The First American Republic 1774-1789: The First Fourteen American Presidents Before Washington

© 2012 Thomas Patrick Chorlton. All rights reserved.

No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means without the written permission of the author.

Published by AuthorHouse 10/8/12

ISBN: 978-1-4567-5389-4 (sc)

ISBN: 978-1-4567-5388-7 (dj)

ISBN: 978-1-4567-5387-0 (e)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2011904304

Front jacket photo of Independence Hall by Daniel Ucko.

All other photographs, unless otherwise indicated,

are from the Tom Chorlton Collection.

Map from AN ENCYCLOPEDIA OF WORLD HISTORY, 6/e

edited by Peter N. Stearns. Copyright (c) 2001 by Houghton Mifflin

Harcourt Publishing Company. Reprinted by permission of Houghton

Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

Cover design by Janelle Gonyea.

This book is set in Caslon, as in the Declaration of Independence.

Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any web addresses or links contained in this book may have changed since publication and may no longer be valid. The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

Contents

Preface The First American Republic

Introduction In The Beginning

Introduction In The Beginning

Chapter 1 President Peyton Randolph Of Virginia

Chapter 1 President Peyton Randolph Of Virginia

Chapter 2 President Henry Middleton Of South Carolina

Chapter 2 President Henry Middletonof South Carolina

Chapter 3 President John Hancock Of Massachusetts

Chapter 3 President John Hancock Of Massachusetts

Chapter 4 President Henry Laurens Of South Carolina

Chapter 4 President Henry Laurens Of South Carolina

Chapter 5 President John Jay Of New York

Chapter 5 President John Jay Of New York

Chapter 6 President Samuel Huntington Of Connecticut

Chapter 6 President Samuel Huntington Of Connecticut

Chapter 7 President Thomas Mckean Of Delaware & Pennsylvania

Chapter 7 President Thomas Mckean Of Delaware & Pennsylvania

Chapter 8 President John Hanson Of Maryland

Chapter 8 President John Hanson Of Maryland

Chapter 9 President Elias Boudinot Of New Jersey

Chapter 9 President Elias Boudinot Of New Jersey

Chapter 10 President Thomas Mifflin Of Pennsylvania

Chapter 10 President Thomas Mifflin Of Pennsylvania

Chapter 11 President Richard Henry Lee Of Virginia

Chapter 11 President Richard Henry Lee Of Virginia

Chapter 12 President Nathaniel Gorham Of Massachusetts

Chapter 12 President Nathaniel Gorham Of Massachusetts

Chapter 13 President Arthur St. Clair Of Pennsylvania

Chapter 13 President Arthur St. Clair Of Pennsylvania

Chapter 14 President Cyrus Griffin Of Virginia

Chapter 14 President Cyrus Griffin Of Virginia

Chapter 15 Secretary Charles Thomson Of Pennsylvania

Chapter 15 Secretary Charles Thomson Of Pennsylvania

Postscript The Second American Republic

Acknowledgment

The Author

"Why follow where the road may lead?

Go, instead, where there is no path

and leave a trail…"

– Ralph Waldo Emerson

This Book is dedicated to my

Mother & Father

with profound gratitude and love.

© Robert Weber

The New Yorker Collection

www.cartoonbank.com

Preface

THE FIRST

AMERICAN REPUBLIC

1774 - 1789

Every Frenchman knows that these are the days of the Fifth French Republic. It was founded by Charles de Gaulle in September 1958 when a new French Constitution was overwhelmingly approved by the voters. Its origins stretch back to the days of the French Revolution which gave birth to the First Republic (1792-95) and the three subsequent attempts at republican government which were intermixed with Bourbons and Bonapartes over the past two centuries.

During that same period the United States of America has been blessed to live under only one Constitution that went into effect in 1789. In March of that year our first national bicameral legislature was established—late, as always, due to the lack of a quorum—and the following month our first modern President was sworn into office at Federal Hall in New York City. But this was our second attempt at a republican form of government.

What few Americans realize is that we had a fully functioning national government prior to 1789. It was called the Continental Congress and it was, in every respect, the First American Republic (1774-1789).

It began on September 5, 1774, when elected delegates from eleven of the American colonies first assembled in Philadelphia in direct defiance of both the King and Parliament. Surprisingly, this First American Republic is most often dismissed in text books and popular history as a failed attempt at self-government. And yet, it was during that fifteen year period that we won the war against the strongest empire on Earth, established organized government as far west as the Mississippi River, built alliances with some of the great powers of Europe and transformed thirteen separate entities into a national confederation. The very lessons we learned during that period, and the men who served as congressional delegates, provided us with the wisdom to craft the Constitution we live under today.

When the Continental Congress initially met in 1774, its very first order of business was to elect one of its own members to serve as President. He functioned as Head of State, much as the Presidents of Germany and Italy do today. He signed all official documents, received all foreign visitors and represented the emerging nation at ceremonial events and through extensive correspondence. While Congress retained all other executive, legislative and judicial functions, the President even presided over its deliberations. Eventually, a house, carriage and servants were provided for the President as a sign of national pride and respect.

In all, fourteen distinguished individuals were chosen by their peers for this unique and awesome responsibility. They were the giants of their age, men of power, wealth and experience who often led their new nation through extremely difficult days largely on the strength of their character. For far too long they have been lost to history.

This is their story.

Thomas Patrick Chorlton

February 26, 2011

PO Box 1892

Folly Beach, SC 29439

www.firstamericanrepublic.com

We lost the American colonies because we lacked the statesmanship to know the time and the manner of yielding what it is impossible to keep.

- Queen Elizabeth II

July 6, 1976

Introduction

IN THE BEGINNING

What is Past is Prologue

Liberty and greed were the twin goals that drove the European colonization of North America.¹ For the great empires, it was the quest for ever more power and dominance on the World stage. For individuals, it was the dream of wealth beyond status or birth or, for many others, the struggle for personal or religious freedom in the face of hostility or even persecution at home.

In America, during the late 16th Century, the British made several unsuccessful attempts to establish colonies along the Atlantic coast while, back home in England, Shakespeare was composing his immortal verse. When the latest explorers finally did reach Virginia on April 26, 1607, they named their first permanent settlement Jamestown (founded on May 14)² in honor of their new king, James I, who had ascended the throne of England four years earlier.³ They came for commercial reasons on behalf of the Virginia Company.⁴ Their adventure, however, transformed the history of the World. For the next 167 years, British subjects rapidly expanded across the Atlantic seaboard of North America while remaining loyal subjects of their King.

One year after the founding of Jamestown, Samuel de Champlain raised the French flag at Quebec in July 1608.⁵ The titanic struggle over North America between Europe’s two greatest powers had begun.

During that same period, a joint stock company known as the Merchant Adventurers put up most of the capital to finance a voyage to establish a colony at the mouth of the Hudson River. Unlike Jamestown, however, success came through the determination of a group of English separatists who were motivated by the quest for religious liberty. When these Pilgrims arrived at Cape Cod in November 1620 (far north of their original destination) they drew up the Mayflower Compact, by which they formed themselves into a body politic and agreed to enact laws for the welfare of the colony. They selected John Carver as their first governor. (When Gov. Carver died six months later, William Bradford was elected to replace him. Gov. Bradford served until his death in May 1657.)⁶

On November 11, 1620, in what is today Provincetown Harbor, forty-one men (excluding the seamen who would eventually return to England, those too ill to participate and women and children) signed the Mayflower Compact on board ship before they set foot on land.⁷ As author Nathaniel Philbrick observes in his history of the Pilgrims, It is deeply ironic that the document many consider to mark the beginning of what would one day be called the United States came from a people who had more in common with a cult than a democratic society.⁸ Nevertheless, these brave souls, against all possible odds, did indeed plant the seeds of democracy in the New World.

The number of British colonies continued to grow despite dramatic political and social upheaval in England where Civil War broke out in 1642 and ultimately led to the beheading of King Charles I in 1649. Two years later, at the Battle of Worcester, Oliver Cromwell defeated those loyal to Charles II and the young king fled to France. At the same time, Parliament issued the first in a long series of Navigation Acts to make certain that Britain kept a tight grip on all issues pertaining to American trade. It was the Age of Mercantilism during which private enterprise had to meet the demands of government, not the consumer. By May 1660, the King had been restored to his throne.⁹ Three years later, the newest trade legislation, the Staple Act, included a list of enumerated articles along with the mandate that most goods imported by British colonies had to be shipped on British ships and pass through the British Isles.

Primary responsibility for North American affairs evolved during the century and a half of British domination. Initially, the Privy Council directly handled matters such as the granting of royal charters. In 1672, as commerce became increasingly important, the government appointed customs commissioners in each of the colonies to try to prevent colonial merchants from evading British duties by shipping tobacco and other targeted items to Europe through other colonial ports. The Navigation Act of 1696 once again attempted to tighten the system by transferring authority to the newly created Board of Commissioners for Trade and Plantations, commonly referred to as the Board of Trade. Eventually, the position of Secretary of State for the Southern Department was established to include the Atlantic seaboard. Finally, in 1768, with the appointment of the Earl of Hillsborough, control was consolidated into an even more powerful position under a new Secretary of State for the American Department.¹⁰

In the eyes of the British Government, the American colonies existed solely for the benefit of the Mother Country. Trade was the lifeblood of that relationship. An amusing example was demonstrated in The Hat Act of 1732 which prohibited the export of hats from one colony to another and imposed other restrictions on the growing colonial hat industry for the benefit of English manufacturers.¹¹ The following year, The Molasses Act was established to protect the British West Indies’ sugar and molasses trade from foreign competition, but, in the process, it also threatened the destruction of New England’s highly profitable rum industry. Widespread smuggling resulted. Britain responded in 1755 by authorizing the use of Writs of Assistance which were, in effect, search warrants.

The Writs gave customs officials the authority to request assistance from colonial officers in order to search private homes and warehouses. This process led directly to the first unambiguous assertion of American Rights on February 24, 1761. On that date, James Otis, Jr. (one of the most prominent lawyers in Boston and the godfather of American Independence) argued in court that such writs were against the fundamental principles of law… and that a man who is quiet, is as secure in his house, as a prince in his castle…¹² Otis asserted that even Parliament could not enact legislation contrary to Natural Law. In doing so, he laid the foundation for Jefferson’s basic argument in the Declaration of Independence fifteen years later. Fortunately, attorney John Adams was there to witness Otis’ oration and to preserve parts of it for posterity. Adams described the experience sixty years later when he wrote that Otis was a flame of fire!…He burned everything before him. American independence was then and there born…¹³

On the world stage, developments in America were often secondary to the clash of empires on the European continent. Those distant battles, however, eventually spilled over to America and, on one occasion, actually began with developments in the New World. For Great Britain, the year 1689 was pivotal. Internally, Parliament forced the last Catholic monarch, James II, from the throne and asserted, on its own authority, the Declaration of Rights which usurped many of the king’s prerogatives. It then selected James’ daughter Mary to reign with William (her husband and first cousin) as joint monarchs.¹⁴ Externally, this radical transformation led Britain to join the alliance against Louis XIV of France in the War of the League of Augsburg, known in America as King William’s War. Fighting continued between French Canada and the British colonies until 1697. Three years later, when Charles II of Spain died, his death led to renewed hostilities throughout Europe, known as the War of the Spanish Succession. The American phase of that war, which began in 1702, was called Queen Anne’s War (Benjamin Franklin, the oldest of America’s future patriot leaders, was born in the midst of that conflict in January 1706). When the Treaty of Utrecht was finally signed in 1713, France ceded to Britain Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and the Hudson Bay territory, but France retained control over Quebec.¹⁵

In 1732, the initial phase of British colonization in The New World came to a close when Georgia, the last of the original American colonies, was chartered by King George II.¹⁶ Two future American Presidents, Richard Henry Lee and George Washington, were born that same year. At the end of the decade, however, Europe was thrown into even greater turmoil with the death of the last of the Hapsburg Emperors, Charles VI. As a result, the War of the Austrian Succession raged on in Europe from 1740-48, and included more plot twists than a Dickens novel. Three years after Charles’ death the fighting once again spread to America and brought British and French forces and their respective Indian allies into combat on various frontiers. It was known in America as King George’s War (1743-48). Combat ended with the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle in October 1748, helping to elevate Prussia to major power status.¹⁷ (That same year, Peyton Randolph, who would become the first President of the Continental Congress, was appointed as the King’s Attorney for the Colony of Virginia.)

In America, however, diplomatic agreements did little to defuse the simmering situation along the borders between New France and the British colonies. Nova Scotia, the Cherokee country, the Ohio River Valley and other locations continued to be pressure points as the incursion of French trappers and hunters from Quebec increasingly collided with the westward expansion of British American colonization. In the spring of 1754, the first skirmish—in what proved to be the final showdown between British and French interests in America—broke out along the Ohio River Valley.

The Ohio Company was a group of land speculators, many of them of the best Virginia families, organized to exploit and colonize the Ohio Valley.¹⁸ Greed was the driving force. Since Virginia’s Lt. Governor Robert Dinwiddie was himself a shareholder in the company, he freely used his political authority to further the company’s commercial interests.¹⁹ In early 1754, Dinwiddie gave orders that a fort should be built at the Forks of the Ohio River (near present day Pittsburgh) in order to protect his company’s investment from hostile Indians, French traders and even conflicting claims from Pennsylvania. In April, he sent additional troops to reinforce his new fort. Dinwiddie appointed 22 year old George Washington, a lieutenant colonel in the Virginia Militia, to serve as second in command to Col. Joshua Fry.²⁰

What the Governor did not know was that approximately 500 Frenchmen were already in the process of ejecting the Virginians from the half-completed fort and renaming it Fort Duquesne. As Washington led a contingent of 60 men from the new regiment toward their destination, they met their comrades fleeing from the fort. Despite this sudden reversal, Washington decided to push forward. On May 27, 1754, he conducted a surprise attack on a small French contingent, killing the French commander, Jumonville, and nine other men.²¹

The French claimed that their fallen leader had been murdered under a flag of truce. The Virginians rejected this charge and built a new base, Fort Necessity, near the Cumberland Road just east of what is today Uniontown, Pennsylvania. As the rest of the Virginia forces gathered at this new location, Washington assumed command on the death of Col. Fry. The new fort, however, did not last long. On July 3, 1754, Fort Necessity was attacked by a combined force of nearly 900 French and Indians. Washington and his troops were forced to surrender the next day, July 4, 1754 (exactly twenty-two years prior to the adoption of the Declaration of Independence).²²

At precisely that same time (June 19-July 10, 1754), representatives from seven of the American colonies (Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island) were meeting in Albany, NY at the request of the British authorities. The Albany Convention represented the first formal attempt to develop coordinated action among the American colonies. Its initial goal was to retain the allegiance of the Iroquois Indians during conflicts involving the French. The Convention’s most memorable development, however, was the adoption of the Albany Plan of Union which was crafted by a committee and revised by Benjamin Franklin.²³ The Plan called for the creation of a President-General appointed by the King and the election of a Grand Council by the colonies which would be subject to veto by either the King or the President-General. Even though the plan was rejected at the time by both the British Government as well as the individual colonies, twenty years later a version of this proposal would resurface as the Galloway Plan during a pivotal moment in the First Continental Congress.²⁴

One year after Washington’s surrender, while attempting to recapture Fort Duquesne (July 9, 1755), Gen. Edward Braddock, the commander-in-chief of all British troops in America, lost his life in the Battle of the Wilderness.²⁵ It was a tremendous defeat for the British and Americans (914 out of 1,373 soldiers were killed or wounded). It also provided a glimpse into the future since it included two American soldiers who would join forces during the American Revolution, Washington and Horatio Gates, as well as the man they would initially confront, Thomas Gage.

Unlike previous wars which had begun in Europe and then spread to America, the French & Indian War raged for two years along the American frontier before it ignited a full scale European conflict. Finally, in the spring of 1756, Great Britain officially declared war on France and the Seven Years War (1756-63), which eventually reached as far as India, began. During its bloody course, Britain and its ally Prussia, under Frederick the Great, battled against the alliance of France, Russia, Austria, Sweden and Saxony.

Initially, the British War Cabinet was headed by the Duke of Newcastle, a seasoned politician who served for years as the First Lord of the Treasury. He was known as a consummate master of parliamentary tactics.²⁶ His poor grasp of foreign affairs, however, led to a leadership coalition with William Pitt the Elder, one of the giants of modern British history. What Pitt clearly understood was that this war would be the defining moment for the British Empire in North America. As the government’s dominant figure, Pitt therefore pledged to commit all of Britain’s resources to its ultimate triumph. True to his word, Pitt spared no cost in his single-minded pursuit of victory.²⁷

While Prussia focused on the European battle front, one of Pitt’s primary goals was to finally drive the French out of Canada. In 1759, British Gen. James Wolfe led a lengthy attack against the fortress-city of Quebec, which was being guarded by the Marquis de Montcalm and the French Army. After weeks of failure and frustration, Wolfe repositioned his troops on the cliffs above and to the west of the city’s walls in an area known as the Plains of Abraham. On September 13, 1759, it was there that the British defeated the French, and both commanders, Wolfe and Montcalm, lost their lives.²⁸ Five days later, Quebec surrendered. That same year, Britain recaptured Fort Duquesne, rebuilt it and renamed it Fort Pitt, the cornerstone of today’s city of Pittsburgh. Twelve months after the fall of Quebec, Montreal became the last major French settlement to surrender on September 8, 1760.²⁹ New France had vanished from the map of North America.

In the wake of these events, the war itself was interrupted by even more pressing political developments at home. On October 25, 1760, King George II died. He was succeeded by his 22 year old grandson, George III, the first of Britain’s Hanoverian monarchs who actually spoke fluent English. Unlike his royal German predecessors, the new king also had a much better grasp of the nuances of parliamentary politics after years of careful tutoring by Lord Bute.³⁰ Even though the progressive Whig Party clearly dominated the Tories in the House of Commons,³¹ the young king wasted no time in nurturing an informal network of legislators who became known as The King’s Friends.³² Through the judicious distribution of royal favors, lands and titles, George III learned how to maximize his influence on critical issues of state.

The eager young King frequently clashed with his imperious first minister over both policies and personalities. Lord Bute, the King’s closest advisor, termed the war bloody & expensive and urged an honorable peace.³³ In response, Pitt simply ignored the country’s mounting debt (the war was costing Britain approximately £20,000,000 per year).³⁴ Pitt even advocated the expansion of the war to include Spain. This battle of wills was finally resolved when Pitt resigned in disgust on October 5, 1761.³⁵ His resignation marked the beginning of what became known as the revolving door ministry during which the leadership of the government frequently changed hands during the remainder of the decade.

The accession of Czar Peter III to the Russian throne the following year was a stroke of good luck for Britain and its ally. In March 1762, the new Czar switched sides to support Prussia, thereby placing even more pressure on France. Within weeks, an armistice was signed among the great powers and work began on a final peace agreement. That December, the House of Commons gave its support to the preliminary peace treaty by a vote of 319-65.³⁶

Finally, on February 10, 1763, the Treaty of Paris was signed and the Seven Years War came to an end. Pitt’s dream had been fulfilled. The British Lion now reigned supreme. But, as Dartmouth Professor Colin Calloway states, the challenges of governing a continent from an island strained British politics and imposed new challenges throughout the Empire.³⁷ The British national debt had exploded to £130,000,000.³⁸ (According to the conversion process developed by journalist and historian David A. Price, based on a research paper developed by the Economic Policy and Statistics Section of the House of Commons Library, the 1763 British debt in 21st Century Dollars would have equaled approximately $25,000,000,000.)³⁹

The rest of the decade would have to be devoted to servicing the debt just to keep the country solvent. To accomplish this thankless task, the King turned to George Grenville, Pitt’s brother-in-law, a man who was far more attentive to details than his famous relative but totally lacked Pitt’s vision and popularity.

As the new First Lord of the Treasury, Grenville was determined to raise revenue from every conceivable source, including America. In his opinion the American colonists had gained the most from the elimination of the French along their frontier and therefore the colonies should be willing to pay their fair share of the cost of the war. To the Americans, however, the defeat of the French seemed part of Britain’s global strategy. The colonists also believed that direct taxation of America by Parliament was prohibited by the British Constitution since the American colonies were not represented in that body. This debate continued to intensify until it broke out into full scale revolution a decade later. Britain had indeed won the war, but at what cost?

Dissent was heard in London, as well. John Wilkes, a Member of the House of Commons and publisher of a periodical known as The North Briton, spoke out against the impact of the war. In issue No. 45 (April 23, 1763), Wilkes went so far as to denounce the King’s assertion that the peace treaty was honorable.⁴⁰ For his courage, Wilkes was thrown into the Tower of London. His supporters would march to the prison each day, always in groups of 45, to commemorate Issue No. 45 of the North Briton which had initiated his notoriety. Sometimes the daily theme would be quite imaginative, such as 45 virgins for Wilkes. This peculiar tradition was even repeated on the streets of Charleston, South Carolina in October 1768.⁴¹

Over the next quarter century, the slogan Wilkes and Liberty! rang out as the anthem of the rights of all Englishmen to his loyal supporters both in Britain and America. Each time he was ejected from Parliament Wilkes became more popular.⁴² Ultimately, after years of struggle and occasional imprisonment, Wilkes became the Lord Mayor of London (with a population of approximately 800,000) and the King himself was forced to share the stage with Wilkes during some official ceremonies. To Americans, Wilkes was both a friend and a hero. In 1769, the South Carolina legislature even contributed £1,500 to his defense over the vehement opposition of the Royal Governor.⁴³

In addition to the debate over paying for the war, the other major impact of peace in America was the opportunity for the colonies and colonists to head west without the fear of facing French resistance. For over one and a half centuries, the acquisition of land had been a major driving force for British Americans. Now, to ambitious Americans of all classes, that dream appeared nearly inexhaustible. The King and his ministers, however, viewed the situation very differently. On October 7, 1763, George III issued the British North American Proclamation which pledged to respect Indian claims west of the Appalachian Mountains and established those mountains as the western boundary for the existing British colonies.⁴⁴ Land west of that line would be under London’s direct control. Despite this royal decree, Americans continued to covet what they would one day refer to as their manifest destiny.⁴⁵

And so, before the ink had dried on the Treaty of Paris, battle lines had been drawn between Great Britain and her American colonies. Did Parliament have the authority and the ability to force the Americans to help pay for the last war? Would the Americans respect the limits on westward expansion established by the Crown? Or, would Grenville and his successors manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?

The great 20th Century historian Barbara Tuchman answered those questions in a book she insightfully titled The March of Folly. Tuchman defines folly as the pursuit of policy contrary to self-interest. She attributes the American Revolution to failed British Government policy because, in her judgment: In the end Britain made rebels where there had been none.⁴⁶ The decade after official peace was declared became an unbroken series of disastrous blunders on the part of the British Government. At every step, the King and Parliament seriously miscalculated the impact of their policies on their American subjects.

This downward spiral began with the passage of Grenville’s American Revenue Act in the spring of 1764.⁴⁷ Even though it was known in the colonies as the Sugar Act and viewed by Parliament as an extension of the earlier Molasses Act (1733), it actually taxed a wide variety of items including non-British textiles, coffee, indigo, iron, hides, whale fins, raw silk and potash. It also doubled the duties on foreign goods that were reshipped from England to her colonies and prohibited the importation of French wines in America. But, since Americans had become notorious for undermining earlier trade acts through smuggling and other illegal activities, Grenville took additional steps to make certain that this time the legislation would produce the much needed revenue. He therefore revitalized the customs system, established a new Vice-Admiralty Court to guarantee convictions beyond the reach of American juries, and gained parliamentary approval for the Currency Act which was designed to prohibit the colonies from paying their debts to British merchants with depreciated colonial currency.⁴⁸

In practice, the Currency Act led to a critical shortage of British Pounds throughout America. As a result, the colonists were repeatedly reminded of how heavy handed British authority could be. Tight money also made it far more difficult for Americans to gain real financial independence at home. In the short run, this was a good fit with British colonial policy which wanted to keep America dependent upon the Mother Country. In the long term, however, it had exactly the opposite effect.

When the Massachusetts House of Representatives next met on October 18, 1764, James Otis was prepared to respond to Grenville’s legislation. Speaking on behalf of Americans throughout the colonies, Otis introduced a petition denouncing taxation without representation, a phrase that would become the battle cry of Americans as the struggle progressed. Otis argued that one of the fundamental principles of Britain’s unwritten Constitution was that no Englishman could be taxed without his consent. Therefore, since the American colonies had neither voice nor vote in Parliament, Otis reasoned that only the colonial legislatures could levy taxes on the colonists. Thomas Hutchinson, the American-born Lt. Governor of Massachusetts, tried to head off a direct confrontation by suggesting that milder language be used requesting a favor from the King rather than asserting a right. Otis held firm.

In Virginia, Richard Henry Lee, a future president, echoed those same sentiments when he wrote to a friend that ‘…the right to be governed by laws made by our representatives, and the illegality of taxation without consent,’ are such essential principles of the British constitution, that it is a matter of wonder how men, who have almost imbibed them in their mother’s milk…should be of opinion that the people of America were to be taxed without consulting their representatives!⁴⁹ In mid-December 1764, Lee’s denunciation of taxation without representation was approved by the Virginia House of Burgesses.⁵⁰ That same month, in The Grievances of the American Colonies Candidly Examined, Gov. Stephen Hopkins of Rhode Island asserted that Parliament’s power had its limits. True to his word, Gov. Hopkins refused to execute the act when it officially went into effect the following year.⁵¹

Even though the word revenue was part of the official title of Grenville’s 1764 legislation, many loyalists argued that both the Sugar Act and the Currency Act were simply the latest in Parliament’s long established prerogative in matters pertaining to trade and navigation. These external taxes, they maintained, did not violate any constitutional provisions because they were nothing more than the orderly management of the empire’s trade. Others insisted that Parliament’s supremacy had been clearly established in 1689 when King James II was deposed and that the American colonies, therefore, had no legal basis for challenging its actions under any circumstances.

Despite the intensity of this debate, Grenville continued to devote his energy to devising additional ways to force the Americans to pay what he considered to be their fair share of Britain’s war debt. Overall, taxes at the end of the French & Indian War averaged 26 shillings per person in Britain compared with only one shilling per head in America.⁵² Given those statistics, Parliament was hardly impressed by American claims that the colonies were overtaxed. Therefore, in early 1765, Grenville took the fateful step of introducing the American Stamp Act which sailed through the House of Commons with little debate. Britain itself had had a stamp tax since the end of the previous century.⁵³ Grenville viewed the legislation as simply the extension of a proven revenue measure to America. George III was too ill at the time to sign the legislation, but it received the Royal Assent by commission on March 22, 1765. It was scheduled to go into effect in America on November 1 of that year.

Under its provisions, most legal documents as well as a wide variety of other items would have to bear the stamp for the transaction to be legal. (A stamp tax remains to this day on each pack of cigarettes sold in the United States as well as playing cards and hard liquor.) By distributing a little financial pain over a wide range of activities, Grenville anticipated less resistance from the Americans. Even Benjamin Franklin in London, who unsuccessfully argued against the proposal while serving as a colonial lobbyist, initially misjudged his countrymen’s response.⁵⁴ Once again, however, British miscalculation produced exactly the opposite of Grenville’s objective. By spreading the burden to everyone, the Stamp Act gave Americans across the continent common cause. To make matters even worse, Grenville unwittingly guaranteed well-publicized opposition to the Act by foolishly mandating that even newspapers must pay the tax.

Grenville’s plan to employ colonists as Stamp Collectors rather than British officials also backfired. Instead of making the new tax easier to enforce because it was being managed by prominent Americans, it guaranteed that Stamp agents would risk everything if they failed to heed the intense opposition of their fellow citizens.

To the Americans, for the first time in their history, Britain was attempting to impose an internal tax on the colonies; a tax specifically designed to raise revenue without the pretense of regulating overseas trade. The cry of taxation without representation took on even greater significance as American opposition to the new tax began to build almost immediately. In several colonies, prominent citizens seized the moment by transforming mob anger into political groups known as the Sons of Liberty.

Sam Adams in Massachusetts and Christopher Gadsden in South Carolina were among the most creative in harnessing this power.⁵⁵ One by one, most of the designated Stamp Collectors were threatened and intimidated into resigning their positions even before the Act went into effect. Violence was common. Some supporters of the legislation were literally tarred and feathered.

On May 29, 1765, Patrick Henry, a new member of the Virginia House of Burgesses (who turned 29 that same day) introduced seven provocative resolutions denouncing the Stamp Act. During the debate, Henry stunned his colleagues by stating that Tarquin and Caesar had each his Brutus, Charles the First his Cromwell, and George the Third may profit by their example! When some members of the legislature shouted Treason! Treason! Henry responded with the immortal phrase: If this be treason, make the most of it!⁵⁶ Two days later, after Henry left Williamsburg, the House rescinded its support for his most assertive resolutions. All seven, however, appeared in newspapers across America thereby creating the false impression that Virginia, the oldest and largest of the colonies, had clearly taken the lead in opposition to the Stamp Act.

One week later, in Massachusetts, James Otis introduced the proposal which led to the creation of the Stamp Act Congress which was held in New York City that October. Even before that Congress convened, however, Grenville’s ministry collapsed in July 1765. He was replaced by the Marquis of Rockingham, a former protégé of Pitt, who had the unenviable task of trying to repair relations with America while continuing to assert Parliament’s supremacy. Since word of Grenville’s fate did not reach the American coast for several weeks, protests across the colonies continued to grow throughout the month of August. In Massachusetts, Gov. Bernard wrote that The power and authority of government is really at an end.⁵⁷ On the evening of August 26, 1765, Lt. Gov. Thomas Hutchinson of Massachusetts watched helplessly as his new mansion in Boston was destroyed by a mob.⁵⁸

In the midst of these developments, the Stamp Act Congress opened in New York City on October 7, 1765. For the first time in American history, the colonies came together of their own volition, over the objections of the Crown, to debate issues of profound continental concern. Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and South Carolina sent a total of 28 delegates. The gathering, which served as an obvious benchmark for the convening of the Continental Congress nine years later, concluded its work in just two weeks. It issued an Address to the King, a Memorial to the House of Lords, a Petition to the House of Commons and a Declaration of Rights and Grievances. The latter document (written in part by Thomas McKean, a future President of the Continental Congress)⁵⁹ denied Parliament’s authority to levy a tax on the colonies and condemned the provision in the Stamp Act permitting Admiralty Courts to try American citizens for violating the Act.

With great political astuteness, the Declaration also pointed out that the restrictions imposed by several late Acts of Parliament on the trade of these colonies will render them unable to purchase the manufactures of Great Britain.⁶⁰ In the end, this proved to be the most persuasive argument of all since English businessmen carried far more influence in Parliament than thirteen colonies three thousand miles away. On January 17, 1766, London Merchants submitted their own Petition against the Stamp Act and pleaded with their friends and colleagues in the House of Commons to revoke the legislation.⁶¹

What made believers out of hardened British businessmen was the remarkable effectiveness of an American boycott of British goods and the unprecedented rejection of British authority. By the date the Stamp Act was scheduled to go into effect (November 1, 1765) only Georgia attempted to implement parts of the legislation. In the other twelve colonies, the Stamp Collectors had long since resigned or had pledged not to enforce the Act. The stamps themselves were kept under lock and key, often at undisclosed locations. The King well understood the importance of the issue. In December 1765, he wrote in his personal correspondence that the crisis was …undoubtedly the most serious matter that ever came before Parliament.⁶²

In London, January 1766 proved to be a critical month. The Rockingham ministry was determined to repeal the Stamp Act, but reports of the riots throughout America gave the government tremendous concern over the future of British authority itself. When Parliament reconvened on January 14, the drama began immediately when the ailing William Pitt returned to the House of Commons. He denounced the Stamp Act as unconstitutional: …my opinion…is, that the Stamp Act be repealed absolutely, totally, and immediately…because it was founded on an erroneous principle. At the same time, Pitt argued, let the sovereign authority of this country over the colonies, be asserted in as strong terms as can be devised, and be made to extend to every point of legislation whatsoever… Speaking for the opposition, Grenville angrily challenged Pitt to tell me when the Americans were emancipated? Pitt responded: I have been charged with giving birth to sedition in America..I rejoice that America has resisted…the gentleman asks, when were the colonies emancipated? But I desire to know, when were they made slaves?⁶³

On January 28, Benjamin Franklin, the best known American lobbyist (who, for nearly two decades, resided in London where he represented several of the American colonies), also urged repeal in his testimony before a committee of the House of Commons. His remarks proved prophetic. Many arguments have been lately used here [in Parliament] to shew [sic]…that if you have no right to tax them [Americans] internally, you have none to tax them externally, or make any other law to bind them. At present they do not reason so, but in time they may possibly be convinced by these arguments.⁶⁴

By mid-March, both houses of Parliament had reluctantly voted to put an end to the ordeal. Finally, on March 18, 1766, George III gave his royal assent. The Stamp Act was dead.⁶⁵ As part of the process, however, Parliament did follow Pitt’s advice by passing the Declaratory Act that same day. In the new legislation, Parliament did indeed assert its authority to legislate concerning all matters pertaining to America. At the time it was, at best, a fig leaf; an attempt to camouflage Parliament’s humiliation. In America, the Declaratory Act was almost completely ignored. Its potential impact was lost in the public jubilation over a rare colonial victory. On May 19, 1766, the Boston Gazette reported that repeal of the Stamp Act touched off the greatest and most universal joy that was ever felt on the continent of America.⁶⁶ In Williamsburg, Lt. Gov. Fauquier presented fireworks and a formal ball at the Governor’s Mansion to celebrate the repeal.

The mood was dramatically different in London. The Rockingham Ministry collapsed in June and was replaced a month later by Pitt’s second administration. In the hope of persuading his former foe to return to government, George III tempted Pitt with a peerage. Foolishly, William Pitt, popularly known as The Great Commoner, succumbed to the temptation and was henceforth known as the Earl of Chatham. As he took his seat in the House of Lords, his influence with both the people and the Commons noticeably diminished.⁶⁷ Shocked by his lack of public support for the first time in his long and distinguished career, and still racked by poor health, Chatham gradually withdrew from much of the work of his own Ministry despite the bread riots which rocked England that November. In the midst of this political void, Charles Townshend (popularly known in some circles as Champagne Charlie⁶⁸) became the new Chancellor of the Exchequer in early 1767.

In his determination to improve the government’s bottom line, Townshend boasted that he knew how to raise revenue from America. According to his proposal, since Americans successfully resisted paying one internal tax, then he would impose a wide range of external taxes on them. The long history of trade and navigation acts provided the perfect example for his plan and the new Declaratory Act clearly gave Parliament the authority to enforce such legislation. The Townshend Acts passed Parliament in late June 1767. They placed new duties on a wide range of items exported to America including glass, lead, tea and paper. The legislation then went one fateful step further by directing that the funds raised through this system should be used to pay the salaries of Royal officials in each American colony. If permitted to stand, this new provision would deny the colonial assemblies one of their few effective tools in dealing with royal officials; i.e., the threat of withholding an official’s salary when a disagreement broke out between the executive and legislature. The Acts finally went into effect on November 20, 1767, but by then Charles Townshend was already dead. A rising young member of the Commons, Frederick North, replaced Townshend and thereby also inherited the burden of implementing the new taxes.⁶⁹

Opposition arose at once. In the Pennsylvania Chronicle, John Dickinson began a series of Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania to the Inhabitants of the British Colonies in which he carefully and persuasively laid out the arguments against the Townshend Acts.⁷⁰ The Letters were reproduced widely throughout the colonies in 1768 and established Dickinson as a major public figure. Simultaneously, a boycott of British goods began to spread along the Atlantic coast. Still tasting victory from the repeal of the Stamp Act, Americans believed that they could force Parliament to back down again. American merchants, who dreaded the price they would be forced to pay again in diminished profits, led the opposition.

At the end of 1767, Chatham’s health forced him to resign from the government and he again retired to his country estate. The Duke of Grafton, considered a friend of the colonies, formed a new ministry.⁷¹ Early the next year, the new office of Secretary of State for the Colonies was created in an attempt to better manage American affairs. Lord Hillsborough was the first to hold the position.

On March 4, 1768, Massachusetts Gov. Bernard wrote to Hillsborough that I have perceived that the wickedness of some and the folly of others will in the end bring troops here…⁷² Within three months, Bernard’s fears were realized when the HMS Romney (a British man-of-war) arrived in Boston Harbor to help stop wide-spread smuggling. At the same time, Hillsborough ordered Gen. Gage in New York to send at least one regiment to Boston.⁷³ That same June, debate in the Massachusetts House of Representatives reached a fever pitch when James Otis referred to the British House of Commons as a parcel of button-makers…pensioners, pimps and whore-masters.⁷⁴ In July, Pennsylvania Speaker Joseph Galloway openly opposed the boycott but he was publicly denounced by Charles Thomson, one of the major leaders of the colony’s opposition who later became Secretary of the Continental Congress. Philadelphia ultimately joined Boston and New York in pledging non-importation of British goods.

By late summer 1768, Secretary Hillsborough ordered that two more British regiments should be sent to Boston. On September 5, the Boston Gazette ran an article threatening that if troops came we will put our lives in our hands.⁷⁵ Despite this saber rattling, reinforcements did arrive from Nova Scotia on October 1, 1768. A month later, Gen. Gage reported to Hillsborough that quiet was returning to Boston. But James Otis again offered a glimpse of the future when he wrote: …you [Great Britain] cannot in the end ruin the colonies…we have been a free people, and if you will not let us remain so any longer, we shall be a great people.⁷⁶

Despite the outrage expressed in many of the colonial legislatures, the Townshend Acts remained a less visible target than their predecessor two years earlier. As an external tax on trade, fewer Americans were aware of them because most of the impact was indirect. The presence of well armed British troops also helped to sober the opposition. Since Hillsborough was eager to defuse the situation, in May 1769 he informed the colonial governors that most of the Townshend duties would be ended and that no new taxes would be proposed. By July 1769, Gen. Gage reported that the Boston crisis had passed and he started removing troops.

In early 1770, the British Government turned over once again. The Duke of Grafton resigned; Lord Chatham (William Pitt) returned to the House of Lords; and, the able and ambitious Frederick North, still Chancellor of the Exchequer, became the head of His Majesty’s Government at the age of 38. Despite the courtesy title of Lord, by which he was popularly known, North was actually the first member of the House of Commons to head the government since Grenville. But, as one of the King’s Friends, he not only enjoyed the support of his Sovereign, he was also weighed down by a profound sense of loyalty to George III. One analyst has speculated that …the confidential tone of the king’s letters seems to show that there was an unusual intimacy between them, which may account for North’s compliance.⁷⁷ The fact that North was only six years older than the young King could well have contributed to this remarkable sense of camaraderie. In any case, Lord North’s elevation began a twelve year odyssey that, despite his best intentions, ended badly for him, the empire and the sovereign he loved.

Initially, North’s goal was to orchestrate a period of benign neglect for those he viewed as self-indulgent Americans. Due to his previous position, he knew better than most that all of the recent attempts to extract revenue from North America had resulted in far more pain than gain for the Mother Country. North was determined to change course and thereby reestablish the authority of the British Government. His first step was to repeal all but one of the hated Townshend Acts which he did on March 5, 1770.⁷⁸

In one of history’s many ironies, that date is still honored in America, not for events in London, but for the massacre that took place that same day, 3,000 miles away, in Boston. The basic facts of the event are clear. The British soldiers involved were part of the force sent by Hillsborough to enforce the Townshend Acts and maintain order in the Massachusetts capital. The citizens of Boston deeply resented the troops and often taunted them. On the night of March 5, that sparring spun out of control. A stick flew out of the darkness, striking the gun barrel of Private Hugh Montgomery. He stepped back, or slipped on the icy street, and fired his weapon. Knocked to the ground, he screamed to the other soldiers, ‘Fire! Fire!’ Fearing for their lives, the soldiers did open fire on the mob and five Americans were killed, including Crispus Attucks, the first African-American to die in the revolution.⁷⁹ Sam Adams immediately saw the enormous propaganda potential that the incident provided. He prepared his own account of what he termed The Boston Massacre and distributed it as widely as possible, including the next ship to England. As a result of his quick action, Sam Adams’ version of events was circulated throughout both England and America weeks before the Massachusetts Government’s official report was released.

The most bizarre twist to the story is that it was Sam Adams’ younger cousin, John, who was persuaded to assist in the defense of the British troops when they came to trial. The final verdict acquitted the commander and four of his men, convicted two others of manslaughter, and ordered the dismissal of the remaining two soldiers.⁸⁰ John Adams’ reputation as an American patriot combined with the news of the repeal of the Townshend Acts (which reached Boston prior to the trial) helped to defuse what could have become open warfare.

The seeds of a future confrontation, however, had been planted on that date, as well. Even though the Townshend Acts were gone, Lord North decided to retain the tax on tea in order to reaffirm the spirit of the Declaratory Act. At first, Boston, New York and Philadelphia pledged to continue the boycott until it, too, was repealed. But by July, American merchants felt confident enough to start importing British goods once again. In October, even Boston finally capitulated. At the end of that month, John Dickinson wrote from Pennsylvania to Arthur Lee in London that My countrymen have been provoked, but not quite enough…⁸¹

As the new year began, the resistance had faded and a period of near tranquility settled over the American colonies for most of the next two years. Lord North’s goal of reducing tension between Britain and America seemed remarkably successful. Even events surrounding the destruction of the British revenue ship Gaspée off the coast of Rhode Island in June 1772 failed to significantly reignite popular passion. It did, however, help to underscore the need for more effective communication both within and between the colonies. In November 1772, Massachusetts formed a Committee of Correspondence to facilitate regular communication among its towns and villages. The following March, the Virginia House urged the creation of a Committee of Correspondence among all 13 colonies.⁸² By mid-summer 1773, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and South Carolina had responded positively to Virginia’s call. By the end of the year, most of the remaining colonies had also joined. At the same time, Sam Adams and Thomas Cushing of Massachusetts began to suggest that what was really needed was a formal meeting of a colonial congress. By July 1773, even Benjamin Franklin and Arthur Lee, America’s two major lobbyists overseas, expressed support for the idea.⁸³

One of the most reliable accounts of the American Revolution, which provided a detailed record of the progress of the conflict between Britain and America, year by year as it developed,⁸⁴ was the English publication known as the Annual Register. During 1771-73, it was virtually silent on American affairs.⁸⁵ During that period, the British Empire’s focus had turned to India and the growing financial crisis of the East India Company, which served as the surrogate for British authority in that region of the world. Under the mercantile system, the financial health of the government and the company were tightly entwined. In the spring of 1773, to help the company unload its huge surplus of tea at a profit, Lord North permitted the company to sell its tea in America without paying the English tax while, at the same time, he intended to tightly enforce the tea duty on the American colonies.⁸⁶ Through such a process, the East India tea would still be cheaper than the Dutch tea which colonists like John Hancock regularly smuggled along the East Coast. Special agents were appointed to enforce the new program in America’s major ports.

Between October and early December 1773, popular sentiment and a revival of the Sons of Liberty forced most of the Tea Agents to resign and the tea to be impounded in Philadelphia, New York and Charleston. In Boston, however, the Tea Agents surprisingly refused to step down. As a result, Sam Adams and his fellow patriots were more determined than ever to prevent the unloading of their cargo. On the night of December 16, 1773, the Sons of Liberty, dressed as Mohawk Indians to provide a partial disguise, boarded three ships in Boston Harbor and dumped 342 chests of tea into the bay.⁸⁷ News of the Boston Tea Party quickly spread through America and across the Atlantic. Some, like George Washington, a member of the Virginia House of Burgesses, were shocked to read of the Boston Tea Party because he believed it would encourage the British to further excesses.⁸⁸ Sam Adams and his followers, however, were convinced that the tea duty had to be stopped at all cost and that their symbolic action had roused America from its slumber. Unlike Washington, they delighted in what they considered to be Britain’s extreme overreaction two months later because it finally forced Americans to take sides.

When word of the incident reached London, both the King and Parliament erupted in outrage. They agreed that it was time to firmly reassert British authority over America by making an example out of Massachusetts. In March, Parliament passed the Boston Port Act, the first of four legislative measures which were vilified as the Intolerable Acts in the colonies. The Boston Port Act, in effect, closed Boston’s Harbor, the colony’s economic lifeline. Gen. Thomas Gage was then appointed the new Governor of Massachusetts. He arrived on May 13, 1774. That night, the Boston Town Meeting demanded that all trade with Great Britain be suspended immediately throughout the colonies.⁸⁹ They next urged that a congress be called to discuss other appropriate actions. Massachusetts’ best known messenger, Paul Revere, then carried the proposal to New York City and on to Philadelphia. Conservatives and merchants in both places shuddered at the thought of yet another boycott. They therefore urged that a meeting of the colonies should precede any further action. In doing so, they hoped to diminish the impact of the New England radicals by electing delegates closer to their own views. On May 27, 1774, members of the Virginia House of Burgesses also endorsed the revised proposal and then issued an invitation to the other 12 colonies to elect delegates to a Continental Congress which would meet that fall in Philadelphia.⁹⁰

Throughout that summer, as one colony after another elected delegates to the upcoming congress, Parliament continued to stoke the fire of rebellion by approving three more Intolerable Acts. On May 20, 1774, it cut to the very heart of American Rights by adopting the Massachusetts Government Act which abrogated the colony’s Royal Charter of 1691. That same day, it approved the Administration of Justice Act which was designed to transfer some colonial trials to other locations or even to England itself in order to increase convictions. And, on June 2, it added insult to injury by expanding the Quartering Act under which Americans were responsible for providing barracks and supplies for the same British troops who were there to enforce the other harsh measures.⁹¹

A fifth piece of legislation, the Quebec Act, was also approved during this period. Even though it had been under discussion long before the Boston Tea Party, the Quebec Act was viewed in America as yet another slap in the face. It extended Canada’s boundary to the Ohio River, land long coveted by British Americans, and granted French Canadians the right to continue to practice their Catholic faith which the vast majority of British Americans considered a treasonous allegiance to a foreign power, the Pope. In the opinion of many historians, the Quebec Act was perhaps the primary reason that Canadians remained loyal to Britain throughout the American Revolution despite repeated efforts by the Continental Congress to either conquer or seduce its northern neighbors.⁹²

By the end of the summer, only Georgia had resisted attempts to elect delegates and participate in the congress. On August 20, 1774, the four Massachusetts delegates (Sam Adams, John Adams, Thomas Cushing and Robert Treat Paine) arrived in New York City to a hero’s welcome.⁹³ For six days they were celebrated everywhere they went. As the news from London grew worse, Massachusetts increasingly became a symbol of American resistance. Finally, on August 29, the four delegates entered Philadelphia to another warm welcome. Since they had wisely agreed among themselves to tone down their usual fiery rhetoric, they made a positive impression on their fellow delegates from across the continent. Without a moment’s delay, the Massachusetts men began an endless round of private dinner parties and late nights in public taverns in order to size up their distinguished colleagues.⁹⁴ Back home in Boston, Gov. Gage—still the military commander of British forces in North America—wrote to Lord Dartmouth on September 2, 1774, that …Civil Government is near its end…⁹⁵

George III and his ministers had hoped to intimidate the other American colonies by making a brutal example of Massachusetts. Instead, they forced even cautious legislators and conservative merchants to join together for their mutual defense. Once again, British miscalculation had led to folly. After 167 years, the period of American colonial submission had come to an end.

On September 5, 1774, a new era began.

Introduction

IN THE BEGINNING

Notes

Abbreviation Key

JCC

Ford, Worthington C., et. al. eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789; 34 volumes, Washington, D.C.: National Archives, 1904-37.

PHL

Hamer, Philip M., et al., eds., The Papers of Henry Laurens, 16 volumes, Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1968-2003.

LDC

Smith, Paul H., et al., eds., Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774-1789; 26 volumes, Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, 1976-2000.

1 Daniel M. Friedenberg, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Land, (Prometheus Books, Bufalo, NY, 1992), p. 13. In his preface, Friedenberg states that in a fundamental sense, the history of the United States is land munching in every direction…

2 David A. Price, Love and Hate in Jamestown, (Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 2003), pp. 27 & 36,

3 W. E. Lunt, History of England, 3rd ed. (Harper & Brothers, New York, 1947), pp. 387-388. When Elizabeth I died without an heir, Parliament selected James, the son of Henry VIII’s great-niece, Mary Queen of Scots. At that time, James was already King of Scotland—James VI—but he became James I when he accepted the English crown and thereby began the