AP History Notes

Posts Tagged ‘1775’

Launch of the Hutchinson Letters in Boston, 15 Oct.

According to the Whigs of late colonial Massachusetts, the two great political villains of the age were the royal governors Sir Francis Bernard (1712-1779) and Thomas Hutchinson (1711-1780).

Bernard was a British aristocrat who served in a number of colonial posts, including governor of New Jersey, before governing Massachusetts from 1760 to 1769. His arrival coincided with the ascension of George III and successes against the French in Canada, so people felt fairly optimistic about his administration at the start. But when Bernard sailed away from Boston in 1769, there were literally public celebrations: flags waving, cannons firing.

Hutchinson, in contrast, was from an old Massachusetts family, had ties to all the top local institutions, and won election to his first public offices in Boston. He was also a diligent historian of the province, and everyone respected his intellect. He became lieutenant governor in 1758 and was also chief justice from 1761 to 1769. Hutchinson took over as acting governor when Bernard left, dealing with the Boston Massacre in that capacity, before finally attaining the top post himself.

Both Bernard and Hutchinson lost standing after letters they had written to colleagues in London were leaked back to Massachusetts and published. Local Whigs declared that those letters showed how each man had misrepresented events in New England, encouraged the London government to curtail the province’s self-government, and conspired against the interests of the people they were supposed to look after.

Now we can view those published letters in the context of the men’s larger correspondence. The Colonial Society of Massachusetts has been publishing the papers of both governors in large scholarly editions. With the release of The Correspondence of Thomas Hutchinson, 1740-1766, both series run through the Stamp Act riots of 1765, when a mob destroyed Hutchinson’s house in the North End.

The Colonial Society will launch that volume and salute its editors, John W. Tyler and Elizabeth Dubrulle, on Wednesday, 15 October, at 5:00 P.M. The program will begin with a brief talk on Governor Hutchinson by Tyler and continue with open discussion accompanied by refreshments, book sales, and signings. This event will take place at the society’s headquarters at 87 Mount Vernon Street on Beacon Hill. It is free and open to the interested public.

November 10, 1775: The Birth of the Marine Corps

The following article by Major General John A. Lejeune, United States Marine Corps, was originally published inProceedings magazine in October 1925 .

THE TENTH day of November of this year will mark one hundred fiftieth anniversary of the birth of the United States Marine Corps, since on November 10, 1775, the Continental Congress authorized the raising of two battalions of marines for the defense of the colonies which were then to protect their rights, as they saw them, against the aggressions of the mother country.

The men recruited for this force were to be familiar life of the sea, but were to be trained as a military force, and was the intention to have them serve aboard the ships to be provided for the defense of the colonies. It is evident that the founders of the Marine Corps had in mind the fine services previously rendered by the British marines, both afloat and ashore, and that it was the intention to use the marines aboard the ships in naval battles when on the high seas and as landing forces when occasion might offer.

From that distant date down to the present day the United States Marines have continued to serve as an integral part of the United States Navy and in peace and war have proved the military army of the Navy. In all of the wars in United States have engaged the marines have played their part according to their abilities and the occasions offered, and how well this part has been played is amply testified to in the many reports of the admirals who have commanded our squadrons on the seven seas throughout the 150 years that have looked down upon the organization and growth of our nation.

There is neither space nor inclination to give here even passing note of the incidents that have contributed to the pages of history due to the acts of the Marine Corps; but it appears to be proper to state here the present-day mission of the corps which derived from the experiences of a century and a half of service in the Navy and to call attention to what has been done in recent times to fit the corps to meet in a creditable and efficient the requirements of the mission assigned to it by the highest authority in control of the military and naval destinies of the nation.

The mission of the Marine Corps, briefly stated, is:
“To support the fleet, or any part thereof, in the accomplishment of its mission.”

The principal mission of the Navy as a whole may be briefly stated, in the language of the great Mahan:
To gain command of the sea and hold it.”

Having these two basic statements in view, it will be seen that the support considered is of a nature such that it can best be accomplished by a compact military force of all arms, thoroughly trained to carry out the specific military tasks involved in the duties which  may properly be assigned to the Marine Corps as an important part of the Navy.

The duties referred to are enumerated in the U.S. Navy Regulations as follows: (Article 552 (7).)

7. The following duties may be performed by the Marine Corps, when so directed by the Secretary of the Navy:
a) To furnish organizations for duty afloat on board armed transports for service either with fleets, squadrons, or divisions, or on detached service.
b) To garrison the different navy yards and naval stations, both within and beyond the continental limits of the United States.
c) To furnish the first line of the mobile defenses of naval bases and naval stations beyond the continental limits of the United States.
d) Ta man such naval defenses and aid in manning, if necessary, such other defenses as may be erected for the defense of naval bases and naval stations beyond the continental limits of the United States.
e) To furnish such garrisons and expeditionary forces for duties beyond seas as may be necessary in time of peace.

In addition to the above specific duties, which may be classified as expeditionary service, the Revised Statutes (Section 1616) prescribe that:
Marines may be detached for service on board the armed vessels of the United States, and the President may detach said vessels such of the  officers of said corps as he may deem necessary.

In order that the military services of the Marine Corps may be employed to the utmost, when occasion requires, the Revised Statutes also provide that any portion of the corps may be detached for service with the United States Army, by order of the President, and the occasions have been frequent when this has been done and the services of the marines could be temporarily spared by the Navy.
Unless the forces of the Marine Corps are so organized and so trained as to be able and competent to carry out the tasks which may be assigned to it in furtherance of its mission, as above enumerated, the fleet may be seriously handicapped in its operations or even prevented from accomplishing its mission in peace and war.

The military tasks which may be assigned to the Marine Corps, if they are to be executed so as to obtain the best and quickest results, require:

a) Unity of Command. – By law naval officers cannot command any forces or vice versa, but this restriction does not apply to the Marine Corps, since the latter is an integral part of the naval establishment.
b) Flexibility of Organization. – The Marine Corps has been constantly practiced on the organization and training of the different type-task units required for the varying service demanded by its mission, and to meet these requirements it is purposely not organized into the rigid units necessarily employed by the army forces.
c) Mobility by Sea. – Throughout its history the Marine Corps been constantly indoctrinated with the sea idea through service of certain of its units on the active ships of the fleet, and through expeditionary service at sea and overseas in naval transports, as well as by keeping alive a traditional interest in all naval affairs recruiting its commissioned personnel in part from graduates of the Naval Academy.
d) Training in the Specific Duties Required. – The training of Marine Corps personnel to accomplish the various duties which assigned to it has been accomplished in the past by assigning a part of the officers and enlisted men to regular sea service in ships of the fleet, by frequent expeditions overseas, both in peace and war, for the settlement of questions arising from of the Monroe Doctrine, for the establishment of in certain unstable countries requiring the protection of the United States to insure their independence and prosperity as nations, and for the training of the forces in such overseas operations with the fleet as may be required in time of war.

The natural model for the organization of a strictly military force would appear to be the United States Army, since all of its duties are of a strictly military nature, and it is the service which conducts land warfare on a large scale according to the requirements of the country’s defense. However, the mission of Marine Corps requires of it a specific support of the fleet in naval warfare, and the land operations of the corps in connection with the operations of the fleet are always incidental to the sea operations of the fleet in its efforts to gain command of sea and hold it so that the Army may move in force across a protected water route to attack an overseas land force enemy and thus end a war with an overseas power.

For these reasons the Marine Corps must ever be closely associated with the Navy, understanding the life at sea, the requirements and methods of naval warfare, and being imbued with esprit of the naval service; and it must be organized and meet the peculiar requirements of naval expeditionary duties with the fleet.

The experience gained by the Navy during the Spanish-American War and a study of former wars caused the leaders of advanced thought on preparedness in the Navy to advocate the organization and training of a force of marines as a naval advanced base force, to be held in readiness for service as a part of the fleet when it should be deemed advisable for the fleet to seize an overseas base for distant operations. The duties for this force would require a possible seizure of a suitable site for a naval advanced base by landing operations against its enemy defenders, and the subsequent erection of such temporary fortifications and armament as would be required to make it a protected anchorage for such ships of the fleet as might require re-fuelling, re-victualling, or repairs, as well as for the numerous unarmed vessels of the fleet train.

From 1902 to the present time numerous exercises have been held at selected overseas locations to train the marines in the execution of the details of the defense of such naval bases overseas, and from the experience gained, as well as from a study of certain operations during the World War, the present marine corps expeditionary forces have been evolved. As a result, there are at present two organized marine corps expeditionary forces, the larger one being based at the Marine Barracks, Quantico, Virginia, and the second, or smaller one, being based at the Marine Corps Base, San Diego, California,

These marine corps expeditionary forces, while primarily intended to be organized and trained for service with the fleet in war, are available for any military duty that may be required of the Marine Corps at home or abroad. Expeditionary forces for the peace-time requirements arising at home or abroad may vary in size from a single company to the whole available strength of the marine corps expeditionary force, and the training of the force must be such as to best fit the whole or any part of it to meet such requirements.

The peace-time expeditions usually partake of the nature of combined operations afloat and ashore, the naval ships furnishing the floating force and the marines furnishing the landing force, and from their very nature they require the unity of command, flexibility of organization, and mobility by sea which must be inherent in the Marine Corps as a part of the Navy if the corps is fully to accomplish its assigned mission.

When the whole marine corps expeditionary force is operating with the assembled fleet the duties required will be in the nature of war-time operations in the face of the enemy; but when conducting minor operations in which a portion of the marine corps expeditionary force operates in conjunction with a detachment of the fleet the operations will partake more of the nature of peace­time operations. Such peace-time operations may prove to be the preparatory stages of war on a large scale, or if they are successfully carried out they may serve to prevent such a war.

Considering only the requirements of the Marine Corps to furnish such expeditions as may be required during peace and to furnish the larger force necessary to seize and defend a naval advanced base in time of war, the training of the marine corps expeditionary force might be carried on without reference to the rest of the Marine Corps; but the other duties assigned to the corps must be provided for and at the same time the personnel assigned to these other duties must be so trained that it will always be prepared for amalgamation with the expeditionary forces when the imminence of war indicates the necessity for operations on a major scale of effort.

Hence, by frequent interchange of the personnel of the corps between the various classes of duty both ashore and afloat the whole personnel is trained for the major effort and inculcated with that indoctrination which is a prerequisite to the successful fulfilment of the war-time mission of the corps.

The peace-time strength of the Marine Corps, like that of branches of the naval establishment, is not sufficient to meet requirements of war, and this fact necessitates the training of available force with a view to its rapid expansion to a much greater strength when war looms upon the horizon; for the Navy in all of its elements should be ready to take the sea in force on the day ordered by the President and every day’s delay after that date gives the enemy more time for preparation to meet the attack, diminishes the chances of the important element of surprise, and prolongs the period and expense of the war. The training organization of the marine corps expeditionary forces is conducted with a view of having all of the available force trained so that the addition of reserves, volunteers, and newly enlisted men may be added to the force with the least chance of confusion and the best amalgamation of the entire body into a compact force shortest possible time.

The training required to fit the marine corps expeditionary forces in all arms and branches for the field service that may be required of it in peace and war embraces every step from the simple school of the soldier to actual maneuvers in unknown territory overseas in company with the fleet under simulated war conditions. This training may be divided into four phases: viz.,

a) Barracks Training, embracing all indoor and parade ground drills and exercises and the necessary schools of instruction for officers and enlisted men. For infantry this includes the theory of musketry and the technique of primary and auxiliary weapons. For artillery it includes the theory of fire and the technique of all types of guns employed by the force. For the special troops, signal troops, engineers and pioneers, and supply units, the technique of all mechanical material manned by such troops and thorough preliminary practice in the use of such equipment.
b) Target Range Training, embracing the prescribed courses in target firing to qualify all individuals as good target shots with the rifle; the training of automatic riflemen in direct fire at known distances; the training of all infantrymen in musketry problems; the training of machine gunners in direct and indirect fire on the 1,000-inch range and at longer ranges; the training of light (Stokes) mortar gunners at indirect fire at known ranges; the training of light howitzer gunners at direct and indirect range firing; the training of grenadiers at firing rifle and hand grenades; the training of squads, platoons, and companies in firing in normal attack advances under stipulated conditions as to simulated terrain; and combined attack exercises over the range employing the infantry companies of a battalion supported by all auxiliary weapons, automatic rifles, grenades, light mortars, machine guns, and light howitzers.
For artillery troops this phase includes training in the service of the guns, laying the guns, determination of ranges by all adopted range-finding methods, and firing over known ranges under simulated terrain conditions from direct and indirect fire.
c) Barracks Field Training, embracing exercises over diversified terrain in situations requiring tactical decisions; marching over roads adjacent to the barracks and through the surrounding country; advance and rear guard instruction and practice; exercises and problems in security on the march and at halts; pitching and striking camps, with attendant instruction in field cooking and sanitation; combat exercises and problems, offensive and defensive, with firing of all arms, infantry, and artillery; exercises in scouting, patrolling, and military sketch mapping.
d) Maneuvers and Exercises, embracing the training of all arms and branches in marching over unknown terrain under service conditions; advance and rear guard and camp security problems; scouting and patrolling, employing both land and air forces; problems employing all arms of force under simulated battle conditions, including the firing of the weapons of all arms; through and occupying cities and towns; problems in and holding and supplying isolated positions; night maneuvering of all arms under varying conditions of terrain and weather; embarking and disembarking the personnel and material overseas service, with proper loading and storing of equipment and supplies with a view to its order of disembarkation under simulated war conditions, the disembarkation being effected with ships, boats and barges that can be transported on the transports and freighters; landing operations on a coast assumed to be occupied and defended by an enemy; defense of an island position or section of the coast against a hostile landing force supported by such vessels of the fleet as would normally be assigned to such duty with an advanced base force; laying out and constructing semi-permanent and temporary entrenchments and defenses as would be utilized in the defense of a naval advanced base; camp sanitation and personal sanitation and hygiene on the march, on board transports at sea, and in camp; first aid treatment in the field under battle conditions; establishment and conduct of field hospitals and dressing stations; care and preparation of rations and food on the march and in camp; problems of supply on the march and in camp, including the supply of overseas forces away from established bases; the problem of the supply of widely scattered detachments, employing all classes of available transportation, steamer, railroad, motor transport, pack animals, carriers, boats, and aircraft; problems of communication by radio, field telegraph and telephone, visual day and night signals, and runners; aircraft scouting and patrolling and observation; anti-aircraft detection and defense; target practice under simulated war conditions with all classes and types of guns assigned to the artillery units of an advanced base defense against targets simulating those that would be presented in actual warfare of the nature contemplated; use of gas in attack and defense, and protection against gas attack by an enemy; planting and operating mine fields at harbor entrances and in narrow and restricted waterways; construction and protection of obstructions and barriers at beaches and probable enemy landing points; operation of range finding devices and communication systems for the artillery and other defenses of a base or position seized and held on an enemy coast; and combined problems in defense and attack coordinating all of arms and branches of the force.

The above outline shows the wide variety of drills and exercises demanded by the nature of the duties assigned to the Marine Corps as the distinctly military supporting and landing force of the Navy, and is given here in detail to demonstrate the necessity for a more complete and thorough coordination and cooperation between the fleet and the marine corps expeditionary forces, a coordination that can only be effected, if we are to secure the desired results, by frequent exercises of these forces on overseas maneuvers with the fleet. In order that such cooperation in plans and training and actual operations may secure the desired results it is necessary that every marine from the general to the private must feel that he is of the Navy and in the Navy, and likewise that everyone in the Navy from the four star admiral to the man before the mast must feel that the marine is a part of the personnel of the fleet with a definite and clear-cut line of duties to perform in the general scheme of naval operations in peace and war.

Properly to train and indoctrinate the marines for the expeditionary duties required of them under their mission a plan of exercises has been developed which contemplates two maneuvers or exercises of the marine corps expeditionary force away from its permanent base in home territory during each year. One of these exercises, designated to train the force in land operations, consists in field exercises over suitable territory within marching distance of the base; and the other annual exercise consists in embarking the force in transports and taking it with the seagoing fleet for the annual grand maneuvers of the fleet overseas. The first of these exercises, as enumerated, is for the purpose of familiarizing the personnel of the force with the conditions and demands of land service in preparation for the landing operations that will form a part of the actual war-time duties of the force in support of an overseas naval expedition. The second exercise, and the most important one, is for the purpose of preparing the force to join the fleet when required and perform its part in the general plan of an overseas naval campaign on the scale that would be required in major naval operations.

Previous to the World War the naval advanced base force, consisting of marine infantry, artillery, and special units, was frequently exercised with the fleet in maneuvers and exercises in West Indian waters and in the Philippines, but for the three years following the close of that war it was not practicable to have such overseas exercises of the marines with the fleet. However, the land exercises were carried out by the force to keep it in readiness for any service that it might be called upon to perform.

In the fall of 1921, the marine corps expeditionary force, based at Quantico, Virginia, marched from its base to the Wilderness territory, west of Fredricksburg and south of the Rapidan River, and there conducted military exercises on the famous battle fields of the Civil War, including a reproduction of certain phases of the Battle of the Wilderness.

In June, 1922, the force marched from Quantico to Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, conducting field training along the route and on that famous battle field, including the reproduction of Pickett’s charge, the most noted incident of that decisive conflict of the Civil War, demonstrating the manner in which the charge was carried out the original battle, followed by a demonstration of the manner in which such an attack would be conducted under modern war-time conditions.

In the fall of 1923, the force marched from Quantico across Virginia to the upper Shenandoah Valley and encamped for two weeks at Fort Defiance, where field exercises were carried out to demonstrate the manner of occupying and holding a section of foreign territory for the protection of the inhabitants thereof in case of loyal revolution and disorder. The exercises concluded with a reproduction of the Battle of Newmarket, in which the cadets of the Virginia Military Institute enacted the role of their predecessors in the original battle.

In these reproductions of former battles an opportunity was presented for the personnel of the force to witness a graphic exemplification of the war-time methods of the past and thus gain valuable historical military lessons.

In the winter of 1923-24, the force joined the United States Fleet and participated in the winter maneuvers of the fleet in West Indian waters. For these exercises the available marine personnel was divided into two forces, one charged with the seizure and defense of the Island of Culebra as a naval advanced base, other accompanying the fleet for duty as a landing force against the army defenses of the Panama Canal Zone and landing force for the assault of the defenses at Culebra.

In the fall of 1924, the force marched from its base at Quantico through Washington, D. C., and Frederick, Maryland, to the battlefield of Antietam, where it encamped for two weeks and conducted field training over the surrounding country in a series of problems demonstrating problems of attack and defense under modern war conditions, These exercises terminated in a demonstration of a modern battle advance and attack employing all arms of the force, infantry, artillery, signal troops, engineers and pioneers, supply troops, tanks, motor transport, and squadrons of airplanes.

In the spring of 1925, marines from the expeditionary forces stationed at Quantico and San Diego were organized into a force representing a war-time organization of two divisions of all arms, aggregating 42,000 in strength, which joined the United States Fleet at San Francisco for participation in the grand army and navy joint exercises in Hawaiian waters. This force was distributed among sixteen ships of the fleet train representing transports and proceeded with the fleet across the Pacific to Hawaiian waters, where it was employed in making a landing attack for the capture of the army defenses of the Island of Oahu and the naval base at Pearl Harbor, supported by the entire fleet.

The general staff work in preparation for these exercises was carried out insofar as possible exactly as would be the case in a war of major effort and the experience gained will prove of great value in future plans and training of the force.

The landing operations were carried out in exact accordance with the predetermined plans and the results fully demonstrated the value of the previous drills and training of the force as well as the necessity for more complete training in the future. The lessons learned will be of great value to the Marine Corps and the Navy, in general staff work, in organization and training of the force for its major mission, and in cooperation with the other important elements of the United States Fleet. It is hoped that plans for future naval exercises and maneuvers will include participation of a marine expeditionary force, for in no other way can this force be prepared for the final test of naval warfare of major magnitude.

While the marine corps expeditionary forces were being trained exercised to fit them for the execution of their major mission other duties of the Marine Corps were being carried cut at various naval stations and scenes of naval activity throughout the world. In the fleet the marine detachments have served as a of the ships’ crews, thus enabling a portion of the corps to gain an intimate acquaintance with the Navy and its personnel and to become thoroughly imbued with the life and language and customs of the sea. These officers and men so trained in the fleet will, in turn, be replaced by others and in this way the whole corps will gain in naval experience and come to the realization that the marine in blue or khaki is in every way a brother in arms of the sailor in blue and white.

At every navy yard and station of the country marines have served to guard naval property and do their part in the general work of preparing the Navy for active service at sea, and here again an intimate cooperation with the naval officer and sailor helps to indoctrinate the marine in naval ideas and customs.

The unsettled conditions in China during the past year required the despatch of reenforcements to the marines on the Asiatic Station, and these forces have been used when where required by the commander-in-chief of the naval forces on that station for the protection of American citizens and interests on the China coast and to help the Chinese authorities in the suppression of riotous attacks upon foreigners and their property.

In Haiti, where we have treaty obligations to assist the local government in the reestablishment of a government that can peacefully and capably conduct the affairs of that country, a brigade of marines has been held in readiness for such duty as may be required of it, and the authorities who have visited Haiti report that the conditions of peace and order there promise much for the future country and demonstrate the patience and efficiency with which the  marines stationed there have carried out their duties.

The marines stand ready today to carry out their mission as an important part of the Navy and will continue to do all in their power to “support the fleet, or any part thereof, in the accomplishment of its mission.”

Boston 1775 Visits the Ngram Viewer

Last month brought a new time sink from Google Books, the Ngram Viewer, which searches the entire database for requested phrases. As an example, LibraryThing’s Jeremy Dibbell mentioned how @cliotropic had asked to compare terms for trousers (including the modern “jeans” and “pants”). I pushed that backwards, asking for a comparison of “breeches” (“britches,” the phonic spelling, produced negligible results), “pantaloons”, “trowsers” (the old spelling), “trousers”, and “pants.” Here’s the result.

The words “breeches” and “pants” have additional, non-sartorial meanings, of course. Nonetheless, it’s clear how the first word/garment became much less popular between 1780 and 1980, and the second much more. “Trowsers” overtook “pantaloons” and “pants” in the 1810s, and bowed to “trousers” in the 1830s.

However, I also found some glitches in the Ngram Viewer database. Its results are only as good as the input data. Here’s a comparison of the phrases “Boston Tea Party” and “destruction of the tea.” That shows some examples of the former phrase from before 1820, but clicking into the data reveals that those are simply volumes with the wrong publication date applied. With numbers so small, a few errors can really shift the lines. Still, we can see how the “Boston Tea Party” label overtook the older “destruction of the tea” around 1890, and eclipsed it since.

Other quirks:

All those grains of salt applied, Ngram Viewer is still a compulsive delight.

Who got the most press, Alexander Hamilton, Aaron Burr, Thomas Jefferson, or John Adams? (Of course, there might be more than one John Adams.)

When did Americans start writing about “Sally Hemings”? (But note: That blip of early mentions is mostly misdated material. I can’t figure out a way to see examples of people writing about her without using her full name.)

Look how “von Steuben” overtook “de Steuben” (the general’s own usage) in the twentieth century.

How famous did Benjamin Thompson, Count Rumford, become in the early 1800s, relative to other scientists?

Are people learning how to spell the name of young Christopher Seider?

See how “lobster back” starts to appear in significant numbers after 1820, and “lobsterback” at the time of the Centennial.

Or headgear. “Mob cap” starts its rise in 1800, “tricorn hat” in 1880.

In the late 1900s the name of Crispus Attucks starts to appear far more often than the (more common) names of the other victims of the Boston Massacre.

The new term “vaccination” overtook “inoculation” twice, and “smallpox” replaced “small pox.”

Of the spellings “huzzah”, “hurray”, “huzzay”, “hooray”, “hoorah”, or “hurrah,” the last has dominated for a long time. Remove it to see how the Z spellings used to be more popular.

Where do we see the euphemisms “appeal to heaven” and “recourse to arms”?

The phrases “liberty tree”, “liberty pole”, and “liberty cap”? (Once again, the results for the early end of the timeline look suspect to me. I’ve learned to distrust those symmetric plateaus.)

How Henry W. Longfellow (after 1860) and Esther Forbes (after 1940) made Paul Revere a household name, with John Hancock and Henry Knox for comparison.

1775 — Proclamation of Rebellion by King George III

August 23, 1775


Whereas many of our subjects in divers parts of our Colonies and Plantations in North America, misled by dangerous and ill designing men, and forgetting the allegiance which they owe to the power that has protected and supported them; after various disorderly acts committed in disturbance of the publick peace, to the obstruction of lawful commerce, and to the oppression of our loyal subjects carrying on the same; have at length proceeded to open and avowed rebellion, by arraying themselves in a hostile manner, to withstand the execution of the law, and traitorously preparing, ordering and levying war against us: And whereas, there is reason to apprehend that such rebellion hath been much promoted and encouraged by the traitorous correspondence, counsels and comfort of divers wicked and desperate persons within this realm: To the end therefore, that none of our subjects may neglect or violate their duty through ignorance thereof, or through any doubt of the protection which the law will afford to their loyalty and zeal, we have thought fit, by and with the advice of our Privy Council, to issue our Royal Proclamation, hereby declaring, that not only all our Officers, civil and military, are obliged to exert their utmost endeavours to suppress such rebellion, and to bring the traitors to justice, but that all our subjects of this Realm, and the dominions thereunto belonging, are bound by law to be aiding and assisting in the suppression of such rebellion, and to disclose and make known all traitorous conspiracies and attempts against us our crown and dignity; and we do accordingly strictly charge and command all our Officers, as well civil as military, and all others our obedient and loyal subjects, to use their utmost endeavours to withstand and suppress such rebellion, and to disclose and make known all treasons and traitorous conspiracies which they shall know to be against us, our crown and dignity; and for that purpose, that they transmit to one of our principal Secretaries of State, or other proper officer, due and full information of all persons who shall be found carrying on correspondence with, or in any manner or degree aiding or abetting the persons now in open arms and rebellion against our Government, within any of our Colonies and Plantations in North America, in order to bring to condign punishment the authors, perpetrators, and abetters of such traitorous designs.

Given at our Court at St. James’s the twenty-third day of August, one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five, in the fifteenth year of our reign.

GOD save the KING.

1775 — African Slavery in America by Thomas Paine

That some desperate wretches should be willing to steal and enslave men by violence and murder for gain, is rather lamentable than strange. But that many civilized, nay, christianized people should approve, and be concerned in the savage practice, is surprising; and still persist, though it has been so often proved contrary to the light of nature, of every principle of Justice and Humanity, and even good policy, by a succession of eminent men, and several late publications. Our Traders in MEN (an unnatural commodity!) must know the wickedness of the SLAVE-TRADE, if they attend to reasoning, or the dictates of their own hearts: and such as shun and stiffle all these, wilfully sacrifice Conscience, and the character of integrity to that golden Idol.

The Managers the Trade themselves, and others testify, that many of these African nations inhabit fertile countries, are industrious farmers, enjoy plenty, and lived quietly, averse to war, before the Europeans debauched them with liquors, and bribing them against one another; and that these inoffensive people are brought into slavery, by stealing them, tempting Kings to sell subjects, which they can have to right to do, and hiring one tribe to war against another, in order to catch prisoners. By such wicked and inhuman ways the English are said to enslave towards one hundred thousand yearly; of which thirty thousand are supposed to die by barbarous treatment in the first year; besides all that are slain in the unnatural ways excited to take them. So much innocent blood have the Managers and Supports of this inhuman Trade to answer for to the common Lord of all!

Many of these were not prisoners of war, and redeemed from savage conquerors, as some plead: and they who were such prisoners, the English, who promote the war for that very end, are the guilty authors of their being so; and if they were redeemed, as is alleged, they would owe nothing to the redeemer but what he paid for them.

They should as little Reason as Conscience who put the matter by with saying – Men, in some cases, are lawfully made Slaves, and why not these? So men, in some cases, are lawfully put to death, deprived of their goods, without their consent; may any man, therefore, be treated so, without any conviction of desert? Nor is this plea mended by adding- They are set forth to us as slaves, and we buy them without farther inquiry, let the sellers see to it. Such man may as well join with a known band of robbers, buy their ill-got goods, and help on the trade; ignorance is no more pleadable in one case than the other; the sellers plainly own how they obtain them. But none can lawfully buy without evidence that they are not concurring with Men-Stealers; and as the true owner has a right to reclaim his goods that were stolen, and sold; so the slave, who is proper owner of his freedom, has a right to reclaim it, however often sold.

Most shocking of all is alledging the Sacred Scriptures to favour this wicked practice. One would have thought none but infidel cavillers would endeavour to make them appear contrary to the plain dictates of natural light, and the Conscience, in a matter of common Justice and Humanity; which they cannot be. Such worthy men, as referred to before, judged otherways; Mr. BAXTER declared, the Slave-Traders should be called Devils, rather than Christian; and that it is a heinous crime to buy them. But some say, the practice was permitted to the Jews. To which may be replied,

1. The example of the Jews, in many things, may not be imitated by us; they had not only orders to cut off several nations altogether, but if they were obliged to war with others, and conquered them, to cut off every male; they were suffered to use polygamy and divorces, and other things utterly unlawful to us under clearer light.

2. The plea is, in a great measure, false; they had no permission to catch and enslave people who never injured them.

3. Such arguments ill become us, since the time of reformation came, under Gospel light. All distinctions of nations and privileges of one above others, are ceased; Christians are taught to account all men their neighbours; and love their neighbours as themselves; and do to all men as they would be done by; to do good to all men; and Man-stealing is ranked with enormous crimes. Is the barbarous enslaving out inoffensive neighbours, and treating them like wild beasts subdued by force, reconcilable with the Divine precepts! Is this doing to them as we would desire they should do to us? If they could carry off and enslave some thousands of us, would we think it just? ­One would almost wish they could for once; it might convince more than Reason, or the Bible.

As much in vain, perhaps, will they search ancient history for examples of the modern Slave-Trade. Too many nations enslaved the prisoners they took in war. But to go to nations with whom there is no war, who have in no way provoked, without farther design of conquest, purely to catch inoffensive people, like wild beasts, for slaves, is an hight of outrage against Humanity and Justice, that seems left by Heathen nations to be practised by pretended Christian. How shameful are all attempt to colour and excuse it!

As these people are not convicted of forfeiting freedom, they have still a natural, perfect right to it; and the Governments whenever they come should, in justice set them free, and punish those who hold them in slavery. So monstrous in the making and keeping them slaves at all, abstracted from the barbarous usage they suffer, and the many evils attending the practice; as selling husbands away from wives, children from parents, and from each other, in violation of sacred and natural ties; and opening the way for adulteries, incests, and many shocking consequences, for all of which the guilty Masters must answer to the final Judge.

If the slavery of the parents be unjust, much more is their children’s; if the parents were justly slaves, yet the children are born free; this is the natural, perfect right of all mankind; they are nothing but a just recompense to those who bring them up: And as much less is commonly spent on them than others, they have a right, in justice, to be proportionably sooner free.

Certainly, one may, with as much reason and decency, plead for murder, robbery, lewdness and barbarity, as for this practice: They are not more contrary to the natural dictates of Conscience, and feeling of Humanity; nay, they are all comprehended in it.

But the chief design of this paper is not to disprove it, which many have sufficiently done; but to entreat Americans to consider:

1. With what consistency, or decency they complain so loudly of attempts to enslave the, while they hold so many hundred thousands in slavery; and annually enslave many thousands more, without an pretence of authority, or claim upon them?

2. How just, how suitable to our crime is the punishment with which Providence threatens us? We have enslaved multitudes, and shed much innocent blood in doing it; and now are threatened with the same. And while other evils are confessed, and bewailed, why not this especially, and publicity; than which no other vice, if all others, has brought so much guilt on the land?

3. Whether, then, all ought not immediately to discontinue and renounce it, with grief and abhorrence? Should not every society bear testimony against it, and account obstinate persisters in it bad men, enemies to their country, and exclude them from fellowship; as they often do for much lesser faults?

4. The great Question may be ­- What should be done with those who are enslaved already? To turn the old and infirm free, would be injustice and cruelty; they who enjoyed the labours of the their better days should keep, and treat them humanely. As to the rest, let prudent men, with the assistance of legislatures, determine what is practicable for masters, and best for them. Perhaps some could give them lands upon reasonable rent, some, employing them in their labour still, might give them some reasonable allowances for it; so as all may have some property, and fruits of their labours at the own disposal, and be encouraged to industry; the family may live together, and enjoy the natural satisfaction of exercising relative affections and duties, with civil protection, and other advantages, like fellow men. Perhaps they might sometime form useful barrier settlements on the frontiers. Thus they may become interested in the public welfare, and assist in promoting it; instead of being dangerous, as now they are, should any enemy promise them a better condition.

5. The past treatment of Africans must naturally fill them with abhorrence of Christians; lead them to think our religion would make them more inhuman savages, if they embraced it; thus the gain of that trade has been pursued in oppositions of the redeemer’s cause, and the happiness of men: Are we not, therefore, bound in duty to him and to them to repair these injuries, as far as possible, by taking some proper measure to instruct, not only the slaves here, but the Africans in their own countries? Primitive Christians, laboured always to spread the Divine Religion; and this is equally our duty while there is an Heather nation: But what singular obligations are we under to these injured people!

These are the sentiments of

1775 — Novanglus No. 7 by Novanglus (John Adams)

Essay written in response to an article by a Loyalist (Judge Daniel Leonard, pen name Massachusettensis)
January, 1775

After a long discourse, which has nothing in it but what has been answered already, he comes to a great subject indeed, the British Constitution, and undertakes to prove, that “the authority of Parliament extends to the colonies.”

Why will not this writer state the question fairly? The Whigs allow that from the necessity of a case not provided for by common law, and to supply a defect in the British dominions which there undoubtedly is, if they are to be governed only by that law, America has all along consented, still consents and ever will consent, that Parliament, being the most powerful legislature in the dominions, should regulate the trade of the dominions. This is founding the authority of Parliament to regulate our trade upon compact and consent of the colonies, not upon any principle of common or statute law; not upon any original principle of the English Constitution; not upon the principle that Parliament is the supreme and sovereign legislature over them in all cases whatsoever. The question is not, therefore, whether the authority of Parliament extends to the colonies in any case, for it is admitted by the Whigs that it does in that of commerce; but whether it extends in all cases…

We are then detained with a long account of the three simple forms of government; and are told, “that the British Constitution, consisting of king, lords, and commons, is formed upon the principles of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, in due proportion; that it includes the principal excellences, and excludes the principal defects of the other kinds of government – the most perfect system that the wisdom of ages has produced, and Englishmen glory in being subject to, and protected by it.”

Then we are told, “that the colonies are a part of the British Empire.” But what are we to understand by this? Some of the colonies, most of them indeed were settled before the kingdom of Great Britain was brought into existence. The union of England and Scotland was made and established by Act of Parliament in the reign of Queen Anne, and it was this union and statute which erected the kingdom of Great Britain. The colonies were settled long before, in the reigns of the Jameses and Charleses. What authority over them had Scotland? Scotland, England, and the colonies were all under one king before that; the two crowns of England and Scotland united on the head of James I, and continued united on that of Charles I, when our first charter was granted. Our charter, being granted by him who was king of both nations, to our ancestors, most of whom were post nati, born after the union of the two crowns, and consequently (as was adjudged in Calvin’s case) free, natural subjects of Scotland as well as England – had not the king as good a right to have governed the colonies by his Scottish as by his English parliament, and to have granted our charters under the seal of Scotland as well as that of England?

But to waive this. If the English Parliament were to govern us, where did they get the right without our consent, to take the Scottish parliament into a participation of the government over us? When this was done, was the American share of the democracy of the Constitution consulted? If not, were not the Americans deprived of the benefit of the democratical part of the Constitution? And is not the democracy as essential to the English Constitution as the monarchy or aristocracy? Should we have been more effectually deprived of the benefit of the British or English Constitution, if one or both Houses of Parliament, or if our House and Council, had made this union with the two Houses of Parliament in Scotland, without the king?

If a new constitution was to be formed for the whole British dominions, and a supreme legislature coextensive with it, upon the general principles of the English Constitution, an equal mixture of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, let us see what would be necessary. England has six millions of people, we will say; America had three. England has five hundred members in the House of Commons, we will say; America must have two hundred and fifty. Is it possible she should maintain them there, or could they at such a distance know the state, the sense, or exigencies of their constituents? Ireland, too, must be incorporated, and send another hundred or two of members. The territory in the East Indies and West India Islands must send members. And after all this, every navigation act, every act of trade must be repealed. America, and the East and West Indies, and Africa too, must have equal liberty to trade with all the world, that the favored inhabitants of Great Britain have now. Will the ministry thank Massachusettensis for becoming an advocate for such a union, and incorporation of all the dominions of the King of Great Britain? Yet, without such a union, a legislature which shall be sovereign and supreme in all cases whatsoever, and coextensive with the empire, can never be established upon the general principles of the English Constitution which Massachusettensis lays down, namely, an equal mixture of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. Nay, further, in order to comply with this principle, this new government, this mighty colossus which is to bestride the narrow world, must have a House of Lords, consisting of Irish, East and West Indian, African, American, as well as English and Scottish noblemen; for the nobility ought to be scattered about all the dominions, as well as the representatives of the commons.

If in twenty years more America should have six millions of inhabitants, as there is a boundless territory to fill up, she must have five hundred representatives. Upon these principles, if in forty years she should have twelve millions, a thousand; and if the inhabitants of the three kingdoms remain as they are, being already full of inhabitants, what will become of your supreme legislative? It will be translated, crown and all, to America. This is a sublime system for America. It will flatter those ideas of independency which the Tories impute to them, if they have any such, more than any other plan of independency that I have ever heard projected.

“The best writers upon the law of nations tell us, that when a nation takes possession of a distant country, and settles there, that country, though separated from the principal establishment or mother country, naturally becomes a part of the state equal with its ancient possessions.” We are not told who these “best writers” are. I think we ought to be introduced to them. But their meaning may be no more than that it is best they should be incorporated with the ancient establishment by contract, or by some new law and institution, by which the new country shall have equal right, powers, and privileges, as well as equal protection, and be under equal obligations of obedience, with the old. Has there been any such contract between Britain and the colonies? Is America incorporated into the realm? Is it a part of the realm? Is it a part of the kingdom? Has it any share in the legislative of the realm? The Constitution requires that every foot of land should be represented in the third estate, the democratical branch of the Constitution. How many millions of acres in America, how many thousands of wealthy landholders, have no representatives there?

But let these “best writers” say what they will, there is nothing in the law of nations, which is only the law of right reason applied to the conduct of nations, that requires that emigrants from a state should continue, or be made, a part of the state.

The practice of nations has been different. The Greeks planted colonies, and neither demanded nor pretended any authority over them; but they became distinct, independent commonwealths. The Romans continued their colonies under the jurisdiction of the mother commonwealth, but nevertheless they allowed them the privileges of cities. Indeed, that sagacious city seems to have been aware of difficulties similar to those under which Great Britain is now laboring. She seems to have been sensible of the impossibility of keeping colonies planted at great distances, under the absolute control of her senatus-consulta. Harington tells us, that “the commonwealth of Rome, by planting colonies of its citizens within the bounds of Italy, took the best way of propagating itself and naturalizing the country; whereas, if it had planted such colonies without the bounds of Italy, it would have alienated the citizens, and given a root to liberty abroad, that might have sprung up foreign, or savage, and hostile to her; wherefore it never made any such dispersion of itself and its strength till it was under the yoke of the emperors, who, disburdening themselves of the people, as having less apprehension of what they could do abroad than at home, took a contrary course.” But these Italian cities, although established by decrees of the senate of Rome, to which the colonist was always party, either as a Roman citizen about to emigrate, or as a conquered enemy treating upon terms, were always allowed all the rights of Roman citizens, and were governed by senates of their own. It was the policy of Rome to conciliate her colonies by allowing them equal liberties with her citizens. Witness the example of the Privernates…

Having mentioned the wisdom of the Romans, for not planting colonies out of Italy, and their reasons for it, I cannot help recollecting an observation of Harington: “For the colonies in the Indies,” says he, “they are yet babes, that cannot live without sucking the breasts of their mother cities, but such as I mistake, if, when they come of age, they do not wean themselves, which causes me to wonder at princes that delight to be exhausted in that way.” This was written one hundred and twenty years ago; the colonies are now nearer manhood than ever Harington foresaw they would arrive in such a period of time. Is it not astonishing, then, that any British minister should ever have considered this subject so little as to believe it possible for him to new-model all our governments, to tax us by an authority that never taxed us before, and subdue us to an implicit obedience to a legislature that millions of us scarcely ever thought any thing about?

I have said, that the practice of free governments alone can be quoted with propriety to show the sense of nations. But the sense and practice of nations is not enough. Their practice must be reasonable, just, and right, or it will not govern Americans.

Absolute monarchies, whatever their practice may be, are nothing to us; for, as Harington observes, “Absolute monarchy, as that of the Turks, neither plants its people at home nor abroad, otherwise than as tenants for life or at will; wherefore, its national and provincial government is all one.”

I deny, therefore, that the practice of free nations, or the opinions of the best writers upon the law of nations, will warrant the position of Massachusettensis, that, “when a nation takes possession of a distant territory, that becomes a part of the state equally with its ancient possessions.” The practice of free nations and the opinions of the best writers are in general on the contrary.

I agree, that “two supreme and independent authorities cannot exist in the same state,” any more than two supreme beings in one universe; and, therefore, I contend, that our provincial legislatures are the only supreme authorities in our colonies. Parliament, notwithstanding this, may be allowed an authority supreme and sovereign over the ocean, which may be limited by the banks of the ocean, or the bounds of our charters; our charters give us no authority over the high seas. Parliament has our consent to assume a jurisdiction over them. And here is a line fairly drawn between the rights of Britain and the rights of the colonies, namely, the banks of the ocean, or low-water mark; the line of division between common law, and civil or maritime law. If this is not sufficient – if Parliament are at a loss for any principle of natural, civil, maritime, moral, or common law, on which to ground any authority over the high seas, the Atlantic especially, let the colonies be treated like reasonable creatures, and they will discover great ingenuity and modesty. The Acts of Trade and Navigation might be confirmed by provincial laws, and carried into execution by our own courts and juries, and in this case, illicit trade would be cut up by the roots forever. I knew the smuggling Tories in New York and Boston would cry out against this, because it would not only destroy their profitable game of smuggling, but their whole place and pension system. But the Whigs, that is, a vast majority of the whole continent, would not regard the smuggling Tories. In one word, if public principles, and motives, and arguments were alone to determine this dispute between the two countries, it might be settled forever in a few hours; but the everlasting clamors of prejudice, passion, and private interest drown every consideration of that sort, and are precipitating us into a civil war.

“If, then, we are a part of the British Empire, we must be subject to the supreme power of the state, which is vested in the estates in Parliament.”

Here, again, we are to be conjured out of our senses by the magic in the words “British Empire,” and “supreme power of the state.” But, however it may sound, I say we are not a part of the British Empire; because the British Government is not an empire. The governments of France, Spain, &c., are not empires, but monarchies, supposed to be governed by fixed fundamental laws, though not really. The British Government is still less entitled to the style of an “empire.” It is a limited monarchy. If Aristotle, Livy, and Harington knew what a republic was, the British Constitution is much more like a republic than an empire. They define a republic to be a government of laws, and not of men. If this definition be just, the British Constitution is nothing more nor less than a republic, in which the King is first magistrate. This office being hereditary, and being possessed of such ample and splendid prerogatives, is no objection to the government’s being a republic, as long as it is bound by fixed laws which the people have a voice in making, and a right to defend. An empire is a despotism, and an emperor a despot, bound by no law or limitation but his own will; it is a stretch of tyranny beyond absolute monarchy. For, although the will of an absolute monarch is law, yet his edicts must be registered by parliaments. Even this formality is not necessary in an empire. There the maxim is quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem, even without having that will and pleasure recorded. There are but three empires now in Europe, the German or Holy Roman, the Russian, and the Ottoman.

There is another sense, indeed, in which the word “empire” is used, in which it may be applied to the government of Geneva, or any other republic, as well as to monarchy or despotism. In this sense it is synonymous with government, rule, or dominion. In this sense we are within the dominion, rule, or government of the King of Great Britain.

The question should be, whether we are a part of the kingdom of Great Britain. This is the only language known in English laws. We are not, then, a part of the British kingdom, realm, or state; and therefore the supreme power of the kingdom, realm, or state is not, upon these principles, the supreme power of us. That “supreme power over America is vested in the estates in Parliament,” is an affront to us; for there is not an acre of American land represented there; there are no American estates in Parliament.

To say, that we “must be” subject, seems to betray a consciousness that we are not by any law, or upon any principles but those of mere power; and an opinion that we ought to be, or that it is necessary that we should be. But if this should be admitted for argument’s sake only, what is the consequence? The consequences that may fairly be drawn are these; that Britain has been imprudent enough to let colonies be planted, until they are become numerous and important, without ever having wisdom enough to concert a plan for their government, consistent with her own welfare; that now it is necessary to make them submit to the authority of Parliament; and, because there is no principle of law, or justice, or reason, by which she can effect it, therefore she will resort to war and conquest – to the maxim, delenda est Carthago. These are the consequences, according to this writer’s idea. We think the consequences are, that she has, after one hundred and fifty years, discovered a defect in her government, which ought to be supplied by some just and reasonable means, that is, by the consent of the colonies; for metaphysicians and politicians may dispute forever, but they will never find any other moral principle or foundation of rule or obedience, than the consent of governors and governed. She has found out that the great machine will not go any longer without a new wheel. She will make this herself. We think she is making it of such materials and workmanship as will tear the whole machine to pieces. We are willing, if she can convince us of the necessity of such a wheel, to assist with artists and materials in making it, so that it may answer the end. But she says, we shall have no share in it; and if we will not let her patch it up as she pleases, her Massachusettensis and other advocates tell us, she will tear it to pieces herself, by cutting our throats. To this kind of reasoning, we can only answer, that we will not stand still to be butchered. We will defend our lives as long as Providence shall enable us.

“It is beyond doubt, that it was the sense both of the parent country and our ancestors, that they were to remain subject to Parliament.”

This has been often asserted, and as often contradicted and fully confuted. The confutation may not, however, have come to every eye which has read this newspaper.

* * *

That the authority of Parliament “has been exercised almost ever since the first settlement of the country,” is a mistake; for there is no instance, until the first Navigation Act, which was in 1660, more than forty years after the first settlement. This Act was never executed nor regarded until seventeen years afterwards, and then it was not executed as an Act of Parliament, but as a law of the colony, to which the king agreed.

This “has been expressly acknowledged by our provincial legislatures.” There is too much truth in this. It has been twice acknowledged by our House of Representatives, that Parliament was the supreme legislative; but this was directly repugnant to a multitude of other votes, by which it was denied. This was in conformity to the distinction between taxation and legislation, which has since been found to be a distinction without a difference.

When a great question is first started, there are very few, even of the greatest minds, which suddenly and intuitively comprehend it, in all its consequences.

It is both “our interest and our duty to continue subject to the authority of Parliament,” as far as the regulation of our trade, if it will be content with that, but no longer.

“If the colonies are not subject to the authority of Parliament, Great Britain and the colonies must be distinct states, as completely so as England and Scotland were before the union, or as Great Britain and Hanover are now.” There is no need of being startled at this consequence. It is very harmless. There is no absurdity at all in it. Distinct states may be united under one king. And those states may be further cemented and united together by a treaty of commerce. This is the case. We have, by our own express consent, contracted to observe the Navigation Act, and by our implied consent, by long usage and uninterrupted acquiescence, have submitted to the other acts of trade, however grievous some of them may be. This may be compared to a treaty of commerce, by which those distinct states are cemented together, in perpetual league and amity. And if any further ratifications of this pact or treaty are necessary, the colonies would readily enter into them, provided their other liberties were inviolate.

That “the colonies owe no allegiance to any imperial crown,” provided such a crown involves in it a house of lords and a house of commons, is certain. Indeed, we owe no allegiance to any crown at all. We owe allegiance to the person of His Majesty, King George III, whom God preserve. But allegiance is due universally, both from Britons and Americans, to the person of the king, not to his crown; to his natural, not his politic capacity, as I will undertake to prove hereafter, from the highest authorities, and the most solemn adjudications, which were ever made within any part of the British dominions.

If His Majesty’s title to the crown is “derived from an act of Parliament, made since the settlement of these colonies,” it was not made since the date of our charter. Our charter was granted by King William and Queen Mary, three years after the revolution; and the oaths of allegiance are established by a law of the province. So that our allegiance to His Majesty is not due by virtue of any Act of a British Parliament, but by our own charter and province laws. It ought to be remembered that there was a revolution here, as well as in England, and that we, as well as the people of England, made an original, express contract with King William.

If it follows from thence, that he appears “King of Massachusetts, King of Rhode Island, King of Connecticut, &c.,” this is no absurdity at all. He will appear in this light, and does appear so, whether Parliament has authority over us or not. He is King of Ireland, I suppose, although Parliament is allowed to have authority there. As to giving His Majesty those titles, I have no objection at all; I wish he would be graciously pleased to assume them.

The only proposition in all this writer’s long string of pretended absurdities, which he says follows from the position that we are distinct states, is this: That “as the King must govern each state by its Parliament, those several Parliaments would pursue the particular interest of its own state; and however well disposed the king might be to pursue a line of interest that was common to all, the checks and control that he would meet with would render it impossible.” Every argument ought to be allowed its full weight; and therefore candor obliges me to acknowledge, that here lies all the difficulty that there is in this whole controversy. There has been, from the first to last, on both sides of the Atlantic, an idea, an apprehension, that it was necessary there should be some superintending power, to draw together all the wills, and unite all the strength of the subjects in all the dominions, in case of war, and in the case of trade. The necessity of this, in case of trade, has been so apparent, that, as has often been said, we have consented that Parliament should exercise such a power. In case of war, it has by some been thought necessary. But in fact and experience, it has not been found so. What though the proprietary colonies, on account of disputes with the proprietors, did not come in so early to the assistance of the general cause in the last war as they ought, and perhaps one of them not at all? The inconveniences of this were small, in comparison of the absolute ruin to the liberties of all which must follow the submission to Parliament, in all cases, which would be giving up all the popular limitations upon the government. These inconveniences fell chiefly upon New England. She was necessitated to greater exertions; but she had rather suffer these again and again than others infinitely greater. However, this subject has been so long in contemplation, that it is fully understood now in all the colonies; so that there is no danger, in case of another war, of any colony’s failing of its duty.

But, admitting the proposition in its full force, that it is absolutely necessary there should be a supreme power, coextensive with all the dominions, will it follow that parliament, as now constituted, has a right to assume this supreme jurisdiction? By no means.

A union of the colonies might be projected, and an American legislature; for, if America has three millions of people, and the whole dominions, twelve millions, she ought to send a quarter part of all the members to the House of Commons; and, instead of holding parliaments always at Westminster, the haughty members for Great Britain must humble themselves, one session in four, to cross the Atlantic, and hold the parliament In America.

There is no avoiding all inconveniences in human affairs. The greatest possible, or conceivable, would arise from ceding to Parliament power over us without a representation in it. The next greatest would accrue from any plan that can be devised for a representation there. The least of all would arise from going on as we began, and fared well for one hundred and fifty years, by letting Parliament regulate trade, and our own assemblies all other matters.

* * *

We are a part of the British dominions, that is, of the King of Great Britain, and it is our interest and duty to continue so. It is equally our interest and duty to continue subject to the authority of Parliament in the regulation of our trade, as long as she shall leave us to govern our internal policy, and to give and grant our own money, and no longer. This letter concludes with an agreeable flight of fancy. The time may not be so far off, however, as this writer imagines, when the colonies may have the balance of numbers and wealth in their favor. But when that shall happen, if we should attempt to rule her by an American Parliament, without an adequate representation in it, she will infallibly resist us by her arms.

1775 — Declaration on Taking up Arms by John Dickinson

A declaration by the representatives of the united colonies of North America, now met in Congress at Philadelphia, setting forth the causes and necessity of their taking up arms.

If it was possible for men, who exercise their reason to believe, that the divine Author of our existence intended a part of the human race to hold an absolute property in, and an unbounded power over others, marked out by his infinite goodness and wisdom, as the objects of a legal domination never rightfully resistible, however severe and oppressive, the inhabitants of these colonies might at least require from the parliament of Great-Britain some evidence, thatthis dreadful authority over them, has been granted to that body. But a reverance for our Creator, principles of humanity, and the dictates of common sense, must convince all those who reflect upon the subject, that government was instituted to promote the welfare of mankind, and ought to be administered for the attainment of that end. The legislature of Great-Britain, however, stimulated by an inordinate passion for a power not only unjustifiable, but which they know to be peculiarly reprobated by the very constitution of that kingdom, and desparate of success in any mode of contest, where regard should be had to truth, law, or right, have at length, deserting those, attempted to effect their cruel and impolitic purpose of enslaving these colonies by violence, and have thereby rendered it necessary for us to close with their last appeal from reason to arms. Yet, however blinded that assembly may be, by their intemperate rage for unlimited domination, so to sight justice and the opinion of mankind, we esteem ourselves bound by obligations of respect to the rest of the world, to make known the justice of our cause. Our forefathers, inhabitants of the island of Great-Britain, left their native land, to seek on these shores a residence for civil and religious freedom. At the expense of their blood, at the hazard of their fortunes, without the least charge to the country from which they removed, by unceasing labour, and an unconquerable spirit, they effected settlements in the distant and unhospitable wilds of America, then filled with numerous and warlike barbarians. — Societies or governments, vested with perfect legislatures, were formed under charters from the crown, and an harmonious intercourse was established between the colonies and the kingdom from which they derived their origin. The mutual benefits of this union became in a short time so extraordinary, as to excite astonishment. It is universally confessed, that the amazing increase of the wealth, strength, and navigation of the realm, arose from this source; and the minister, who so wisely and successfully directed the measures of Great-Britain in the late war, publicly declared, that these colonies enabled her to triumph over her enemies. –Towards the conclusion of that war, it pleased our sovereign to make a change in his counsels. — From that fatal movement, the affairs of the British empire began to fall into confusion, and gradually sliding from the summit of glorious prosperity, to which they had been advanced by the virtues and abilities of one man, are at length distracted by the convulsions, that now shake it to its deepest foundations. — The new ministry finding the brave foes of Britain, though frequently defeated, yet still contending, took up the unfortunate idea of granting them a hasty peace, and then subduing her faithful friends.

These colonies were judged to be in such a state, as to present victories without bloodshed, and all the easy emoluments of statuteable plunder. — The uninterrupted tenor of their peaceable and respectful behaviour from the beginning of colonization, their dutiful, zealous, and useful services during the war, though so recently and amply acknowledged in the most honourable manner by his majesty, by the late king, and by parliament, could not save them from the meditated innovations. — Parliament was influenced to adopt the pernicious project, and assuming a new power over them, have in the course of eleven years, given such decisive specimens of the spirit and consequences attending this power, as to leave no doubt concerning the effects of acquiescence under it. They have undertaken to give and grant our money without our consent, though we have ever exercised an exclusive right to dispose of our own property; statutes have been passed for extending the jurisdiction of courts of admiralty and vice-admiralty beyond their ancient limits; for depriving us of the accustomed and inestimable privilege of trial by jury, in cases affecting both life and property; for suspending the legislature of one of the colonies; for interdicting all commerce to the capital of another; and for altering fundamentally the form of government established by charter, and secured by acts of its own legislature solemnly confirmed by the crown; for exempting the “murderers” of colonists from legal trial, and in effect, from punishment; for erecting in a neighbouring province, acquired by the joint arms of Great-Britain and America, a despotism dangerous to our very existence; and for quartering soldiers upon the colonists in time of profound peace. It has also been resolved in parliament, that colonists charged with committing certain offences, shall be transported to England to be tried. But why should we enumerate our injuries in detail? By one statute it is declared, that parliament can “of right make laws to bind us in all cases whatsoever.” What is to defend us against so enormous, so unlimited a power? Not a single man of those who assume it, is chosen by us; or is subject to our control or influence; but, on the contrary, they are all of them exempt from the operation of such laws, and an American revenue, if not diverted from the ostensible purposes for which it is raised, would actually lighten their own burdens in proportion, as they increase ours. We saw the misery to which such despotism would reduce us. We for ten years incessantly and ineffectually besieged the throne as supplicants; we reasoned, we remonstrated with parliament, in the most mild and decent language.

Administration sensible that we should regard these oppressive measures as freemen ought to do, sent over fleets and armies to enforce them. The indignation of the Americans was roused, it is true; but it was the indignation of a virtuous, loyal, and affectionate people. A Congress of delegates from the United Colonies was assembled at Philadelphia, on the fifth day of last September. We resolved again to offer an humble and dutiful petition to the King, and also addressed our fellow-subjects of Great-Britain. We have pursued every temperate, every respectful measure; we have even proceeded to break off our commercial intercourse with our fellow-subjects, as the last peaceable admonition, that our attachment to no nation upon earth should supplant our attachment to liberty. — This, we flattered ourselves, was the ultimate step of the controversy: but subsequent events have shewn, how vain was this hope of finding moderation in our enemies.

Several threatening expressions against the colonies were inserted in his majesty’s speech; our petition, tho’ we were told it was a decent one, and that his majesty had been pleased to receive it graciously, and to promise laying it before his parliament, was huddled into both houses among a bundle of American papers, and there neglected. The lords and commons in their address, in the month of February, said, that “a rebellion at that time actually existed within the province of Massachusetts-Bay; and that those concerned with it, had been countenanced and encouraged by unlawful combinations and engagements, entered into by his majesty’s subjects in several of the other colonies; and therefore they besought his majesty, that he would take the most effectual measures to inforce due obediance to the laws and authority of the supreme legislature.” — Soon after, the commercial intercourse of whole colonies, with foreign countries, and with each other, was cut off by an act of parliament; by another several of them were intirely prohibited from the fisheries in the seas near their coasts, on which they always depended for their sustenance; and large reinforcements of ships and troops were immediately sent over to general Gage.

Fruitless were all the entreaties, arguments, and eloquence of an illustrious band of the most distinguished peers, and commoners, who nobly and strenuously asserted the justice of our cause, to stay, or even to mitigate the heedless fury with which these accumulated and unexampled outrages were hurried on. — equally fruitless was the interference of the city of London, of Bristol, and many other respectable towns in our favor. Parliament adopted an insidious manoeuvre calculated to divide us, to establish a perpetual auction of taxations where colony should bid against colony, all of them uninformed what ransom would redeem their lives; and thus to extort from us, at the point of the bayonet, the unknown sums that should be sufficient to gratify, if possible to gratify, ministerial rapacity, with the miserable indulgence left to us of raising, in our own mode, the prescribed tribute. What terms more rigid and humiliating could have been dictated by remorseless victors to conquered enemies? in our circumstances to accept them, would be to deserve them.

Soon after the intelligence of these proceedings arrived on this continent, general Gage, who in the course of the last year had taken possession of the town of Boston, in the province of Massachusetts-Bay, and still occupied it a garrison, on the 19th day of April, sent out from that place a large detachment of his army, who made an unprovoked assault on the inhabitants of the said province, at the town of Lexington, as appears by the affidavits of a great number of persons, some of whom were officers and soldiers of that detachment, murdered eight of the inhabitants, and wounded many others. From thence the troops proceeded in warlike array to the town of Concord, where they set upon another party of the inhabitants of the same province, killing several and wounding more, until compelled to retreat by the country people suddenly assembled to repel this cruel aggression. Hostilities, thus commenced by the British troops, have been since prosecuted by them without regard to faith or reputation. — The inhabitants of Boston being confined within that town by the general their governor, and having, in order to procure their dismission, entered into a treaty with him, it was stipulated that the said inhabitants having deposited their arms with their own magistrate, should have liberty to depart, taking with them their other effects. They accordingly delivered up their arms, but in open violation of honour, in defiance of the obligation of treaties, which even savage nations esteemed sacred, the governor ordered the arms deposited as aforesaid, that they might be preserved for their owners, to be seized by a body of soldiers; detained the greatest part of the inhabitants in the town, and compelled the few who were permitted to retire, to leave their most valuable effects behind.

By this perfidy wives are separated from their husbands, children from their parents, the aged and the sick from their relations and friends, who wish to attend and comfort them; and those who have been used to live in plenty and even elegance, are reduced to deplorable distress.

The general, further emulating his ministerial masters, by a proclamation bearing date on the 12th day of June, after venting the grossest falsehoods and calumnies against the good people of these colonies, proceeds to “declare them all, either by name or description, to be rebels and traitors, to supercede the course of the common law, and instead thereof to publish and order the use and exercise of the law martial.” — His troops have butchered our countrymen, have wantonly burnt Charlestown,besides a considerable number of houses in other places; our ships and vessels are seized; the necessary supplies of provisions are intercepted, and he is exerting his utmost power to spread destruction and devastation around him.

We have rceived certain intelligence, that general Carleton, the governor of Canada, is instigating the people of that province and the Indians to fall upon us; and we have but too much reason to apprehend, that schemes have been formed to excite domestic enemies against us. In brief, a part of these colonies now feel, and all of them are sure of feeling, as far as the vengeance of administration can inflict them, the complicated calamities of fire, sword and famine. We are reduced to the alternative of chusing an unconditional submission to the tyranny of irritated ministers, or resistance by force. — The latter is our choice. — We have counted the cost of this contest, and find nothing so dreadful as voluntary slavery. — Honour, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them, if we basely entail hereditary bondage upon them.

Our cause is just. Our union is perfect. Our internal resources are great, and, if necessary, foreign assistance is undoubtedly attainable. — We gratefully acknowledge, as signal instances of the Divine favour towards us, that his Providence would not permit us to be called into this severe controversy, until we were grown up to our present strength, had been previously exercised in warlike operation, and possessed of the means of defending ourselves. With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly, before God and the world, declare, that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers, which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverence, employ for the preservation of our liberties; being with one mind resolved to die freemen rather thanto live slaves.

Lest this declaration should disquiet the minds of our friends and fellow-subjects in any part of the empire, we assure them that we mean not to dissolve that union which has so long and so happily subsisted between us, and which we sincerely wish to see restored. — Necessity has not yet driven us into that desperate measure, or induced us to excite any other nation to war against them. — We have not raised armies with ambitious designs of separating from Great-Britain, and establishing independent states. We fight not for glory or for conquest. We exhibit to mankind the remarkable spectacle of a people attacked by unprovoked enemies, without any imputation or even suspicion of offence. They boast of their privileges and civilization, and yet proffer no milder conditions than servitude or death.

In our own native land, in defence of the freedom that is our birthright, and which we ever enjoyed till the late violation of it — for the protection of our property, acquired solely by the honest industry of our fore-fathers and ourselves, against violence actually offered, we have taken up arms. We shall lay them down when hostilities shall cease on the part of the aggressors, and all danger of their being renewed shall be removed, and not before.

With an humble confidence in the mercies of the supreme and impartial Judge and Ruler of the Universe, we most devoutly implore his divine goodness to protect us happily through this great conflict, to dispose our adversaries to reconciliation on reasonable terms, and thereby to relieve the empire from the calamities of civil war.

1775 — Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death by Patrick Henry

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free– if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending–if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained–we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace– but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!