The Rhode Island protest.—Before the Sugar Act was passed a remonstrance was prepared in Rhode Island, which was to be presented to the Board of Trade if three other colonial agents would coöperate. Committees of correspondence were also formed in various towns. After the passage of the act the committee of correspondence of which Governor Hopkins was a member sent out a circular letter protesting against the Sugar Act and the proposed Stamp Act, In November, 1764, the assembly sent a petition to the king in which the principle was stated that an essential privilege of Englishmen was that they should be governed by laws made by their own consent.
Connecticut protest.—In Connecticut Governor Fitch, at the suggestion of the assembly, prepared an address to parliament which protested against the proposed Stamp Act or any other bill for internal taxes. This and the governor's book ofReasons Why the British Colonies in America should not be Charged with Internal Taxes by Authority of Parliamentwere sent.
New York protest—In March, 1764, the New York merchants presented to the council a memorial against the renewal of the Molasses Act. In October the assembly appointed a committee of correspondence and sent statements of grievances to the king and the lords, and a petition to the commons. In the petitionthe significant statement was made that the loss of colonial rights was likely to shake the power of Great Britain.
Pennsylvania's protest.—The Pennsylvania assembly considered that parliament had no right to tax the colony. Jackson, the colonial agent, was instructed to remonstrate against the proposed Stamp Act and to endeavor to secure the repeal or modification of the Sugar Act. Franklin was sent over to assist Jackson.
Maryland and Virginia.—In Maryland the governor prevented the meeting of the assembly, but the Virginia council and burgesses prepared an address to the king, a memorial to the lords, and a remonstrance to the commons. The Virginians claimed the rights and privileges that their ancestors had had in England and laid down the fundamental principle of no taxation without representation.
The Carolinas.—North Carolina protested strongly and in South Carolina the assembly appointed a committee which instructed the colonial agent to complain of the laws of trade. The instructions also declared that a Stamp Act would violate the inherent right of every British subject to be taxed only by his own consent or by his representatives. The governor prorogued the assembly before a vote could be taken upon the committee's action, but the instructions, nevertheless, were sent.
The Stamp Act.—In spite of colonial protests Grenville pursued his policy, the appeals of the colonies being rejected under the rule that petitions against money bills should not be received, and in March, 1765, parliament passed the Stamp Act. By its provisions stamps were to be placed on commercial and legal documents, pamphlets, newspapers, almanacs, playing cards, and dice. The enforcement of the act was placed under the management of English commissioners who were empowered to appoint persons to attend in every court or public office in the colonies to see that the law was enforced. For infringements of the law there were heavy penalties which might be collected through the admiralty courts if the informer or prosecutor so elected. Certain cases of forging and counterfeiting were punishable by death. The revenue derived from the Stamp Act was to be paid into the exchequer to be used for colonial defence.
Quartering Act.—The ministry intended to establish an army of 10,000 men in the colonies and the annual Mutiny Act of 1765 authorized the sending of such troops as might be deemed necessary. This was followed by the Quartering Act As "the publick houses and barracks, in his Majesty's dominions in America, may not be sufficient to supply quarters for such forces: and whereas it is expedient and necessary that carriages and other conveniences, upon the march of troops ... should be supplied for that purpose," it was enacted that, if colonial barracks were insufficient, officers and troops were to be quartered in public hostelries. If more room were needed, vacant buildings were to be rented. Troops were to be supplied with fire, candles, vinegar, salt, bedding, cooking utensils, and small quantities of beer, cider, or rum. Persons giving houses for troops and furnishing supplies were to be reimbursed by the province. The colonies were to furnish conveyances at rates fixed by the act, but if the expense exceeded the rate, the province had to make up the deficit.
Colonial opposition.—To the colonies the Stamp Act, the Quartering Act, and the extension of admiralty jurisdiction were unconstitutional. Trials in the admiralty courts had always been looked upon with disfavor, as they violated the right of trial by jury. The new regulation allowing alleged violators of the trade laws to be taken to Halifax for trial was looked upon as a dangerous innovation. The Quartering Act was viewed as a violation of the constitutional principle that troops were not to be quartered upon the people. The provisions of the law were especially aggravating to New York which, because of the strategic position of the colony, would have to bear an undue part in the support and transportation of troops. But the Stamp Act aroused the greatest furor. All of the elements of discontent united against an act which encroached upon the right of the assemblies to control taxation. Indirect taxation was not looked upon as taxation. To the colonial economists the navigation acts were merely trade regulations and the right of parliament to regulate commerce was fully recognized. But a direct tax imposed by parliament to support an obnoxious soldiery set in motion the forces of discontent and produced a unity of opposition which surprised the ministers of George III.
The Virginia Resolutions.—Virginia took the lead in opposition. On May 29, 1765, the burgesses resolved themselves into a committee of the whole to consider the steps necessary to be taken in consequence of the Stamp Act. Patrick Henry, the "rustic and clownish youth of the terrible tongue," introduced a series of resolutions which boldly challenged the British government. The preamble stated that, as the House of Commons had raised the question of how far the general assembly had power to enact laws for laying taxes and imposing duties payable by the people of Virginia, the House of Burgesses, to settle and ascertain the same to all future time, resolved: (1) that the first adventurers and settlers of Virginia brought with them and transmitted to their posterity and to other English subjects who had come to five in the colony all the rights of the people of Great Britain; (2) that these were granted to them by two charters of James I; (3) that taxation of the people by themselves or by their representatives was a distinguishing characteristic of British freedom without which the ancient constitution could not exist; (4) that the people of Virginia had uninterruptedly enjoyed the right of being governed by their own assembly in matters of taxes and internal police, a right which had never been forfeited and had been constantly recognized by the kings and people of Great Britain. (5) Therefore it was resolved that the general assembly had the sole right and power to lay taxes and impositions upon the inhabitants of Virginia, and that every attempt to vest such power in any other person or persons had a tendency to destroy British as well as American freedom; (6) that the inhabitants of Virginia were not bound by any law or ordinance designed to impose any tax upon them other than those imposed by the general assembly; (7) and that any person who maintained that Virginians were bound to obey such laws not imposed by the assembly should be deemed an enemy of the colony.
The resolutions precipitated an acrimonious debate in which the democratic members of the western counties supported Henry against the aristocratic leaders. The committee of the whole appears to have adopted the resolutions, but on the following day the burgesses rejected the preamble and the last two resolutions, the other five being passed by a slender majority.Henry then left the assembly and the following morning the conservatives expunged from the record the fifth resolution. The manuscript of the entire series, except the third resolution which was omitted by error, was already on its way to the other colonies and was widely published. "Beyond question the Virginia resolves mark an important crisis in the impending revolution."
Resistance and violence.—In June the Massachusetts general court, at the suggestion of Otis, sent a circular letter to the other colonial assemblies asking them to send delegates to meet at New York in the following October to consider the danger from the Stamp Act. Before the delegates met fierce opposition appeared in nearly every colony. Remonstrances came from towns, counties, and assemblies. Newspapers and pamphlets inveighed against the act, and non-importation agreements were made in many localities. Associations called "Sons of Liberty" sprang up. At first they worked secretly, but they soon announced their committees of correspondence which worked to unify the opposition.
In Boston occurred riots of greater violence than in any other place. On August 14 the stamp distributor's effigy was hung on the "Liberty Tree," and after other demonstrations, that night a mob demolished a building which it was believed the collector was erecting for an office. On August 26 the houses of two of the customs officials were sacked and the house of Chief Justice Hutchinson was pillaged and destroyed. At Newport the stamp distributor and a sympathizer found it necessary to seek safety on a British man-of-war. Scenes of violence occurred in the other colonies and the stamp distributors resigned with more haste than dignity.
The Stamp Act Congress.—The Stamp Act Congress met at New York on October 7, 1765. Nine colonies were represented, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, and New Hampshire failing to send delegates. Prominent among those in attendance were John Dickinson of Pennsylvania, John Rutledge and Christopher Gadsden of South Carolina, and James Otis of Massachusetts.On October 19 a declaration of rights and grievances, originally drafted by Dickinson, was adopted. In the declaration the argument was presented that the colonies were entitled to the inherent rights and liberties of native-born Englishmen, one of which was that no taxes were to be imposed upon them except by their own consent or by their representatives. The colonists were not and from their local circumstances could not be represented in the House of Commons, their only representatives being those in the colonies who alone had the constitutional right to impose taxes upon them. All supplies to the crown being free gifts of the people, it was unreasonable and inconsistent with the principles and spirit of the British constitution for the people of Great Britain to grant to the king the property of the colonists. Trial by jury was an inherent right of every British subject in the colonies, but the Stamp Act and other laws, by extending the jurisdiction of the admiralty courts, had a tendency to subvert the rights and liberties of the colonists. The duties imposed by recent acts of parliament would be burdensome and grievous, and from the scarcity of specie the payment of them would be impracticable. The recent restrictions would make it impossible to purchase the manufactures of Great Britain. The right to petition the king or either house of parliament was also asserted. By an address to the king and by applications to both houses of parliament, they endeavored to procure the repeal of the Stamp Act, of clauses in recent acts which increased admiralty jurisdiction, and of recent acts placing restrictions on American commerce.
Repeal of the Stamp Act.—In July, 1765, Grenville fell from power, but not because of opposition to the Stamp Act. The Marquis of Rockingham, a man of moderate ability, was selected to form the new cabinet. The question of the repeal of the Stamp Act came up in parliament early in 1766. During the debate in the commons on February 13, Franklin, then agent for Pennsylvania and Massachusetts, was questioned regarding the colonial attitude, and he made it clear that the Stamp Act could not be enforced. The American cause was strengthened by the powerful support of Pitt and by the protests of English merchants and manufacturers who were losing trade through colonial boycotts. After a momentous debate, the act was repealed.
The Declaratory Act.—Although parliament had given ground it did not surrender, for in the Declaratory Act of March 18, 1766, it asserted its right to tax the colonies. The act declared that the colonies were subordinate unto and dependent upon the crown and parliament, and that the king by and with the consent of parliament had full power and authority to make laws to bind the colonies in all cases. All resolutions, votes, orders, and proceedings in the colonies denying the power and authority of parliament to make laws imposing taxes and regulations were declared null and void.
Other legislation.—The Quartering Act was then renewed, but with certain changes to make it more effective. The imposts on textiles which had previously been collected in America were henceforth to be collected at the point of exportation. The duty on molasses was changed from three pence a gallon on the foreign product to one penny a gallon on all molasses brought to the continental colonies.
Colonial rejoicing.—The Declaratory and other acts attracted little attention in America, where there was great rejoicing over the repeal of the Stamp Act. The constitutional principles for which the colonists had contended had in no wise been conceded, but to the colonist his point seemed won. He was soon to be rudely awakened.
Townshend.—In July, 1766, Rockingham fell from power and the Pitt-Grafton Ministry was formed. Unfortunately for the colonies, Pitt was in ill-health and took little part in shaping policies. The strong man of the cabinet was Charles Townshend. He was fully in sympathy with Grenville's ideas, and was responsible for a new series of irritating acts.
Suspension of the New York assembly.—Trouble had arisen in New York over the enforcement of the Quartering Act. In June, 1766, in reply to Governor Moore's request that provision be made for the expected troops, the assembly excused itself from compliance but intimated that about £4000 then in the treasury might be used. Later the assembly passed an act making provision for one year for a thousand men and one company of artillery. When a request was made for full compliancewith the Quartering Act, the assembly refused. On December 19 it was prorogued, and on June 15, 1767, was suspended by act of parliament.
Colonial customs commissioners.—Another act provided for a board of commissioners of customs to be established in America. The preamble stated that, as the colonial customs officials had found it inconvenient to apply to the commissioners in England for directions when difficulties arose, and as colonial shippers were greatly delayed in carrying on business, commissioners were to be stationed in America. Five commissioners were appointed with headquarters at Boston.
Revenue acts.—A new revenue act was passed "for making a more certain and adequate provision for defraying the charge of the administration of justice and the support of civil government, in such provinces where it shall be found necessary, and toward further defraying the expenses of defending, protecting, and securing" the dominions in America. Duties were imposed upon glass, red and white lead, painter's colors, tea, and paper. Drawbacks were allowed on coffee and cocoanuts, but chinaware was no longer subject to drawback. Writs of assistance were declared legal. By another act a drawback for five years was granted on tea reëxported from England to Ireland or the colonies.
Dickinson's "Farmer's Letters."—The Townshend Acts were received with alarm throughout the colonies. "Awed by the suddenness and magnitude of the peril, the colonial leaders acted with circumspection and rare self-control." The most powerful statement of the colonial viewpoint came from John Dickinson whose "Farmer's Letters" were read throughout the colonies, were published in London, translated into French, "and were read by everybody in the two capitals of civilization who read anything more serious than a playbill." Dickinson recognized the vagueness of the constitutional relations of the colonies to the mother country. He urged that a spirit of compromise should prevail and that no abstract theory of sovereignty should be pushed to its logical conclusions. He admitted that parliament possessed legal authority to regulate the trade of the empire, but the recent attempts to raise a revenue he considered a most dangerous innovation. "Great Britain claims and exercises theright to prohibit manufactures in America. Once admit that she may lay duties upon her exportations to us, for the purpose of levying money on us only, she then will have nothing to do but to lay those duties on the articles which she prohibits us to manufacture, and the tragedy of American liberty is finished."
"I would persuade the people of these Colonies ... to exert themselves in the most firm, but the most peaceable manner, for obtaining relief. If an inveterate resolution is formed to annihilate the liberties of the governed, English history affords examples of resistance by force."
"Let us consider ourselves as ... freemen, ...firmly bound togetherby thesame rights,interests, anddangers... What have these colonies toask, while they continue free; Or what have they todread, but insidious attempts to subvert their freedom?... They form one political body, of which eachcolonyis amember."
The Massachusetts protest—In Massachusetts the Townshend Acts were received by a public which was already irritated by the untactful course of Governor Bernard. Soon after the repeal of the Stamp Act he had negatived the election of Otis as speaker of the assembly, and when that body retaliated by refusing to reelect certain members of the council, the governor had refused to accept six members elected by the popular party. Difficulties had also arisen when the governor demanded compensation for those who had suffered by the Stamp Act riots and when he demanded compliance with the Quartering Act.
The first protest of Massachusetts against the Townshend Acts was on October 28, 1767, when the Boston town-meeting renewed the non-importation agreement The General Court convened on December 30 and shortly afterward the acts were read in the assembly and referred to a committee for consideration. The committee drafted a letter to the colonial agent which reviewed the arguments against taxation and protested against the Townshend Acts. A petition to the king and letters to members of the ministry were also prepared. A circular letter to the assemblies in the other colonies, drawn by Samuel Adams, was adopted on February 11, 1768.
The circular letter stated that it seemed necessary that therepresentatives of the several assemblies should act in harmony "upon so delicate a point" as the recent imposition of duties and taxes. The argument regarding taxation without representation was restated, and objection was made to the payment of the salaries of governors and judges by the crown, to the large powers of appointment given to the commissioners of the customs, and to the Quartering Act. Denial was made that independence was in the minds of the Massachusetts representatives and the letter closed with an expression of confidence in the king. Several of the colonies sent sympathetic replies and Virginia issued a circular letter to the other colonies calling upon them to unite with Massachusetts in her petition for redress.
Hillsborough's reply.—When the Massachusetts protests reached England, they came before a ministry which was prejudiced by letters from royal officials in America. Lord Hillsborough, who had recently been appointed to the newly created position of colonial secretary, laid the Massachusetts protests before the cabinet. On April 21 he sent letters to all the colonial governors, with the exception of Bernard, ordering them to ignore the Massachusetts circular letter. If the assemblies took notice of it, they were to prorogue or dissolve them. Bernard was commanded to require the Massachusetts assembly to rescind its action and to declare its disapprobation of its recent action. The Massachusetts assembly refused and the other assemblies commended its course.
The customs officials defied.—Acts of violence soon occurred. The warshipRomneywas anchored in Boston harbor and the captain angered the people by impressing seamen, one of whom was rescued. On the same day the sloopLiberty, owned by John Hancock, arrived with a cargo of Madeira wine. The customs collector was locked up by the crew while the cargo was landed and a false entry made. TheLibertywas seized and moored under the guns of theRomney. A riot then occurred; the houses of two of the customs officials were damaged and a boat belonging to the controller was burned. The officials fled to theRomneyand later took refuge in Castle William. The Boston town-meeting requested the removal of the war vessel, but the governor refused on the ground that such action would be beyond his jurisdiction. At Newport a revenue cutter wasburned and at Providence a coat of tar and feathers was administered to a customs official.
Action of the Boston town-meeting and the Massachusetts convention.—Before the occurrence of these riotous acts, the ministry had determined to send troops to Boston. When this became known, the town-meeting assembled in Faneuil Hall and resolved that the inhabitants defend their rights, and they were called upon to provide themselves with arms. When the governor refused to summon the assembly, the selectmen called a convention of delegates from the Massachusetts towns. Ninety-six towns responded. The governor refused to recognize the convention, but it remained in session for six days and did not adjourn until a statement of grievances had been formulated. On September 28, 1768, the day of adjournment, two regiments arrived at Boston.
Prisoners accused of treason to be tried in England.—The rebellious acts of Massachusetts were condemned by parliament which also advised the enforcement of the statute of Henry VIII which allowed the government to bring to England for trial persons accused of treason committed outside of the kingdom. This aroused a storm of protest. In Virginia the burgesses adopted resolutions which asserted that the right of taxation was vested in the House of Burgesses, that petitioning the sovereign was an undoubted privilege of the colony, and that it was lawful and expedient to procure the concurrence of other colonies "in dutiful addresses, praying the royal interposition in favour of the violated rights of America;" that trials for treason or for any felony or crime committed in the colony should be held in the courts of that colony, and that the sending of suspected persons beyond the sea for trial was derogatory of the right of trial by a jury of the vicinage and deprived the accused of summoning witnesses. The resolutions were sent to the other assemblies. When the governor dissolved the burgesses, the members met in a private house and drew up a non-importation agreement. Other assemblies approved the Virginia resolutions and non-importation agreements were signed throughout the colonies.
Departure of Bernard.—Massachusetts continued to be the center of unrest. The unpopularity of Governor Bernard increasedwhen it became known that he was collecting evidence against Samuel Adams. The public ire grew more intense when some of the governor's letters to the Ministry were published. The council drew up charges against him and the assembly petitioned for his recall. In July, 1770, he voluntarily departed, leaving Hutchinson in charge.
The Boston "Massacre."—The troops remained in Boston where they were heartily detested. Difficulties between soldiers and townspeople became more and more frequent and in March, 1770, there was a serious collision. On the fifth a sentinel at the custom house was pelted with snow balls, and when he called for aid the guard came to his assistance. A soldier was knocked down, shots were fired by the guard, and several citizens were killed or wounded. Preston, the commanding officer of the guard, surrendered to the civil authorities, and the privates were placed under arrest. The selectmen demanded the withdrawal of the troops to Castle William and Hutchinson hesitatingly complied. When the soldiers were brought to trial, they were defended by John Adams and Josiah Quincy, who obtained acquittal for all but two who were lightly sentenced.
Partial repeal of the Townshend Acts.—The Townshend Acts had proved a complete failure. Exports from England to America had dropped from £2,378,000 in 1768 to £1,634,000 in 1769. The customs were yielding little revenue while the colonial military establishment had become extremely expensive. In addition the colonies had been brought close to rebellion. Lord North, who became Prime Minister on January 31, 1770, hoped to end the commotions in America which had been so injurious to English merchants and manufacturers. He accordingly obtained a repeal of the duties on paints, glass, and paper, but at the suggestion of the king, the tea tax was retained in order to maintain the principle that parliament had the right to tax the colonies. The economic result of the repeal was immediately evident, for in 1770 the English exports to America reached nearly two million pounds sterling and during the next year more than doubled.
Arbitrary attitude of the governors.—The public, however, was kept in a state of agitation by the arbitrary acts of the governors who reflected the royal will. In Georgia the governor vetoed the assembly's choice for speaker, provoking a controversy which ended in the dissolution of the assembly. In South Carolina the governor was in frequent quarrels with the assembly, first over the salaries of the judges, then regarding the veto of an appropriation but, and finally over convening the assembly at Beaufort instead of at Charleston. Virginia was irritated by the royal instructions which forbade the governor to assent to any law which would prohibit or obstruct the importation of slaves. In Maryland the governor by proclamation revived a law regulating fees which had expired by limitation, an action which was looked upon as an assertion of the right to levy taxes.
In Massachusetts the General Court, which was to have met at Boston in January, 1770, was called to meet at Cambridge on March 15. The assembly objected to the change of time and place and demanded a copy of Hutchinson's instructions, but he refused to comply. The assembly would do no business while thus constrained to hold its sessions away from Boston, and declared that the people and their representatives had a right to withstand the abusive exercise of the crown's prerogative. Under protest the assembly finally proceeded to business, but another difficulty immediately arose when the colonial troops were removed from Castle William which was then garrisoned by the regulars. In July, 1771, Hutchinson, who had recently been appointed governor, vetoed a bull which provided for the salaries of the crown officials, an action which called forth a protest from the assembly which held that royal instructions were thus given the force of law. The following year the assembly was informed that henceforth the salaries of the governor and judges would be paid by the crown.
The Gaspee affair.—In Rhode Island an event occurred in 1772 which had far-reaching influence. The numerous inlets and islands of Narragansett Bay made smuggling easy, and revenue vessels, though constantly on the alert, experienced great difficulty in detecting the illicit traders. The revenue boatsSt. JohnsandLibertywere destroyed by men from Newport and the customs officials were annoyed by suits to recovervessels and cargoes which they had seized; Admiral Montagu accordingly ordered that seized vessels be sent to Boston. To Rhode Islanders Dudington, the commander of theGaspee, was especially obnoxious. According to Trevelyan, "He stopped and searched vessels without adequate pretext, seized goods illegally, and fired at the market boats as they entered Newport harbour. He treated the farmers on the islands much as the Saracens in the Middle Ages treated the coast population of Italy, cutting down their trees for fuel, and taking their sheep when his crew ran short of meat." The injured parties made their voices heard, and the case was laid before the Admiral, who approved the conduct of his subordinate officer, and announced that, "as sure as any people from Newport attempted to rescue a vessel, he would hang them as pirates." On June 9 theGaspeeran aground seven miles below Providence and during the night the vessel was boarded, Dudington was wounded, he and his crew were put on shore, and the vessel was burned. The act of violence aroused the British government and orders were sent to the governor of Rhode Island, the admiralty judge at Boston, and the chief justices of Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York to act as a commission of inquiry. The commission held sessions in January and May, 1773, but failed to obtain any evidence.
Local committees of correspondence.—The arbitrary acts of the crown officials, the extension of the royal prerogative, and theGaspeeaffair made possible the organization of the radical elements in the colonies. In Massachusetts opposition centered in Samuel Adams, "the man of the town meeting," who put forth pamphlet after pamphlet which struck at the encroachments upon colonial rights. "While he restated the old argument against the right of parliament to tax, he closely examined the foundations of the claim of the ministers to govern by royal instructions. He had grasped the idea that the king, lords, and commons, as well as the colonies, were subject to the authority and bound by the limitations of constitutional law." In the assembly, in the town meeting, through the press, on the street, among the sailors, fishermen, and ropemakers, he advocated the necessity of union. During the contest over the salaries of the crown officials, Adams seized the opportunity to put his ideasinto tangible form. On November 2, 1772, in the Boston town meeting he moved that a committee of twenty-one be appointed to state the rights of the colonists, particularly of Massachusetts, and to communicate and publish the same to the Massachusetts towns and to the world as the sense of Boston "with the infringements and violations thereof that have been or ... may be, made; also requesting of each town a free communication of their sentiments on this subject." By January, 1773, more than eighty towns in Massachusetts had committees.
"The Boston committee of correspondence has been likened to a political party manager. It provided for regular meetings, consulted with similar bodies in the vicinity, stimulated the spread of committees in surrounding towns, kept up a correspondence with them, prepared political matter for the press, circulated it in newspapers and broadsides, matured political measures, created and guided public sentiment—in short, heated the popular temper to the boiling point of revolution and then drew from it the authority to act."
Standing committees of correspondence.—Aroused by theGaspeeinquiry, the Virginia burgesses on March 12, 1773, adopted resolutions which provided for a standing committee of correspondence and inquiry whose business was "to obtain the most early and authentic intelligence of all such acts and resolutions of the British Parliament, or proceedings of Administration, as may relate to or affect the British colonies in America, and to keep up and maintain a correspondence and communication with our sister colonies, respecting these important considerations; and the result of such their proceedings, from time to time, to lay before this House." The committee was also instructed to obtain information regarding "the principles and authority on which was constituted a court of inquiry, said to have been lately held in Rhode Island, with powers to transmit persons accused of offences committed in America to places beyond the seas to be tried." The speaker was instructed to transmit to the speakers of the different assemblies of the British colonies on the continent copies of the resolutions, that they might lay them before their assemblies and request them to appoint a person or persons to communicate from time to time with the committee of the burgesses.
The Virginia suggestion was first acted upon by the Rhode Island assembly, which on May 15 informed Virginia of the appointment of a committee of correspondence. Before the close of the month the assemblies of Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts had appointed similar committees. The South Carolina assembly acted in July, Georgia in September, Maryland and Delaware in October, and North Carolina in December. The New York assembly appointed its committee on January 20, 1774, and New Jersey on February 8. The Pennsylvania assembly dissolved without taking action.
The committees did not prove to be active agents, because (1) "there was little or nothing for them to do;" (2) they "were chosen from members of the assembly, all of whom were desirous of going home when the assembly adjourned"; (3) "the assembly committees were extremely cautious about acting on their own authority." "However, the choice of such committees was not entirely without result. The popular assembly in each colony received preliminary testing. Constitutional questions were raised and discussed, and arguments disseminated.... More important still had been the demonstration that a body could be created which might continue to act in successful opposition to the crown when the royal governors dissolved or prorogued the assemblies."
Attempted relief of the East India Company.—During this period George III and his ministers took the fatal step of attempting to force tea upon the colonies. The colonists had refrained from using tea which paid a duty and had supplied themselves with smuggled tea from France, Sweden, and Holland. At this time the East India Company was on the verge of bankruptcy, a condition due in part to the loss of American customers. In the company's warehouses a vast amount of tea had accumulated. As a measure of relief the directors of the company advised the repeal of the tea duty, but "a course which went direct to the point was not of a nature to find favor with George the Third and his Ministers." Instead they allowed the company a drawback of the entire tea duty in England, but the tea was to be subject to the three penny tax payable in the colonies.
The tea arrives.—George III was soon to learn that he could not force tea down colonial throats. Late in 1773 several tea-laden ships arrived at American ports. In Charleston the agents of the company resigned, and when the duty was not paid, the collector seized the tea and stored it in a damp cellar. In Philadelphia a public meeting resolved that the duty on tea was illegal and persons who assisted in its being landed were declared public enemies. Under pressure of public opinion the consignees resigned and the captain of the tea vessel wisely decided not to unload his cargo. "When New York learned that the tea-ships allotted to it had been driven by a gale off the coast, men scanned the horizon, like the garrison of Londonderry watching for the English fleet in Lough Foyle, in their fear lest fate should rob them of their opportunity of proving themselves not inferior in mettle to the Bostonians."
The Boston Tea Party.—The Massachusetts people had recently been greatly irritated by certain private letters of Hutchinson, Oliver, and Paxton. The letters had been obtained in England by Franklin and had been sent under the seal of secrecy to some of the Massachusetts leaders who, however, published them. Before the excitement subsided three tea-laden vessels arrived at Boston. Hutchinson refused to allow the ships to leave until regularly cleared and this could not be done until the entire cargo had been unloaded. A mass meeting held in the Old South Church resolved that the tea should not be landed, and when the governor ordered the dispersal of the meeting, the bearer of the proclamation met with insult. Neighboring towns agreed to assist Boston, with force if necessary, and a guard watched the vessels to see that none of the tea was landed. On December 17 the cargo would be seized by the collector for non-payment of duty. On the evening of December 16, fifty or sixty men disguised as Indians boarded the tea ships, rifled the chests, and threw the contents into the bay.
The course of Massachusetts.—The British government was being sorely tried by Massachusetts. On January 29, 1774, a petition of the general court for the removal of Hutchinson and Oliver came before the Privy Council Committee for Foreign Plantations. The petition was pronounced a seditious document. Franklin was summoned before the committee, was charged withintercepting letters, and was dismissed from the deputy postmaster-generalship. Soon after the Boston Tea Party, the assembly voted to impeach Justice Oliver for accepting a salary from the crown. In retaliation Hutchinson dissolved the assembly and soon left the colony.
The intolerable acts.—The revolutionary acts which were taking place in America, especially those in Massachusetts, caused deep concern in England. Pitt and Burke favored conciliation as the only means of preserving the empire, but the king insisted upon repression. The ministry speedily adopted a legislative program to punish Massachusetts, and parliament legalized the ministerial policy by passing the so-called intolerable acts.
Boston Port Act.—The first of these acts closed the port of Boston from June 1, 1774, until such time as "it shall be made to appear to his Majesty, in his privy council, that peace and obedience to the laws shall be so far restored in the said town of Boston, that the trade ofGreat Britainmay safely be carried on there, and his Majesty's customs duly collected." The king was not to open the port until the inhabitants of Boston had given full satisfaction to the East India Company and to the revenue officers and others who had suffered by the recent outbreaks.
Massachusetts Government Act.—By the "regulating act" the people of Massachusetts were deprived of most of their chartered rights. After July 1, 1774, the council was to be appointed by the king instead of by the assembly. The governor was to appoint and remove, without the consent of the council, all judges of the inferior courts, the attorney general, provosts, marshals, and other officers belonging to the council or courts of justice. Sheriffs were also appointed by the governor but could not be removed without the consent of the council. The chief justice and judges of the superior court were to be appointed by the governor, but were to hold their commissions during the king's pleasure, and they could not be removed unless by order of the crown. Grand and petit juries were to be summoned by the sheriffs instead of being chosen in town meetings. Exceptfor elections, town meetings were to be called only by consent of the governor and discussion was to be limited to subjects stated in the leave. The people were still allowed to elect the assembly.
Administration of Justice Act—The third act provided, "That if any inquisition or indictment shall be found, or if any appeal shall be sued or preferred against any person, for murther, or other capital offence, in the province of theMassachusetts Bay, and it shall appear, by information given upon oath to the governor.., that the fact was committed by the person against whom such inquisition or indictment shall be found, or against whom such appeal shall be sued or preferred..., either in the execution of his duty as a magistrate, for the suppression of riots, or in the support of the laws of revenue, or in acting in his duty as an officer of revenue, or in acting under the direction and order of any magistrate, for the suppression of riots, or for the carrying into effect the laws of revenue, or in aiding and assisting in any of the cases aforesaid; and if it shall also appear, to the satisfaction of the said governor ... that an indifferent trial cannot be had within the said province, in that case, it shall and may be lawful for the governor ... to direct, with the advice and consent of the council, that the inquisition, indictment, or appeal, shall be tried in some other of his Majesty's colonies, or inGreat Britain." The act also made it possible to transport witnesses to the scene of the trial.
Quartering Act, June 2, 1774.—The fourth law was entitled "An act for the better providing suitable quarters for officers and soldiers in his Majesty's service in North America." It provided that, if any officers or soldiers should be without quarters for twenty-four hours after a proper demand had been made, the governor might order that uninhabited houses, outhouses, barns, or other buildings be made fit for quarters. The law was to remain in force until March 24, 1776. Though the act was general in its terms, in reality it was intended "to facilitate the establishment of a temporary military government in Massachusetts." Of ominous import was the appointment of General Gage as governor of Massachusetts.
The Quebec Act.—The Quebec Act which extended the province of Quebec to the Ohio River also aroused the anger ofMassachusetts, New York, Connecticut, and Virginia, as it deprived those colonies of large tracts of western lands which they claimed under their ancient charters. It was not intended as a coercive act, but was so considered in the colonies.
Call for a congress.—On May 10 a copy of the Port Act was received in Boston. On the twelfth the committee of correspondence met with eight neighboring committees and recommended non-intercourse with Great Britain. The other colonies were asked to follow the same course. While this was taking place the four additional regiments which Gage had called for began to arrive and on June 1, 1774, the port was blocked by men-of-war. Boston began to receive money and supplies from other towns and colonies, and a new impetus was given to the formation of committees of correspondence. Committees in New York and Philadelphia recommended the appointment of delegates to a general congress. The Virginia burgesses resolved to set aside June 1 as a day of fasting and prayer. The governor dissolved the house, but the burgesses assembled on May 27 at the Raleigh Tavern and adopted a resolution calling for a congress. Copies of the resolution were sent to the other assemblies.
On June 17 the Massachusetts assembly resolved, "That a meeting of committees from several colonies ... is highly expedient and necessary, to consult upon the present state of the colonies, and the miseries to which they are and must be reduced by the operation of certain acts of Parliament respecting America, and to deliberate and determine upon wise and proper measures, to be by them recommended to all the colonies, for the recovery and establishment of their just rights and liberties, civil and religious, and the restoration of union and harmony between Great Britain and the colonies, most ardently desired by all good men: Therefore, resolved, that the Hon. James Bowdoin, Esq., the Hon. Thomas Cushing, Esq., Mr. Samuel Adams and Robert Treat Paine, Esqrs., be appointed a committee ... to meet with such committees or delegates from the other colonies as have been or may be appointed, either by their respective houses of burgesses or representatives, or by convention, or by the committees of correspondence appointed by the respectivehouses of assembly, in the city of Philadelphia, or any other place that shall be judged most suitable by the committee, on the 1st day of September next; and that the speaker of the house be directed, in a letter to the speakers of the house of burgesses or representatives in the several colonies, to inform them of the substance of these resolves."
Meeting of the First Continental Congress.—Every colony but Georgia responded to the call. In September over fifty delegates assembled in Carpenters' Hall at Philadelphia. Among them were John and Samuel Adams of Massachusetts, John Dickinson of Pennsylvania, Richard Henry Lee, Patrick Henry and George Washington of Virginia, Roger Sherman of Connecticut, John Jay of New York, and Edward and John Rutledge of South Carolina. "The congress of 1774 was not thought of by the people as a congress in the modern legislative sense. It was rather a convention of ambassadors of subordinate, but distinct communities which had found it needful to take counsel of one another regarding a crisis in their common relations to the parent state, in order, if possible, to adopt some common plan of action. It was essentially an advisory or consultative body. In another aspect it may be regarded as the completion of the revolutionary party organization of which the basis was laid in the committees of correspondence."
The Suffolk Resolves approved.—The delegates were soon divided into well-defined groups; the radicals led by Samuel Adams wanted resistance, the conservatives headed by Joseph Galloway favored compromise. The radicals succeeded in getting Congress to approve the resolves recently drawn up in the Suffolk County convention in Massachusetts. The resolves declared that no obedience to the recent acts of parliament was due from Massachusetts, advised that no money be turned into the treasury by the tax-collectors until the restoration of the constitution, denounced as enemies the king's councillors who had not resigned, and threatened armed resistance. Congress published these resolves with its resolutions commending the course of Boston.
A plan of union.—The conservatives favored a plan of union proposed by Galloway, which provided for a crown appointed president-general and a council of deputies chosen every threeyears by the legislatures. The acts of the council were to be subject to parliamentary veto and acts of parliament relating to the colonies might be vetoed by the council. The plan was defeated by a narrow margin.
The Declaration and Resolves.—On September 7 a committee of two from each colony had been appointed to draw up a statement of the rights of the colonies, instances of their violation, and means of restoring them. Agreement on the committee's report was reached on October 14. The declaration of grievances thus adopted complained that parliament had imposed taxes upon them and under various pretences, but in fact for the purpose of raising revenue, had established a board of commissioners with unconstitutional powers, and had extended the jurisdiction of the admiralty courts, not only for collecting duties, but for trial of causes arising merely within the body of a county. Complaint was also made that judges had been made dependent on the crown for salaries, that standing armies had been kept in times of peace, and that the removal to distant places for trial of prisoners charged with treason and certain other crimes had been legalized. The intolerable acts were described as "impolitic, unjust, and cruel, as well as unconstitutional." Other complaints were the dissolution of assemblies when they attempted to deliberate on grievances, and treating with contempt petitions for redress.
Congress accordingly resolved that the inhabitants of the English colonies in North America were "entitled to life, liberty and property: and they had never ceded to any foreign power whatever, a right to dispose of either without their consent;" that they were entitled to the same rights as their ancestors; "that the foundation of English liberty, and of all free government, is a right in the people to participate in their legislative council: and as the English colonies are not represented ... in the British parliament, they are entitled to a free and exclusive power of legislation in their several provincial legislatures, where their right of representation can alone be preserved, in all cases of taxation and internal policy, subject only to the negative of their sovereign." For the mutual interests of both countries they consented to parliamentary regulation of external commerce. The right of trial by their peers of the vicinage, rights confirmedby royal charters and secured by provincial codes, and the right of assembly and petition were asserted. Keeping of a standing army in time of peace without the consent of the legislature of the colony where the army was kept was declared illegal. The exercise of legislative power by a crown appointed council was declared "unconstitutional, dangerous and destructive to the freedom of American legislation."
"All and each of which the ... deputies, in behalf of themselves, and their constituents, do claim, demand, and insist on, as their indubitable rights and liberties; which cannot be legally taken from them, altered or abridged by any power whatever, without their own consent, by their representatives in their several provincial legislatures."
The acts passed by parliament since 1763 to which they were opposed were then enumerated. "To these grievous acts and measures, Americans cannot submit, but in hopes their fellow subjects in Great-Britain will, on a region of them, restore us to that state, in which both countries found happiness and prosperity, we have for the present, only resolved to pursue the following peaceable measures: 1. To enter into a non-importation, non-consumption, and non-exportation agreement or association. 2. To prepare an address to the people of Great-Britain, and a memorial to the inhabitants of British America: and 3. To prepare a loyal address to his majesty, agreeable to resolutions already entered into."
Non-importation, non-consumption, and non-exportation.—By commercial restrictions the delegates hoped to force the British government to change its policy. On September 22 Congress voted to request colonial merchants and others not to place orders for British goods and to delay or suspend orders already sent until Congress could make known its policy. Five days later it resolved that from December 1 there should be no importation of goods from Great Britain or Ireland, or of British or Irish make, and that such goods be neither used nor purchased. On September 30 it was resolved that exportation to Great Britain. Ireland, and the British West Indies ought to cease after September 10, 1775, unless grievances were redressed, and a committee was appointed to formulate a plan for the enforcement of non-importation, non-consumption, and non-exportation.
The Association.—On October 20 the delegates adopted the "Association" which provided that after December 1 British or Irish goods, East India tea, molasses, syrups, paneles, coffee, and pimento from the British plantations or from Dominica, wines from Madeira or the Western Islands, and foreign indigo should not be imported into British America. It was agreed that slaves should not be imported or purchased after December 1, and slave traders were not to be allowed to rent vessels or purchase goods. Non-exportation was not to be put into force until September 10, 1775, but if redress had not been obtained by that time, American goods would be cut off from Great Britain, Ireland, or the West Indies. Rice, however, might be exported to Europe. Congress agreed to encourage frugality, economy, and industry, to promote agriculture, the arts, and manufactures, especially of wool, and to discourage extravagance and dissipation. Merchants and manufacturers were not to raise prices. A committee in each county, city, and town was to observe the conduct of persons, and if violations of the Association were discovered, the truth was to be published in the newspapers. If any colony did not accede to the Association, intercourse with that colony was to be cut off.
Attempts to obtain coöperation of other Colonies.—Congress also made an effort to obtain the cooperation of neighboring colonies by an address to the people of Quebec and by letters to the inhabitants of St. Johns, Nova Scotia, Georgia, and East and West Florida. A memorial to the people of British America, an address to the people of Great Britain, and a petition to the king were also prepared. May 10, 1775, was set as the date for the assembly of another congress, and on October 26 the First Continental Congress dissolved.
North's conciliatory resolution.—In January, 1775, parliament began consideration of the petition to the king and other papers relating to America. Chatham moved the withdrawal of the troops from Boston but the motion was defeated. On February 1 he presented a plan of conciliation based upon mutual concessions, but this was also rejected. On February 20 Lord North undertook the unexpected rôle of conciliator by a resolution which was considered in committee of the whole and passed by the commons a week later. The resolution provided "thatwhen the Governour, Council, and Assembly, or General Court, of any ... colonies inAmerica, shall propose to make provision ... for contributing their proportion to the common defence, (such proportion to be raised under the authority of the General Court, or General Assembly, of such Province or Colony, and disposable by Parliament,) and shall engage to make provision also for the support of the Civil Government, and the Administration of Justice, in such Province or Colony, it will be proper, if such proposal shall be approved by his Majesty and ... Parliament ... to forbear, in respect of such Province or Colony, to levy any Duty, Tax, or Assessment, or to impose any farther Duty, Tax, or Assessment, except only such Duties as it may be expedient to continue to levy or to impose for the regulation of commerce; the nett produce of the Duties last mentioned to be carried to the account of such Province or Colony respectively."
The Restraining Act.—The effect of North's resolution was nullified by the Restraining Act, which, in spite of Burke's powerful speech on conciliation, became law on March 13. This act confined the commerce of the New England colonies to Great Britain, Ireland, and the British West Indies, and prohibited the New Englanders from fishing in the northern fisheries, until "the trade and commerce of his Majesty's subjects may be carried on without interruption." In April the act was extended to New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina. The British government thus closed the door of conciliation and made the American Revolution inevitable.
Adams, J.,Works, II, 337-517; Adams, S.,Writing, II-III; Becker, C.L.,Beginnings of the American People, 202-253; Beer, G.L.,British Colonial Policy, 1754-1765, 72-315; Bigelow, J.,The Life of Benjamin Franklin, II, 7-337; Channing, E.,A History of the United States, III, 29-154; Dickinson, J.,Writings, in Historical Society of Pennsylvania,Memoirs, XIV, 307-406; Doyle, J.A., "The Quarrel with Great Britain, 1761-1776," inCambridge Modern History, VII, 148-208; Fisher, S.G.,The Struggle for American Independence, I, 1-300; Frothingham, Richard,The Rise of the Republic, 158-455; Henry, W.W.,Patrick Henry, I, 24-357; Howard, G.E.,Preliminaries of the Revolution; Hutchinson, P.O.,The Diary and Letters of his Excellency Thomas Hutchinson, I; Johnson, E.R.,History of Domestic andForeign Commerce of the United States, I, 84-121;Journals of the Continental Congress, I (Worthington C. Ford, ed.); Lecky, W.E.H.,History of England in the Eighteenth Century, III, 290-460; Lincoln, C.H.,The Revolutionary Movement in Pennsylvania, 1760-1776; MacDonald, William,Select Charters, 272-396; Trevelyan, G.O.,The American Revolution, Part I, 1-253; Tyler, M.C.,Literary History of the American Revolution, I;Patrick Henry, 32-134; Van Tyne, C.H.,The American Revolution, 3-24; Becker, C.L.,The Eve of the Revolution; Eckenrode, H.J.,The Revolution in Virginia; Schlesinger, A.M.,The Colonial Merchants and the American Revolution, 1763-1776.
Enforcement of the Association.—The Association adopted by the Continental Congress was approved throughout the colonies. In county and town meetings, in assemblies, provincial congresses, or special conventions, the patriot party expressed its approval. Though the New York assembly refused to sanction the proceedings of Congress, the committee of correspondence and many counties chose inspection committees. In Georgia the patriots had a difficult time, but when the provincial congress assembled at Savannah in March, 1775, forty-five of the deputies ratified the Association and local inspection committees were formed.
Military preparations.—Throughout the colonies military preparations were in progress. In October, 1774, Charles Lee wrote from Philadelphia to an English nobleman, "Virginia, Rhode Island and Carolina are forming corps. Massachusetts Bay has long had a sufficient number instructed to become instructive of the rest. Even this Quakering province is following the example." In December the provincial convention of Maryland recommended that all males between the ages of sixteen and fifty should form themselves into military companies. Delaware made provision for the arming and drilling of militia. Connecticut ordered the towns to double their military supplies, and Rhode Islanders seized forty-four cannon from the Newport batteries.
Whigs, neutrals, and Tories.—In spite of the military ardor thus displayed, public opinion was by no means a unit. In general the people were divided into three groups, patriots, neutrals, and Loyalists. Among the patriots, or Whigs as they were called, was a small group of ultra-radicals who favoredindependence. A great majority of the Whigs stood for strenuous opposition to British policy but not for independence. The neutrals in the main presented three shades of opinion: those with patriot sympathies but who were still wavering, those who were indifferent or were religiously opposed to violence, and those who had Loyalist leanings but had not made a definite decision. The third great group was composed of Loyalists or Tories. These were not all of like mind, one portion being openly in favor of the king but not ready to take up arms, the rest being openly belligerent. As the Revolution progressed shadings within groups gradually disappeared, wavering neutrals linked themselves with patriots or Loyalists, and sections became distinctly Whig or Tory.
Even before the adoption of the Association, ill feeling showed itself. As Howard says, "Tarring and featherings was becoming the order of the day.... Loyalists were bitterly stigmatized as Tories and traitors, and the cause of liberty was sullied by acts of intolerance and persecution." Channing says, "The story of tarring and featherings, riotings and burnings becomes monotonous, almost as much so as the reading of the papers that poured forth from counties, towns, conventions, meetings, congresses, and private individuals."
Revolution in Massachusetts.—The people of Massachusetts refused to submit to the Regulating Act. The "mandamus" councillors were threatened with violence and either declined the appointment or resigned, and the courts were unable to sit. On September 1, 1774, Gage sent soldiers to seize some powder stored near Boston and a rumor spread that the war ships had fired on Boston. The militia began to gather from neighboring counties, and Israel Putnam summoned the Connecticut militia to march to the assistance of Boston.
Gage refused to allow the meeting of the assembly called for October 5, but most of the representatives met at Salem where they declared themselves a provincial congress. A few days later the congress moved to Concord and then to Cambridge. It appointed a committee of safety which was empowered to call out the militia, and other committees attended to the collecting of stores and general defence. After the gathering of the second provincial congress on February 1, 1775, the committee ofsafety under the leadership of John Hancock and Joseph Warren was authorized to distribute arms.
Lexington.—On April 18 the watchful patriots discovered that British troops were preparing for an expedition, and William Dawes and Paul Revere were sent to spread the alarm. Soon after dawn of April 19 the British troops approached Lexington where they found sixty or seventy minutemen under arms. When they did not obey the order to lay down their arms and disperse, a shot was fired, followed by a volley which killed eight and wounded ten of the colonials. The regulars went on to Concord where another encounter occurred at the old North Bridge where the British had stationed a guard. After destroyingsome stores, the troops started back toward Boston. By this time the militia had gathered, and the incensed farmers and villagers from behind trees, rocks, and fences poured in a deadly fire which did not slacken until the soldiers were relieved at Lexington by troops under Lord Percy. When the march was resumed the battle began again, nor did it cease until the weary soldiers reached Charlestown.