Thank you for visiting SNEWPapers!
Sign up free
Story
January 24, 1815
The New Hampshire Gazette
Portsmouth, Rockingham County, New Hampshire
What is this article about?
A political article criticizes the Hartford Convention's report for deceptive tables misrepresenting state exports by mixing foreign and domestic figures, omitting explanations, and containing errors like swapping state data and excluding major exporters.
Merged-components note: The table provides data directly referenced and critiqued in the preceding story about misrepresentations in the Hartford Convention report on exports; they form a single logical component.
Clipping
OCR Quality
70%
Good
Full Text
POLITICAL.
Gross Misrepresentations of the Hartford Convention.
Never were there more glaring attempts at imposition practised by any body of men than by the Members of this grand caucus, in some of the tables subjoined to the Report. The Convention, to say nothing of veracity, has utterly discarded all pretensions to fairness and plain dealing.
On page 37, schedule H. No. 2, a table is given for the purpose of shewing the comparative exports of each State, in different years. The years taken are 1791, 1799, 1806, and 1813. The first artifice for deception in this table, and which must have been intended, is, that for the three first years, the whole exports, foreign and domestic, are included, and in the fourth only domestic. This must have been done for the purpose of exhibiting an exaggerated statement of the influence of the war on our export trade. This, however, is not the worst feature of the table. The four years are arranged in such a manner, as to lead the reader to suppose that the whole in each year were articles of domestic growth.
The following is an exact specimen of the manner in which this table is printed.
"The comparative exports of each State from time to time, viz,
New-Hampshire--Year 1791, 142,858 dols.; year 1799, 360,089 dols.; year 1806, 795,260 dols.; year 1813, Domestic Articles, 29,000.
Massachusetts--Year 1791, 2,445,975 dols.; year 1799, 11,421,591 dols. year 1806, 21,199,243; Domestic Articles, 1,513,000.
Thus they proceed through the whole of the States, & the meaning of "Dom. Arts." after 1806, is left to conjecture. Not a word of explanation is given, and it may as naturally refer back to the preceding years, as forward to 1813, or it may include both. Common readers would probably understand it in this last sense, as nothing appears on the face of the table to contradict this inference. To shew the amount of this deception, I give in the following statement, the exports as they stand in the Convention pamphlet, to which they annex the words Dom. Arts. that is domestic articles, in the first column, and in the second the true amount of domestic articles exported, as they are given in the second edition of the "Olive Branch," and as they may be seen in the Patriot of Dec. 31. In this column cyphers are placed in the room of digits in the three last places, which will not materially vary the result.
Convention Table Cary's Table
Year 1806
in the Hartford manifesto is replete with blunders. Only four out of fifteen States have their exports stated correctly. Those of Connecticut are given to Vermont, and the commercial importance of New-England is elevated by attributing the whole export trade of New-York to Connecticut. Neither New-York, Pennsylvania, nor Georgia is allowed any thing for export.
Such are the disgraceful blunders of the Hartford luminaries. So much dependence is to be placed on the "Statements prepared and published by order of the Convention."
B. Pat.
Gross Misrepresentations of the Hartford Convention.
Never were there more glaring attempts at imposition practised by any body of men than by the Members of this grand caucus, in some of the tables subjoined to the Report. The Convention, to say nothing of veracity, has utterly discarded all pretensions to fairness and plain dealing.
On page 37, schedule H. No. 2, a table is given for the purpose of shewing the comparative exports of each State, in different years. The years taken are 1791, 1799, 1806, and 1813. The first artifice for deception in this table, and which must have been intended, is, that for the three first years, the whole exports, foreign and domestic, are included, and in the fourth only domestic. This must have been done for the purpose of exhibiting an exaggerated statement of the influence of the war on our export trade. This, however, is not the worst feature of the table. The four years are arranged in such a manner, as to lead the reader to suppose that the whole in each year were articles of domestic growth.
The following is an exact specimen of the manner in which this table is printed.
"The comparative exports of each State from time to time, viz,
New-Hampshire--Year 1791, 142,858 dols.; year 1799, 360,089 dols.; year 1806, 795,260 dols.; year 1813, Domestic Articles, 29,000.
Massachusetts--Year 1791, 2,445,975 dols.; year 1799, 11,421,591 dols. year 1806, 21,199,243; Domestic Articles, 1,513,000.
Thus they proceed through the whole of the States, & the meaning of "Dom. Arts." after 1806, is left to conjecture. Not a word of explanation is given, and it may as naturally refer back to the preceding years, as forward to 1813, or it may include both. Common readers would probably understand it in this last sense, as nothing appears on the face of the table to contradict this inference. To shew the amount of this deception, I give in the following statement, the exports as they stand in the Convention pamphlet, to which they annex the words Dom. Arts. that is domestic articles, in the first column, and in the second the true amount of domestic articles exported, as they are given in the second edition of the "Olive Branch," and as they may be seen in the Patriot of Dec. 31. In this column cyphers are placed in the room of digits in the three last places, which will not materially vary the result.
Convention Table Cary's Table
Year 1806
in the Hartford manifesto is replete with blunders. Only four out of fifteen States have their exports stated correctly. Those of Connecticut are given to Vermont, and the commercial importance of New-England is elevated by attributing the whole export trade of New-York to Connecticut. Neither New-York, Pennsylvania, nor Georgia is allowed any thing for export.
Such are the disgraceful blunders of the Hartford luminaries. So much dependence is to be placed on the "Statements prepared and published by order of the Convention."
B. Pat.
| N | Hampshire, D. 795,260 | Dom. Arts. D. 411,000 |
| Massachusetts, 21,199.243 | do. 6,621,000 | |
| Vermont, 193,775 | do. 91,000 | |
| Rhode-Island, 2,091,835 | do. 949,000 | |
| Connecticut, 1,715,858 | do. 1,522,000 | |
| New-York, 21,762,845 | do. 8,053,000 | |
| Pennsylvania, 17,574,502 | do. 3,765,000 | |
| Maryland, 14,580,937 | do. 3,663,000 | |
| Virginia, 5,055,396 | do. 4,628,000 | |
| North-Carolina, 789,605 | do. 786,000 | |
| South-Carolina, 9,743,782 | do. 6,797,000 |
What sub-type of article is it?
Deception Fraud
Historical Event
What themes does it cover?
Deception
Justice
What keywords are associated?
Hartford Convention
Export Tables
Deception
Misrepresentation
Domestic Articles
What entities or persons were involved?
B. Pat.
Where did it happen?
United States
Story Details
Key Persons
B. Pat.
Location
United States
Event Date
1791, 1799, 1806, 1813
Story Details
The Hartford Convention's report uses deceptive tables to misrepresent export data by including foreign exports in early years but only domestic in 1813, lacking explanations, and containing errors like misattributing states' exports.