The Founding of the American Republic 7; C. Carson

It became clear rather quickly that George III intended to change much of this. He meant to bring the executive authority into his hands and to direct the course of Dr. Carson lives in Florida. He is a noted lec turer and author, his latest book entitled Throttling the Railroads.

1972 THE FIRST AMERICAN CRISIS: 1763-1766 113 Parliament as well. George III was a man of strong will - un bendably stubborn when he had set his mind on a course-much courage, and already in grasp of some of the principles of power when he was crowned. One of his first acts was to dis place William Pitt, the Elder, from leadership of the government. Be yond that, he acted to break up the dominance of the Whig party, pro fessing to want members of the cabinet who were the ablest in stead of those who belonged to a particular party, but probably moved also to this as a means of loosening Whig rule. His method of dominating Parliament was not particularly subtle: he bought the necessary numbers by handing out sinecures to those who would do his will. He visualized himself as a patriot king who would not only restore some of the glory of mon archy but also instill pride and greatness in the people over whom he ruled. Instead, it was his lot to see the dismemberment of his empire and the British people de termined to limit the power once again of a briefly resurgent mon archy.

Harsh Rule and Additional Appointments This new king's determination to rule as well as to reign affected the colonial situation in two ways particularly. Whig ministers had generally ruled with an eye to ward accommodating the Amer icans rather than using undue force. For example, Pitt arranged to reimburse the colonies for their effort during. the French and In dian War rather than insist that they should honor requisitions without hope of return. Over the years, Parliament had permitted the colonies to legislate for them selves - subject to having their acts vetoed, of course - rather than imposing legislation upon them for their internal arrange ments. As the new monarch broke up this Whig rule, he appointed officers more concerned with im posing British rule and less con cerned with maintaining good trade relations which would ben efit British merchants. Secondly, the new monarch aug mented his power by increasing the number of appointive posi tions. By appointments he re warded his friends in Parliament and increased the number of peo ple who owed their positions to him. This fact of political life gave George III incentive to main tain larger armies and navies as well as more civilian agents in the colonies. That such actions did not endear the monarch to his colonial subjects did not. greatly trouble him during the early years of his rule.

114 THE FREEMAN February Writs of Assistance, 1761 It is difficult to decide exactly when the train of events got un der way which led to open re sistance in the colonies. The Brit ish government adopted a more rigorous enforcement of the navi gation laws during the French and Indian War. As already noted, George III came to the throne in 1760. Convention has it that the train of events began in earnest in 1763. But there was one bell wether event which occurred in the colonies· before that time. It involved a court case which was argued in 1761 in Massachusetts over the issuance of writs of as sistance in that colony. A writ of assistance was a kind of general search warrant without a fixed date of termination which would enable officers to search for mer chandise illegally brought into the colonies. Unlike a search warrant, it did not require the naming of the place to be searched or what goods were to be located. Such writs had been issued in 1755, and there were applications for new ones after George III came to the throne.

James Otis took the leadership in opposing the issuance of new writs before the court in the old townhouse in Boston. If Otis had contented himself to argue against the issuance of the writs on the grounds simply that there were few precedents for them in more recent times, the occasion might not have been remembered. But he went much further than this: he proclaimed such writs to be con trary to reason and denounced them as arbitrary and tyrannical by nature. According to John Ad ams' reconstruction of his speech, he said: "Everyone with this writ may be a tyrant; if this commis sion be legal, a tyrant in a legal manner also may control, im prison, or murder anyone within the realm. . . . Every man may reign secure in his petty tyranny, and spread terror and desolation around him."I He declared his op position to them in emotionally charged language: "I will to my dying day oppose with all the pow ers and faculties God has given me, all such instruments of slavery on the one hand, and· villany on the other, as this writ of assistance is."2 J ames Otis lost this particular case before the court, but he emerged from it as the man who would take the earliest leadership in presenting and arguing the American cause. His local popu larity was vouchsafed in the-en suing .election when he became representative for Boston in the 1 John Braeman, The Road to Inde pendence (New York: Capricorn Books, 1963), p. 14.

2 Ibid., p. 13.

1972 THE FIRST AMERICAN CRISIS: 1763-1766 115 Massachusetts legislature. For the next three or four years he used his pen as well as his forensic abilities to formulate and expound the rights of Americans and the limits of British rule. Whether he would have continued his early leadership role in the later stages of resistance will never be known, for he was inactivated by bouts with insanity after 1769. Turning Point in 1763 A cluster of events in 1763 does mark a turning point in British and American relations, as has been commonly held. Up to that point, there is no evidence of re sistance to British rule, though, of course, there were objections to particular actions. To all outward appearances, Americans generally accepted British rule if it could not be said that they were always contented with it. In retrospect, historians are apt to see' that the stage was already set for independence. Trends were well on their way to fruition which prepared the way for Amer ican separation. Americans were very nearly cut loose already from the Church of England which was the religious basis of being En glish. Colonists had much experi ence in politics which prepared them for governing themselves.

There was widespread sensitivity to any dangers to liberty in actions by the British government. The natural law philosophy was familiar to thinkers, and was at hand to serve as a basis both for breaking from England and erect ing new governments. Feudal, mercantile, and religious restric tions were very nearly anachron isms in America already. Even so, Americans were a long way from being ready for inde pendence in 1763. The above were conditions which might well have continued to exist for a long while without leading to independence. Americans still professed their allegiance to the king, as they would continue to do for more than a decade. Their rights and privileges they still traced to Eng land, and the claims to their prop erty to royal grants. There was as yet neither a sense of unity among the continental colonies nor any factual unity, except for a com mon allegiance to the British mon arch.The conference at Albany in 1754 had shown how little desire there was for common action by the colonists.

Resistance to Britain, then, was provoked by changes in British policies, and these began most notably with a cluster of actions in 1763. Most of what happened in 1763 was not so much the pro vocation of resistance as the pre lude to it. One of the most momen tous of the developments of that 116 THE FREEMAN February year was not provocative at all. It was the Treaty of Paris which brought to a conclusion the Seven Year's War. By its terms, Britain got all French territory in Canada and all territory east of the Mis sissippi river, except New Orleans, belonging to both France and Spain. No longer were the Amer ican colonies threatened by Euro pean powers with immediately ad jacent territories. It was now much easier to think in terms of independence from Britain. Restrictions on opening up this new terri tory did provoke many colonists. Pontiac's Rebellion broke out as Indians feared and resisted encroachment by. the white man in the interior. The British government attemped to prevent settlement beyond the mountains by the Proclamation of 1763. The crucial part of the Proclamation is found in this pro hibition: "that no governor or commander in chief of our other colonies or plantations in America, do presume for the present, and until our further pleasure be known, to grant warrant of sur vey, or pass patents for any lands beyond the heads or sources of any of the rivers which fall into the Atlantic Ocean from the west or north west .... "3 The effect of 3 Jack P. Greene, ed., Colonies to Na tion (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967), pp.

17-18. this on colonists has been de scribed in this way: "The estab lishment of the boundary line of 1763 blocked at once the plans of land companies such as the Ohio Company of Virginia which had a grant west of the line, and the schemes of new companies which planned to take up land in the Ohio and Mississippi valleys. The whole region on which men had fastened such high hopes was now reserved to the despised Indians."4 These restrictions were particu larly galling in view of the fact that taxes were shortly to be levied on the colonists to help pay for their defense. The "Parson's Cause" Another symptomatic event oc curred in 1763. It is known as the "Parson's Cause." It was a symp tom both of the potential for re sistance to British impositions and of the limits to that resistance at this time. The "Parson's Cause" was a court case arising out of the payment of the Angli can clergy in Virginia. A Virginia Act of 1748 provided that each such clergyman should have an annual salary of sixteen thousand pounds of tobacco. Confronted with a crop failure in 1758, the Virginia legislature authorized 4 Merrill Jensen, The Founding of a Nation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968), PP. 58-59.

1972 THE FIRST AMERICAN CRISIS: 1763-1766 117 that all debts and taxes payable in tobacco could be paid at the rate of two pence per pound of tobacco, a rate of about one-third the price that tobacco was bring ing. The Privy Council in England disallowed the law, and some cler gymen sued for damages. The most famous suit was brought by the Reverend James Maury. The court found the law invalid and remanded the case to trial before a jury to determine the amount of damages to be paid. The case attained its fame be cause of the efforts of Patrick Henry, who was one of the lawyers opposing Maury. Patrick Henry's arena was politics, and the en deavor in which he excelled was oratory. It took him a while to discover this. He was an undis tinguished student. He tried his hand twice at storekeeping, and was a failure both times. His ef forts at becoming a farmer met with a like reward. He then studied law briefly, and was ad mitted to practice at the age of 24. He rapidly acquired a sizable practice, and emerged as a popu lar political leader and a much sought after lawyer following the "Parson's Cause." His fiery ora tory in defense of colonial rights eventually earned him a special niche in history books and a unique position among American heroes.

Enter Patrick Henry According to the Reverend Mr. Maury, who was, of course, a biased witness, Patrick Henry 'harrangued .the jury for nea.r an hour" toward the close of the case known as "Parson's Cause." He argued that the Virginia Act of 1758 met all the qualifications of good law, and "that a King, by disallowing Acts of this salutary nature, from being the father of his people, degenerated into a Ty rant and forfeits all right to his subjects' obedience." Moreover, he declared that it was the duty of the clergy of an established church to support law, and not to be going into the courts to challenge it. The jury upheld Mr. Maury's claim, as it was informed by the court it must, and awarded him one pen ny's damage for his losses. British rule had been technically vindi cated, but everyone perceived that Henry had, in fact, won the case. His remarks about the king's be coming a tyrant were greeted with murmurs of "treason,"5 but nei ther judge nor jury reproved him.

Virginians were used to maneuv ers by which the will of British rulers was thwarted. There was nothing new in this. Henry's rhe toric was audacious, however, and the reward he received in public admiration suggests that senti ment was shifting away from 5 See Braeman, Ope cit., pp. 17-19.

118 THE FREEMAN February ancient loyalties toward new vi sions. Occasions for expressing these changing sentiments were not long in coming. In fact, a change in ministries in Britain had oc curred before some of the above events which set the stage for pro vocative action. In April of 1763, George Grenville became Chancel lor of the Exchequer and formed around him a new government. Grenville should have been able to deal with Britain's financial problems, if anyone could, for he had long experience in finance. He had served earlier as a lord of the treasury and as treasurer of the navy. Moreover, "Grenville's chief concern was revenue and economy; they were his passion, which he pursued relentlessly .... He could not endure the sight of red ink, an unbalanced budget, or waste and extravagance .... "6 King George found him to be a bore with his interminable talk of money, but Grenville was the man given the task of doing something, and do something he did from 1763 to 1765.

George Grenville's ministry was responsible for two major Jines of action on the American colonies. One was the tightening of admin istration and enforcement of the 6 John C. Miller, Origins of the Ameri can Revolution (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1943), p. 83. laws. The other was the passage of laws which were aimed at rais ing revenue from the colonies. An apparently casual action by Par liament in 1763 set the stage for much that followed. In March of that year funds were voted for maintaining a standing army in America. This was handled with out much ado, since there was already an army in America in connection with the war. Gren ville had a more direct hand in stationing naval vessels in Amer ica. He was First Lord of the Admiralty, and had much to do with getting the la.w passed which effected this. "The law gave naval officers power to act as customs officials.... By the autumn of 1763, naval vessels were cruising in American waters from New foundland to the West Indies, with their officers and crews on the alert for the profits to be gained from the capture and successful prosecution of illegal traders."7 A profound change was occurring between Britain and her colonies; the decision to have military force available was a prelude to in creased exercise of authority by Britain. This change could be made with little fanfare because it did not differ on the surface from what had just been done during the French and Indian War.

1 Jensen, Ope cit., p. 45.

1972 THE FIRST AMERICAN CRISIS: 1763-1766 119 That Grenville meant business should have been clear from his orders to customs officials in 1763. Appointments to major customs posts in the colonies had long been sinecures for Englishmen. Quite often they drew their pay while continuing to reside in Britain. Grenville decreed that henceforth they must reside in America. Many who held such positions re signed rather than to go to Iive in the colonies, and new officers were appointed in their stead. Grenville took the lead in get ting much new legislation for the colonies in 1764. The key· piece of legislation is the one usually re ferred to as the Sugar Act, though it dealt with a great deal more than sugar. The act lowered the duties on molasses coming into the colonies, prohibited the importa tion of rum, added items to the enumerated lists, and provided strenuous regulations on shipping for its enforcement. The greatest departure from precedent in it was that it was designed to raise rev enue. The preamble reads, in part: "Whereas it is expedient that new provisions and regulations should be established for improving the revenue of this kingdom ... : and whereas it is just and necessary, that a revenue be raised, in your Majesty's said dominions in Amer ica, for defraying the expences of defending, protecting, and securing the same; we ... have resolved to give and grant unto your Majes ty the several rates and duties herein after mentioned."8 Regulations on Shipping Even more galling to many peo ple involved may have been the onerous regulations on shipping from the British West Indies. Cap tains of vessels had to haveaffi davits, certificates, definitive list ings of goods, and had to post bond. Moreover, the burden of proof that he had in every way complied with the law was placed on the shipper in order to reclaim a vessel after it had been seized by the authorities. The Act read, in part: "... if any ship or goods shall be seized for any cause of forfeiture, and any dispute shall arise whether the customs and du ties for such goods have been paid, or the same have been lawfully imported or exported, or concern ing the growth, product, or manu facture, of such goods ... , the proof thereof shall lie upon the owner or claimer .... "9 In addi tion, the act provided mandatory decisions for juries, partially, at least, taking discretion from them.

"The result of these provisions was to free· customs officers from virtually all responsibility for their actions.· . . . Small wonder 8 Greene, op. cit., p. 19. 9 Ibid., p. 24.

120 THE FREEMAN February that the Americans fought back."lo The Currency Act of 1764 was yet another attempt of the British government to impose its author ity. This act forbade the colonies south of New England to make any further issues of paper money which would be legal tender in any sense. They were now to be at the mercy of a money situation which was artificially tipped in favor of Britain. The colonists had hardly had time to take in the implications of the Sugar Act when Parliament passed the Stamp Act. It was passed in March of 1765. The Stamp Act required that after N0 vember 1, 1765, stamps be used on all legal papers, commercial pa pers, liquor licenses, land instru ments, indentures, cards, dice, pamphlets, newspapers, advertise ments,. almanacs, academic de grees, and appointments to office. The money collected from the sale of stamps was to go to the British treasury to be used for expenses inc.urred in America. This act was the most clear-cut departure from tradition yet made by the British government, for it placed a direct tax on the Americans, something that had not been done before.

It was followed in very short or der by an indirect taxing measure, an act known as the Quartering Act, passed in May of 1765. The 10 Jensen, OPt cit., p. 51. act provided for the quartering of troops in the facilities of colonial governments, in alehouses and inns, and in ~noccupied dwellings. So far, so good, but the act also provided that "all such officers and soldiers, so put and placed in such barracks ... be furnished and sup plied there by the persons to be authorized or appointed for that purpose . . . with fire, candles, vinegar, and salt, bedding, uten sils for dressing their victuals . . . without paying any thing for the same. That the respective prov inces shall pay unto such person or persons all such sum or sums of money so by them paid .... "11 In short, the colonies were to be indirectly taxed for the maintain ing of troops in quarters; they might levy such taxes themselves, but they were to be. compelled to do so.

However, the fat was already in the fire well before news of the Quartering Act had reached Amer ica. Resistance was mounting in America even before the Stamp Act was passed. Some were alarmed by the revenue aims of the Sugar Act, perceiving in it a violation of the principle of taxa tion without representation. "When it was learned in Boston that the British government in tended to collect duties on foreign molasses, the merchants appointed 11 Greene, OPt cit., p. 44.

1972 THE FIRST AMERICAN CRISIS: 1763-1766 121 a corresponding committee to con solidate the opposition of the Northern merchants to the Sugar Act and to 'promote a. union and coalition' of their councils.' "12 The New York legislature denied the justice of duties placed on the trade of New Yorkers, and de clared that it was their right to be free of involuntary taxes. 13 But it was resistance to the Stamp Act that drew the colonies together in a unity of opposition. Opposition was shaping up even before the act was passed. Nor was Parliament wanting in oppo nents of the taxing idea. VVhen Charles Townshend asked: "VVill these Americans, children planted by our care, nourished up by our indulgence ... ,will they grudge to contribute their mite ... ?" He was answered in resounding terms in a speech by Sir Isaac Barre: They planted by your care? No! Your oppressions planted 'em in America. They fled from your op pression ....

They nourished by your indul gence? They grew up by your neglect of 'em. As soon as you began to care about 'em, that care was exercised in sending persons to rule over 'em.... They protected by your .arms? They have nobly taken up. arms in your defence. . . .14 12 Miller, Ope cit., p. 10l. 13 Jensen, Ope cit., pp. 94-95. 14 Ibid., pp. 63-64. This was the famous "Sons of Lib erty" speech, for Barre used the phrase in describing the Ameri cans, and it came· to be used as the basis of organizations in America. Befort the Stamp Act was passed, several colonial legislatures went on record as opposing it. All this was to no avail, the die had been cast in 1764, and Parliament pro ceeded to the enactment of a direct tax. American Sentiment Misread Not only was Parliament misin formed as to the probable recep tion of the act in America, but even colonial agents representing colonies in England had misj udged American sentiment· and determi nation. Several agents accepted commissions as stamp agents, ac tions which they were to regret.

Even the usually prudent Benja min Franklin caused friends to be appointed stamp agents and ex pressed himself of the opinion that the wise course would be to abide by the law. 15 Whether it would have been wise to do so or not, obedience was not the course followed in Amer ica. On the contrary, Americans moved from opposition to resis tance to outright defiance. Colo nial legislatures adopted resolu15 See Lawrence H. Gipson, The Coming of the Revolution (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1962),p.83.

122 THE FREEMAN February tions against the tax. Virginia led the way under the prodding of Patrick Henry. He charged that the Stamp Act was an act of tyr anny and was reported to have de clared ': "Tarquin and Caesar had each his Brutus, Charles the First his Cromwell, and George the Third -" The Speaker of the House interrupted him to declare that he had spoken "Treason!" With only a brief pause, Henry continued: "- may profit by their example! If this be treason, make the most of it."16 Not all of Hen ry's resolutions were adopted by the House of Burgesses (though they were all published in news papers elsewhere), but, of those that were, the following gives the crux of the argument: Resolved. That the taxation of the people by themselves, or by persons chosen by themselves to represent them, who can only know what taxes the people are able to bear, or the easiest method of raising them, and must themselves be affected by every tax laid on the people, is the only security against a burthensome tax ation, and the distinguishing charac teristick of' British freedom, without which the ancient constitution cannot exist.l 1 Massachusetts sought to go be yond the action of separate reso 16 Ibid., p. 87.

17 Richard B. Morris, The American Revolution (Princeton: D. Van Nostrand, 1955), P. 90. lutions by colonial legislatures to some sort of common action. The assembly of that colony, therefore, sent out a call for a congress. It was fulfilled, at least partia.lly, by the meeting of the Stamp Act Congress in New York in October ,of 1765. Six legislatures sent dele gates, and three other colonies were represented by delegates not so formally chosen. The delegates in Congress assembled affirmed their allegiance to the king and their willing subordination to Parliament when it acted proper ly. But they resolved that there were limits to this authority, some of which they spelled out: That it is inseparably essential to the freedom of a people, and the un doubted right of Englishmen, that no taxes be imposed on them but with their own consent, given personally or by their representatives ....

That the only representatives of the people of these colonies are per sons chosen therein by themselves, and that no taxes ever have been or can be constitutionally imposed on them, but by their respective legisla tures. IS The most dramatic action, of course, was direct action. The groundwork was laid for direct action by the Committees of Cor respondence, and much of it was done by the Sons of Liberty. The first effort was to secure the res18 Ibid., p. 91.

1972 THE FIRST AMERICAN CRISIS: 1763-1766 123 ignation of stamp agents, without whom the stamps could not readily be distributed. In some colonies, stamp agents resigned when they perceived the temper of the peo ple. In others they held out for awhile, and were subject to threats, abuse, and humiliation. The case of Jared Ingersoll of Connecticut who had accepted an appointment as stamp agent while in England as colonial representative shows the lengths to which crowds went sometimes to secure a resignation. "They caught Ingersoll at Weth ersfield and silently and pointedly led him under a large tree. They parlayed for hours ... , with In gersoll squirming, arguing and re fusing to resign. The crowds ... grew so large and threatening that finally Ingersoll read his resigna tion to the mob and yielded to the demand that he throw his hat in the air and cheer for 'Liberty and Property.' "19 No Stamps Available So successful was this direct ef fort that on the day that the Stamp Act was to go in effect there were no stamps available in the mainland colonies. The ques tion became now whether business would go on as usual in defiance of the law. If the law were ob served, ships would not sail, courts would not hold sessions, newspa19 Jensen, op. cit., p. 113.

pers would not be published, and much of life would come to a standstill. Many newspapers con tinued to be published; ships sailed, and some courts carried on business. In short, the colonists operated in defiance of the law. Parliament was confronted with a crisis in America, one of its own making, when it convened in De cember of 1765. However, the king's speech opening the session acknowledged only that "matters of importance have lately occurred in some of my colonies in America. ••."20 Even so, Parliament had to take some kind of action. It had to take Draconian measures to achieve enforcement, or it had to back down. Grenville's ministry had already fallen,' and a new gov, ernment was organized under the leadership of Rockingham. With the matchless orator, William Pitt, Earl of Chatham, taking the lead in the debate for repeal, the House voted 275 to 167 for repeal on February 22, 1766. The bill was signed into law on March 18. How ever, Parliament refused to yield on the principle, for it insisted on passing the Declaratory Act, which went into effect on the same day that the Stamp Act was re pealed. 'The Declaratory Act tried to make up in unyielding language for what had, in fact, been yielded.

It declared, in part: "that the 20 Gipson, op. cit., p. 105.

124 THE FREEMAN February King's maj esty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and com mons of Great Britain, in parlia ment assembled, had, hath, and of right ought to have, full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies in all cases whatsoever."21 The theoretical issue was joined, but the crisis had passed - for the moment. This was the first American crisis. It was the first because for the first time all the colonies were drawn together in action and re sistance to Britain. Heretofore, they had been separate, linked only by their common allegiance to Britain; now, they had been linked without that tie in common senti ment and for a common cause. Not only that, but they had seen Brit ain falter before their resolution and back down. Several other points need to be made about· this crisis. One is that it was provoked by British action.

Parliament was the innovator abandoning precedent to tax th~ colonies, extending itself to direct taxation, which hardly anyone in America would admit was its right. The colonists were defend21 Greene, Ope cit., p. 85. ing; in an important sense, they were conservative, for they were attempting to preserve the rights and privileges they had enj oyed. Another point is that the course on which Parliament was bent was potentially tyrannical. Force was being assembled in America; Parliament was moving to take colonial control of their domestic affairs from them. Thirdly, the colonists based their arguments on the rights of Englishmen and the British constitution. They were not rebelling; they were resisting what they perceived as unconsti tutional action. The colonists drew a line be yond which they said Parliament was not to go. They denounced di rect taxes imposed from without, and distinguished between inter nal and external taxation, the lat ter some theorists held to be ac ceptable. Parliamentary leaders learned from this debacle. Never again would they act so directly on America. They would now try by less direct means to accomplish their object. But the Americans had been aroused; henceforth, ev ery act of Parliament would be ex amined with great care to see if there was in it a potentiality for oppression. Such acts were not long in coming. IJ Next: British Acts become Intolerable.