all or part of their entering cargo. A zero value was assigned to vessels that arrived or departed in ballast.

³⁹ Without knowing the American share of all commodities bought and sold in Leghorn, this assertion is hazardous. Maritime competition, other than Britain's, was probably less than it had been before 1793. See Crouzet, Francois, “Wars, Blockade, and Economic Change in Europe, 1792–1815,” this Journal 24 (12. 1964), 567–88Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ Appleton to Jefferson, May 30, 1816, Thomas Jefferson Papers, Library of Congress, microfilm, Reel 82.