For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
In The Declaration of Independence many faults of British rule are exposed. One of such complaints is the charge of cutting off international trade, essentially the lifeblood of the American colonies. Upon the settlement of the colonies Britain had a specific purpose for them to fulfill. Britain’s relationship with the colonies was structured as a mercantile, or old colonial system. They held the belief that the soul purpose of the colony was to provide wealth and power to the mother country, Britain. Operating in this way left Britain highly dependant upon trade with the colonies for raw materials, or commodities not found in Britain. The colonies bestowed a large cash crop of resources on Britain, but had be regulated to ensure their maximum output of wealth. A series of acts were passed to prevent the colonies from exporting goods that could be used and profited from in Britain. They had a lot to lose to their trading competitors, mainly the Dutch. Initially the purpose of the acts was defensive, to protect British interests, but later became a source of income themselves, with he implementation of new taxes and revenues. These measures were meant to relieve pressure on Britains debts.
The first of such acts to be passed was the Navigation Act of 1651. Before this time there was no significant impediment to colonial trade. This act put in place restrictions on what ships could pass into British harbours carrying imported goods. European ships were exempt as long as the vessel originated from the same place as the goods it held. As for the rest of the world, only British ships could carry their goods into British ports. These laws were not fully enforced, and were unsuccessful in achieving their goal. In 1660 the act was strengthened, and broadened to incorporate stricter provisions. It stipulated that the only vessels bringing goods into Britain were to be British or colonial ships. Not only that, but the act named certain “enumerated” items such as tobacco, sugar, cotton, or wool that could only be exported to Britain. Large duties were paid on these items upon arrival in Britain, and in 1672 these duties were also expected to be paid between colonies. This addition to the original Navigation Act would have been disastrous to many of the northern colonies, which dealt with such goods. Fortunately for the colonies, these acts were very difficult to enforce.
The Navigation Act was but one of a number of laws passed that impeded the ability of the colonies to profit from international trade. In 1663 the Staple Act was passed, putting yet another trade barrier in place. The act stated that any goods being exported from the colonies, or imported to the colonies, first had to be shipped through harbours in Britain. Upon arrival these goods would be unloaded, inspected, and taxed before being reloaded and sent to their destination. This act not only increased the cost of the goods being exported or imported, but also heavily added to the time needed to ship them. The next deterrent to international trade happened much later, in 1733 with the adoption of the Molasses Act. This act was meant to curtail the importation of French sugar and molasses, which came from the French West Indies. The colonists would trade their surplus stocks of goods such as fish, flour and lumber for the sugar or molasses. Upon the implementation of the Molasses Act, the colonists were forced to buy more expensive sugar from the Britain, or to buy black market smuggled sugar and molasses. This law was seen by many in the colonies as unfair and was met with mass smuggling of French sugar and molasses.
These laws contributed immensely to the dissatisfaction of the colonies and resentment of their British rulers. Many colonists depended upon fair foreign trade to make a living, and felt alienated form their supposed countrymen. Trade is essential for the survival of a new settlement, and for the North American colonies, it was one of the essential issues that sparked their ambitions of independence. Trade was the backbone of the colonies, and for cutting off their trade with the rest of the world, Britain came much closer to the revolution which eventually occurred.
http://www.usahistory.info/
W., Stewart Wallace, "Navigation Laws" in The Encyclopedia of Canada. Vol 4, 1948. p.386
Thursday, October 18, 2007
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
This was one of the most well known grievances of the American colonists during the revolution. It can be traced back to several pieces of legislation passed by the British Parliament in the run up to the revolution.
The British civil wars in the seventeenth century had affirmed the right of British subjects to assent to taxation, through their elected representatives in the House of Commons. In the years leading up to the American Revolution, the colonists argued that as British subjects they could not be taxed without their consent, and since they were not represented in the British House of Commons, their consent could not be obtained through the British Parliament. Rather, colonist’s consent would have to be obtained through elected colonial legislatures, which Parliament declined to do.1
The British Parliament passed several acts in the lead up to the revolution in order to raise revenues from the colonies and help defray some of the debt incurred from the Seven Years War. The first of these was the Stamp Act, passed March 22, 1765.2 It required that a stamp be applied to every piece of printed paper (including newspapers, ships documents, legal documents, and playing cards), and colonists were of course charged for the stamp. The colonists saw this as an illegitimate tax because its purpose was not to regulate trade, but rather to raise revenue. This meant that as British citizens, they had the right to assent to this tax through colonial legislatures. In addition, the years of salutary neglect meant that almost no taxes had ever been imposed on the American colonies by Parliament, and this was a sharp departure from that longstanding tradition.3
Opposition to the Stamp Act was widespread. Legislatures petitioned Parliament for repeal of the Stamp Act, non-importation agreements were instituted against British imports, and large mobs began ransacking the homes of government officials. By the time the Act was meant to come into effect in November of 1765, the appointed stamp agents were too intimidated by colonists to enforce the Act.4 Parliament repealed the Stamp Act in 1766, but Parliament simultaneously passed the Declaratory Act asserting that they had the right to tax colonists in all cases.
On June 29, 1767, Parliament passed the Townshend Act, which imposed duties on a list of articles including glass, lead, paint, paper, and tea. This act resurrected the hostility that the Stamp Act had incited, since it was also aimed at raising revenue and was thus seen as another attempt at illegal taxation. Popular protest reached its heights in Boston in 1768 when customs officials impounded one of John Hancock’s ships. The customs office was mobbed and the officials were forced to flee to a British warship in the harbor. The colonists responded with renewed non-importation agreements. The duties imposed by the Townshend Act were all eventually repealed on April 12, 1770, with the exception of the duty on tea.5
While their original argument revolved around their rights as British citizens, the Declaration of Independence was a renunciation of the colonists’ status as British citizens, making this argument impossible. They were therefore forced to argue that all men had the right not to be taxed without their consent, not merely British citizens. And while their grievance had originally been with Parliament, once the colonists renounced Parliament’s authority they were forced to address their grievances to the King, even though he had not been the originator of the legislation.
Brooke Saunders
http://www.ushistory.org/
Endnotes
1. Carl Becker, The Declaration of Independence: A Study in the History of Political Ideas (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1922), 22.
2. Edward Dumbauld, The Declaration of Independence and What it Means Today (Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1950), 131.
3. Becker, Declaration of Independence, 81.
4. The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, “A Summary of the 1765 Stamp Act,” [www.colonialwilliamsburg.com/History/teaching/tchcrsta.cfm]
5. Ibid.
This was one of the most well known grievances of the American colonists during the revolution. It can be traced back to several pieces of legislation passed by the British Parliament in the run up to the revolution.
The British civil wars in the seventeenth century had affirmed the right of British subjects to assent to taxation, through their elected representatives in the House of Commons. In the years leading up to the American Revolution, the colonists argued that as British subjects they could not be taxed without their consent, and since they were not represented in the British House of Commons, their consent could not be obtained through the British Parliament. Rather, colonist’s consent would have to be obtained through elected colonial legislatures, which Parliament declined to do.1
The British Parliament passed several acts in the lead up to the revolution in order to raise revenues from the colonies and help defray some of the debt incurred from the Seven Years War. The first of these was the Stamp Act, passed March 22, 1765.2 It required that a stamp be applied to every piece of printed paper (including newspapers, ships documents, legal documents, and playing cards), and colonists were of course charged for the stamp. The colonists saw this as an illegitimate tax because its purpose was not to regulate trade, but rather to raise revenue. This meant that as British citizens, they had the right to assent to this tax through colonial legislatures. In addition, the years of salutary neglect meant that almost no taxes had ever been imposed on the American colonies by Parliament, and this was a sharp departure from that longstanding tradition.3
Opposition to the Stamp Act was widespread. Legislatures petitioned Parliament for repeal of the Stamp Act, non-importation agreements were instituted against British imports, and large mobs began ransacking the homes of government officials. By the time the Act was meant to come into effect in November of 1765, the appointed stamp agents were too intimidated by colonists to enforce the Act.4 Parliament repealed the Stamp Act in 1766, but Parliament simultaneously passed the Declaratory Act asserting that they had the right to tax colonists in all cases.
On June 29, 1767, Parliament passed the Townshend Act, which imposed duties on a list of articles including glass, lead, paint, paper, and tea. This act resurrected the hostility that the Stamp Act had incited, since it was also aimed at raising revenue and was thus seen as another attempt at illegal taxation. Popular protest reached its heights in Boston in 1768 when customs officials impounded one of John Hancock’s ships. The customs office was mobbed and the officials were forced to flee to a British warship in the harbor. The colonists responded with renewed non-importation agreements. The duties imposed by the Townshend Act were all eventually repealed on April 12, 1770, with the exception of the duty on tea.5
While their original argument revolved around their rights as British citizens, the Declaration of Independence was a renunciation of the colonists’ status as British citizens, making this argument impossible. They were therefore forced to argue that all men had the right not to be taxed without their consent, not merely British citizens. And while their grievance had originally been with Parliament, once the colonists renounced Parliament’s authority they were forced to address their grievances to the King, even though he had not been the originator of the legislation.
Brooke Saunders
http://www.ushistory.org/
Endnotes
1. Carl Becker, The Declaration of Independence: A Study in the History of Political Ideas (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1922), 22.
2. Edward Dumbauld, The Declaration of Independence and What it Means Today (Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1950), 131.
3. Becker, Declaration of Independence, 81.
4. The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, “A Summary of the 1765 Stamp Act,” [www.colonialwilliamsburg.com/History/teaching/tchcrsta.cfm]
5. Ibid.
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
A short while after the French no longer became a factor in America, trouble started brewing within the colonies. A British gentleman by the name of George Grenville noticed that Britains debt has doubled due to the wars in America and so decided that the Americans should become even more heavily taxed than they previously were. This would not seem to be to big a problem were it not for the fact that the British never let the colonies have any say in the matter. Soon, the British began not only taxing but passing laws without any regard for what the colonist thought. This was viewed as an infringement upon the Americans’ basic rights to govern themselves, thus they decided to succeed from Britain for, as it says in the Declaration of Independence, “taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments.”
The Americans were already upset that they were being taxed without any representation back in Britain by the time the Declaratory Act was put into place by parliament. This act, meant to illustrate Britain’s power over the colonies, stated that Britain had the right to tax any of their interests in the colonies. This act later lead to the Townshend Acts which put a tariff on goods imported from Britain, which didn’t seem to make much sense to the colonist as it was trade within the same empire. Angry colonists with the most to loose from these increasing taxed began to join together in groups such as the Sons of Liberty. The British however began to notice how disgruntled the colonists were becoming so they attempted to tighten their grasp of the colonies by imposing what is known as the “Intolerable Acts.”
The first act that directly infringed upon the colonists rights was the Massachusetts Government Act which disallowed town meetings and changed the Massachusetts charter. The charters of each colony is what defined the people within each individual colony, acting as a document that illustrated their basic rights; so to alter in any way this document meant to take away the civil liberties of the people it represented. The British further insulted the Americans by passing the Administration of Justice Act which called for any British soldier to be tried and arraigned in Britain as opposed to the colonies, even were it to be for killing an innocent American. This allowed British thieves and murderers to bypass the American judicial system, taking away any power the colonies had over the British soldiers who were increasing in numbers frequently. The final act of the “Intolerable Acts” was the Quartering Act, which stated that British soldiers could be housed wherever the British deemed worthy. The British had now taken away the rights of the colonists to control what happened within their own household now, and there was seemingly nothing that could stop the British from further taking away the colonists’ freedoms. The strength and will of the American people however would prove that wrong as they began to fight the British for the ability to keep their laws and form the type of government that suited their lives, not the lives of people across an ocean. Although many Americans died, they were fighting for what will always be a just cause, freedom.
A short while after the French no longer became a factor in America, trouble started brewing within the colonies. A British gentleman by the name of George Grenville noticed that Britains debt has doubled due to the wars in America and so decided that the Americans should become even more heavily taxed than they previously were. This would not seem to be to big a problem were it not for the fact that the British never let the colonies have any say in the matter. Soon, the British began not only taxing but passing laws without any regard for what the colonist thought. This was viewed as an infringement upon the Americans’ basic rights to govern themselves, thus they decided to succeed from Britain for, as it says in the Declaration of Independence, “taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments.”
The Americans were already upset that they were being taxed without any representation back in Britain by the time the Declaratory Act was put into place by parliament. This act, meant to illustrate Britain’s power over the colonies, stated that Britain had the right to tax any of their interests in the colonies. This act later lead to the Townshend Acts which put a tariff on goods imported from Britain, which didn’t seem to make much sense to the colonist as it was trade within the same empire. Angry colonists with the most to loose from these increasing taxed began to join together in groups such as the Sons of Liberty. The British however began to notice how disgruntled the colonists were becoming so they attempted to tighten their grasp of the colonies by imposing what is known as the “Intolerable Acts.”
The first act that directly infringed upon the colonists rights was the Massachusetts Government Act which disallowed town meetings and changed the Massachusetts charter. The charters of each colony is what defined the people within each individual colony, acting as a document that illustrated their basic rights; so to alter in any way this document meant to take away the civil liberties of the people it represented. The British further insulted the Americans by passing the Administration of Justice Act which called for any British soldier to be tried and arraigned in Britain as opposed to the colonies, even were it to be for killing an innocent American. This allowed British thieves and murderers to bypass the American judicial system, taking away any power the colonies had over the British soldiers who were increasing in numbers frequently. The final act of the “Intolerable Acts” was the Quartering Act, which stated that British soldiers could be housed wherever the British deemed worthy. The British had now taken away the rights of the colonists to control what happened within their own household now, and there was seemingly nothing that could stop the British from further taking away the colonists’ freedoms. The strength and will of the American people however would prove that wrong as they began to fight the British for the ability to keep their laws and form the type of government that suited their lives, not the lives of people across an ocean. Although many Americans died, they were fighting for what will always be a just cause, freedom.
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
On July 4th 1776 a group of representatives at the second Continental Congress finalized and signed a document that would forever alter the course of history in Britain’s North American Colonies. This Document is known as the Declaration of Independence and contains a statement of cessation but also a list of grievances addressed to the King George III of England. These complaints laid forth by the colonists were grave indeed, and had become so intolerable that breaking free from their loyalty to Britain was the only remaining action that these men felt could be taken. One of these charges was, “For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.”(1) Their complaint stemmed from the fact that by order of the King and Parliament on more than one occasion representative government within particular colonies had been shut down via certain Acts from Britain.
The first of the Acts that were passed that took the step of shutting down the colonist’s representative committees and councils was the New York Suspending Act of 1767. This Act was passed on July 2, 1767 as part of the Townshend Acts:
“That from and after the first day of October, one thousand seven hundred and sixty seven, until provision shall have been made by the said assembly of New York for furnishing his Majesty's troops within the said province,. . . it shall not be lawful for the governor,. . . or for the council, within the colony,. . . of New York in America, to pass, or give his or their assent to, or concurrence in, the making or passing of any act of assembly; or his or their assent to any order, resolution, or vote, in concurrence with the House of representatives for the time being within the said colony,. . . or for the said house of representatives to pass or make any bill, order, resolution, or vote . . .”(2)
The Townshend Acts included new duties placed on imports; the money derived from this duty was then used to pay the British officials appointed to the provinces. It also included a reorganization of Customs, to make sure that the Navigation Act, Townshend duties, and Sugar Acts were being correctly charged and followed. It also contained the New York Suspending Act of 1767 due to the New York colony not following the Quartering Act of 1765, which demanded that the colonies pay for the Quartering and supplying of British Troops stationed within that colony. In the end, although quite unhappy by the measures parliament had taken, the colonists passed a resolution and funded the troops.
Another act passed later as one of the Intolerable (or Coercive) Acts suspended the elected representative committees in the Colony of Massachusetts. The Massachusetts Government Act of 1774 was passed by Parliament on May 20th of that year:
“That from and after the first day of August, one thousand seven hundred and seventy-four, so much of the charter, granted by their majesties King William and Queen Mary to the inhabitants of the said province . . ., and all and every clause, matter, and thing, therein contained, which relates to the time and manner of electing the assistants or counselors for the said province, be revoked,. . . and that the offices of all counselors and assistants, elected and appointed in pursuance thereof, shall from thenceforth cease and determine: . . . the council, or court of assistants of the said province for the time being, shall be . . . thereunto nominated and appointed by his Majesty, his heirs and successors, from time to time,. . .”(3)
To this act though, the reaction of the colonists was not one of compliance as it had been with the previous New York act. In this time there were protests throughout the colony; one of the more common was to have groups of townsfolk and farmers gather before the courthouses and protest to such excess that the judges could not come to sit for any sessions. Another more dangerous tactic of the enraged people was to threaten the crown appointed officials with clubs. These sorts of protests often held threats of bodily harm and destruction of property, and the colonists would demand the resignation of these officials and their return to Boston.(4) One of these crown Appointees a Timothy Paine from Worchester reported to Governor Gage of Massachusetts:
“people’s spirits are so raised they seem determined to risque their lives and everything dear to them in opposition, and to prevent any person from executing any commission he may receive under the present administration.”(5)
It is these two Acts in particular that led the second Continental Congress to discuss this suspension of legislatures amongst their lists of complaints to the crown. It was the acts of parliament revoking the right to meet, speak, and be able to guide law in relation to their own livelihoods that made this one of the Charges the Declaration focused on. The colonists understood that if they were ever going to be able to have any control over their own lives and future determination of law that they could not continue under a parliament that continued to revoke their constitutional rights to assembly and representation, rights they thought every man should have, they envisioned a nation of the free in their creation of the Declaration. In the words of Comedian John Stewart, “Still, knowing the inherent contradiction between their noble words and the reality of a slave-owning nation, Jefferson and the Founders wisely decided to strike from the Declaration of Independence the phrase or your money back.”(6)
Endnotes:
1. Declaration of Independence
2. Brainard, Rick, “Causes of the American Revolution: The Townshend Duties” http://http-server.carleton.ca/~pking/docs/440docs1.htm
3. The Avalon Project at Yale Law School, “The Massachusetts Government Act; May 20, 1774” http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/amerrev/parliament/mass_gov_act.htm
4. Nash, Gary B. The Unknown American Revolution: The unruly birth of democracy and the struggle to create America. New York: Penguin Books, 2005, 178-183
5. Ibid., 179-180
6. Stewart, John, Karlin, Ben, Javerbaum, David ed. America (The Book): A Citizens Guide to Democracy Inaction. New York, Boston: Warner Books, 2004
Bibliography:
Nash, Gary B. The Unknown American Revolution: The unruly birth of democracy and the struggle to create America. New York: Penguin Books, 2005
Stewart, John, Karlin, Ben, Javerbaum, David ed. America (The Book): A Citizens Guide to Democracy Inaction. New York, Boston: Warner Books, 2004
Brainard, Rick, “Causes of the American Revolution: The Townshend Duties” http://http-server.carleton.ca/~pking/docs/440docs1.htm
The Avalon Project at Yale Law School, “The Massachusetts Government Act; May 20, 1774” http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/amerrev/parliament/mass_gov_act.htm
Wanda White
On July 4th 1776 a group of representatives at the second Continental Congress finalized and signed a document that would forever alter the course of history in Britain’s North American Colonies. This Document is known as the Declaration of Independence and contains a statement of cessation but also a list of grievances addressed to the King George III of England. These complaints laid forth by the colonists were grave indeed, and had become so intolerable that breaking free from their loyalty to Britain was the only remaining action that these men felt could be taken. One of these charges was, “For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.”(1) Their complaint stemmed from the fact that by order of the King and Parliament on more than one occasion representative government within particular colonies had been shut down via certain Acts from Britain.
The first of the Acts that were passed that took the step of shutting down the colonist’s representative committees and councils was the New York Suspending Act of 1767. This Act was passed on July 2, 1767 as part of the Townshend Acts:
“That from and after the first day of October, one thousand seven hundred and sixty seven, until provision shall have been made by the said assembly of New York for furnishing his Majesty's troops within the said province,. . . it shall not be lawful for the governor,. . . or for the council, within the colony,. . . of New York in America, to pass, or give his or their assent to, or concurrence in, the making or passing of any act of assembly; or his or their assent to any order, resolution, or vote, in concurrence with the House of representatives for the time being within the said colony,. . . or for the said house of representatives to pass or make any bill, order, resolution, or vote . . .”(2)
The Townshend Acts included new duties placed on imports; the money derived from this duty was then used to pay the British officials appointed to the provinces. It also included a reorganization of Customs, to make sure that the Navigation Act, Townshend duties, and Sugar Acts were being correctly charged and followed. It also contained the New York Suspending Act of 1767 due to the New York colony not following the Quartering Act of 1765, which demanded that the colonies pay for the Quartering and supplying of British Troops stationed within that colony. In the end, although quite unhappy by the measures parliament had taken, the colonists passed a resolution and funded the troops.
Another act passed later as one of the Intolerable (or Coercive) Acts suspended the elected representative committees in the Colony of Massachusetts. The Massachusetts Government Act of 1774 was passed by Parliament on May 20th of that year:
“That from and after the first day of August, one thousand seven hundred and seventy-four, so much of the charter, granted by their majesties King William and Queen Mary to the inhabitants of the said province . . ., and all and every clause, matter, and thing, therein contained, which relates to the time and manner of electing the assistants or counselors for the said province, be revoked,. . . and that the offices of all counselors and assistants, elected and appointed in pursuance thereof, shall from thenceforth cease and determine: . . . the council, or court of assistants of the said province for the time being, shall be . . . thereunto nominated and appointed by his Majesty, his heirs and successors, from time to time,. . .”(3)
To this act though, the reaction of the colonists was not one of compliance as it had been with the previous New York act. In this time there were protests throughout the colony; one of the more common was to have groups of townsfolk and farmers gather before the courthouses and protest to such excess that the judges could not come to sit for any sessions. Another more dangerous tactic of the enraged people was to threaten the crown appointed officials with clubs. These sorts of protests often held threats of bodily harm and destruction of property, and the colonists would demand the resignation of these officials and their return to Boston.(4) One of these crown Appointees a Timothy Paine from Worchester reported to Governor Gage of Massachusetts:
“people’s spirits are so raised they seem determined to risque their lives and everything dear to them in opposition, and to prevent any person from executing any commission he may receive under the present administration.”(5)
It is these two Acts in particular that led the second Continental Congress to discuss this suspension of legislatures amongst their lists of complaints to the crown. It was the acts of parliament revoking the right to meet, speak, and be able to guide law in relation to their own livelihoods that made this one of the Charges the Declaration focused on. The colonists understood that if they were ever going to be able to have any control over their own lives and future determination of law that they could not continue under a parliament that continued to revoke their constitutional rights to assembly and representation, rights they thought every man should have, they envisioned a nation of the free in their creation of the Declaration. In the words of Comedian John Stewart, “Still, knowing the inherent contradiction between their noble words and the reality of a slave-owning nation, Jefferson and the Founders wisely decided to strike from the Declaration of Independence the phrase or your money back.”(6)
Endnotes:
1. Declaration of Independence
2. Brainard, Rick, “Causes of the American Revolution: The Townshend Duties” http://http-server.carleton.ca/~pking/docs/440docs1.htm
3. The Avalon Project at Yale Law School, “The Massachusetts Government Act; May 20, 1774” http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/amerrev/parliament/mass_gov_act.htm
4. Nash, Gary B. The Unknown American Revolution: The unruly birth of democracy and the struggle to create America. New York: Penguin Books, 2005, 178-183
5. Ibid., 179-180
6. Stewart, John, Karlin, Ben, Javerbaum, David ed. America (The Book): A Citizens Guide to Democracy Inaction. New York, Boston: Warner Books, 2004
Bibliography:
Nash, Gary B. The Unknown American Revolution: The unruly birth of democracy and the struggle to create America. New York: Penguin Books, 2005
Stewart, John, Karlin, Ben, Javerbaum, David ed. America (The Book): A Citizens Guide to Democracy Inaction. New York, Boston: Warner Books, 2004
Brainard, Rick, “Causes of the American Revolution: The Townshend Duties” http://http-server.carleton.ca/~pking/docs/440docs1.htm
The Avalon Project at Yale Law School, “The Massachusetts Government Act; May 20, 1774” http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/amerrev/parliament/mass_gov_act.htm
Wanda White
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
Josiah Bartlett, New Hampshire
Josiah Bartlett was a political leader in the American Revolution. At the 1774 Continental Congress, he was one of the main delegates of New Hampshire and among the most active of all the delegates and it is likely that Josiah Bartlett was one of the first American politicians to vote in favour of American independence, and later among of the first signatories of the Declaration of Independence (Meyers 1979).
Born in Amesbury, Massachusetts in 1729, Josiah Bartlett grew up and lived in Kingston, New Hampshire, a town on the frontier (Meyers 1979). Here, being financially incapable of attending college, Bartlett apprenticed in medicine. He soon after married a cousin, Mary Bartlett, and together they had a large family (Meyers 1979). In part due to this, Bartlett had significant amount of influence in the community, and was therefore selected to be on the board of town officers for Kingston in 1757 (Meyers 1979). He had an active interest in the settling of the frontier and was made the proprietor of two new towns on the frontier, Warren and Wentworth (Meyers 1979).
Throughout the 1750s and 1760s, Bartlett’s political career was blossoming, for he was active and engaged in his positions in New Hampshire (Meyers 1979). It was natural that he gained a promotion to Justice of the Peace in 1765. He was also selected as Lieutenant Commander of the militia there (Meyers 1979). At the same time he was also the representative for Kingston at the provincial legislature (Meyers 1979). During this growing political involvement, he joined in the increasingly popular view that American independence from Britain was needed and, in 1774, he agreed to be the New Hampshire delegate at the Continental Congress (Meyers 1979).
After the American Revolution, Bartlett returned to New Hampshire, where he held the prominent positions of Chief Justice, Chief Executive of the State, and ultimately became the first Governor of New Hampshire (Meyers 1979). Records show that he was consistently present and engaged in political life until his retirement in 1794 (Meyers 1979). Bartlett died within twelve months of leaving the public life, in May 1795 (Meyers 1979).
Born in Amesbury, Massachusetts in 1729, Josiah Bartlett grew up and lived in Kingston, New Hampshire, a town on the frontier (Meyers 1979). Here, being financially incapable of attending college, Bartlett apprenticed in medicine. He soon after married a cousin, Mary Bartlett, and together they had a large family (Meyers 1979). In part due to this, Bartlett had significant amount of influence in the community, and was therefore selected to be on the board of town officers for Kingston in 1757 (Meyers 1979). He had an active interest in the settling of the frontier and was made the proprietor of two new towns on the frontier, Warren and Wentworth (Meyers 1979).
Throughout the 1750s and 1760s, Bartlett’s political career was blossoming, for he was active and engaged in his positions in New Hampshire (Meyers 1979). It was natural that he gained a promotion to Justice of the Peace in 1765. He was also selected as Lieutenant Commander of the militia there (Meyers 1979). At the same time he was also the representative for Kingston at the provincial legislature (Meyers 1979). During this growing political involvement, he joined in the increasingly popular view that American independence from Britain was needed and, in 1774, he agreed to be the New Hampshire delegate at the Continental Congress (Meyers 1979).
After the American Revolution, Bartlett returned to New Hampshire, where he held the prominent positions of Chief Justice, Chief Executive of the State, and ultimately became the first Governor of New Hampshire (Meyers 1979). Records show that he was consistently present and engaged in political life until his retirement in 1794 (Meyers 1979). Bartlett died within twelve months of leaving the public life, in May 1795 (Meyers 1979).
John Hancock, Massachusetts
John Hancock is a man whose face may not be reconcilable to most people but almost everyone knows his name, and more specially his signature. When one looks at the Declaration of Independence his is the name that stands out, it is the largest and the clearest. There are many rumors surrounding his signing of the document. It is said that he signed it so large because he wanted to King to be able to read it without specials. Whatever the rumors what is clear, besides his name, is that he had a great impact on the forming of the United States.
John Hancock was born on January 12, 1737 in what is now Quincy, Massachusetts. After the death of his father he was raised by his wealthy uncle and upon his death inherited what was arguably one of the largest fortunes in the new world at the time. He was educated at Harvard College and received a degree in 1754. He married Dorothy Quincy and had two children, neither of whom survived to adulthood.
Hancock’s involvement in the signing of the document came about through his work and the connections he had to very wealthy business men. It was clear that despite his friendships to many know loyalists he was strongly for the independence of the colonies. He was involved in many smuggling operations to resist the taxes unjustly placed on the colonies by England. He became more of a public figure over time and on the forth anniversary of the Boston Massacre gave a speech that help launch him into the Provincial Congress of Massachusetts then to the Continental Congress. He became the President of the Provincial Congress after that which put him in a position to take part in the second Continental Congress and in turn the signing of the Declaration of Independence. He was the first to sign the document on August 2nd and this is also one of the attributing factors to the size of the signature.
He died in October 1793 in his hometown and after living a very influential life in early America still enjoys a celebrity status in today’s world whenever anyone is asked to give their John Hancock.
John Hancock was born on January 12, 1737 in what is now Quincy, Massachusetts. After the death of his father he was raised by his wealthy uncle and upon his death inherited what was arguably one of the largest fortunes in the new world at the time. He was educated at Harvard College and received a degree in 1754. He married Dorothy Quincy and had two children, neither of whom survived to adulthood.
Hancock’s involvement in the signing of the document came about through his work and the connections he had to very wealthy business men. It was clear that despite his friendships to many know loyalists he was strongly for the independence of the colonies. He was involved in many smuggling operations to resist the taxes unjustly placed on the colonies by England. He became more of a public figure over time and on the forth anniversary of the Boston Massacre gave a speech that help launch him into the Provincial Congress of Massachusetts then to the Continental Congress. He became the President of the Provincial Congress after that which put him in a position to take part in the second Continental Congress and in turn the signing of the Declaration of Independence. He was the first to sign the document on August 2nd and this is also one of the attributing factors to the size of the signature.
He died in October 1793 in his hometown and after living a very influential life in early America still enjoys a celebrity status in today’s world whenever anyone is asked to give their John Hancock.
Samuel Adams, Massachusetts
Thomas Jefferson, in reflection upon his colleague and fellow patriot Samuel Adams, argued that he was “truly the man of the Revolution” [1]. Adams’s political career would attest to such an impressive claim. Born in Boston, Massachusetts in 1722, despite his failed business ventures, Adams proved adept in politics[2]. His political record began in when he was elected to the Massachusetts Assembly where he served as a clerk[3]. His influence on the political environment of the colonies and the colonial opinion of British authority was significant. In the turbulent decades leading to the revolutionary war, Adams proved an effective “political agitator and organizer of rebellion”[4]. In particular, he took part in the drafting of the protest to Parliament calling for the repeal of the Stamp Act of 1765[5], and he was prominent supporter and source of encouragement of the nonimportation efforts in opposition to the Townshend revenue duties of 1767[6]. A member of the zealous patriotic organization the Sons of Liberty, he took leadership in the defiant action of Boston Tea Party of 1773[7]. Another significant contribution to the revolutionary fervor was his role in the organization of the local committees of correspondence, the first of which was formed in Boston in 1772[8]; these committees successfully “spread the spirit of resistance”, and their success spurred the creation of broader intercolonial committees[9]. Described as a “master propagandist and engineer of rebellion”, he certainly encouraged acts of resistance within the colonies, particularly through his contributions to colonial newspapers and pamphlets that succeeded in stirring anti-British sentiment[10]. Adams represented Massachusetts during the Continental Congress of 1774, and acted again as a delegate in the Second Continental Congress[11]. He served in Congress until 1781, whereupon he returned to his native Massachusetts, to take a seat in the State Senate; he served in that body until 1788[12]. Following his service to the national government in the years of the Revolution, he remained an influential political leader. Adams was elected as Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts from 1789 until 1793, and was thereafter repeatedly elected to the position of Governor of the state from 1794 until his retirement in 1797[13]. Adams is remembered as an aggressive and passionate proponent of revolution.
[1] Pauline Maier, “Coming to Terms with Samuel Adams,” The American Historical Review 81 (1976): 13.
[2] Ibid., 12.
[3] Maier, “Samuel Adams,” 12.
[4] David M. Kennedy, Lizabeth Cohen and Thomas A. Bailey, The American Pageant: Volume I to1877 (Houghton Mifflin, 2002), 131.
[5]"Samuel Adams," <>, 2006.
[6] Maier, “Samuel Adams,” 13.
[7] "Samuel Adams," <>, 2006.
[8] Kennedy, Cohen and Bailey, American Pageant, 131.
[9] Kennedy, Cohen and Bailey, American Pageant, 131.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Maier, “Samuel Adams,” 13.
[12] Ibid.
[13] "Samuel Adams," <>, 2006.
[1] Pauline Maier, “Coming to Terms with Samuel Adams,” The American Historical Review 81 (1976): 13.
[2] Ibid., 12.
[3] Maier, “Samuel Adams,” 12.
[4] David M. Kennedy, Lizabeth Cohen and Thomas A. Bailey, The American Pageant: Volume I to1877 (Houghton Mifflin, 2002), 131.
[5]"Samuel Adams," <>, 2006.
[6] Maier, “Samuel Adams,” 13.
[7] "Samuel Adams," <>, 2006.
[8] Kennedy, Cohen and Bailey, American Pageant, 131.
[9] Kennedy, Cohen and Bailey, American Pageant, 131.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Maier, “Samuel Adams,” 13.
[12] Ibid.
[13] "Samuel Adams," <>, 2006.
Sydney Dale-McGrath
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)