I.
British Colonial Policy after George Grenville
In the face of increasing controversy surrounding the Stamp Act, Grenville
offered his resignation in 1765 and was replaced as Prime Minister by
another Whig, Lord Rockingham. With the reluctant approval of the
King, Rockingham recommended that the Stamp Act be repealed, and in
March 1766 Parliament complied.
While the announcement was met with delight in the colonies, they
overlooked the simultaneous announcement of the Declaratory Act, passed
by Parliament in order to impress upon the colonists that there had been no
yielding of principle. The Declaratory Act asserted that the British
legislature had the right to pass laws to regulate the colonies “in all cases
whatsoever.”
In the summer of 1766, Rockingham‟s ministry fell, and he was replaced
by William Pitt (the elder). The member of his cabinet who remains best
remembered in America was Charles Townshend, Chancellor of the
Exchequer, an ardent mercantilist and a firm believer in Parliamentary
supremacy.
Townshend was charged with finding new sources of revenue, the task
which had brought Grenville such problems. Townshend proposed that
the colonial distinction between internal and external taxes be accepted,
and that full advantage be taken of the right which the colonists freely
admitted to exist.
Following Townshend‟s recommendations, Parliament in 1767 levied a
series of duties on important colonial imports from England: lead, paper,
paint, glass, and tea. To collect the duties, special revenue officers were
sent to the colonies and the use of writs of assistance was legalized.
II.
The Colonial Protest
Like Grenville, Townshend apparently thought he had done well, and he
was amazed at the colonial response to the new duties. The American
Revolution, in fact, may be said to have begun with the arrival of the new
revenue officers and the military and naval units which were to assist
them, for the colonists manifested an immediate disposition to resist the
laws, and acts of violence became commonplace. Customs officers were
attacked. Smugglers received widespread assistance and encouragement.
Nonimportation associations were again formed, and patriotic women
organized their consumers‟ boycotts and abstinence campaigns.
In this campaign of resistance the colonial legislatures learned valuable
lessons in intercolonial cooperation. At the insistence of Sam Adams, the
Massachusetts General Court dispatched a “Circular Letter” to the other
colonial legislatures, inviting united resistance to the policies of England.
The Circular Letter and other tracts of the late 1760s carried the colonial
argument against taxation one step beyond the point reached in the
protests against the Stamp Act. Now it was argued that there were two
types of external taxes, those designed to raise revenue and those designed
to regulate trade, and that only the latter type could legally be imposed by
Parliament.
The most spectacular of the episodes of violence in the colonial reaction
against the Townshend duties was the Boston “Massacre” of March 5,
1770.
III.
The Tories Take Over
Despite the blame which many historians lay at the feet of the Tory party
for „triggering‟ the Revolution, or at least, for allowing it to take place, in
fact the Tories did not finally achieve a majority in Parliament and form a
government until 1770.
In 1770, Lord North, the leader of a group of Tories known as “the King‟s
friends,” became Prime Minister, a position he would hold until 1782.
To blame him for the revolution, which started during his ministry,
however, is to overlook the fact that the revolutionary crisis was already
far advanced, and that the policies which he undertook to apply were in no
great degree different from those of his Whig predecessors. Indeed, his
first move was quite conciliatory. Persuaded by English mercantilists that
it was unwise to tax English goods, he secured the repeal of all the
Townshend duties, save one: the tax on tea.
From 1770-1773, there was an interlude of peace. Except for sporadic
disturbances (such as the burning of the revenue cutter Gaspee in 1772),
the first years of Lord North‟s administration were marked by relative
quietude in the colonies. Taxed tea began to find its way into American
stores and patriot homes. To radicals like Sam Adams, it seemed that the
whole revolutionary movement might collapse.
However, just as things seemed to be settling down, Parliament
unwittingly poured fuel on the colonists‟ smoldering fire. In 1773, on the
verge of bankruptcy, the East India Tea Company appealed to Parliament
for aid. Because many M.P.‟s, particularly on the Whig benches, were
stockholders in the company, relief was soon forthcoming. In addition to
a loan and certain trading privileges, the company was given the right to
transship tea from England to America without paying the customary duty
of 12 pence per pound; the colonial duty of three pence per pound would,
however, still have to be paid. The company was further authorized to
place its own agents in the colonies, bypassing American importers and
tea merchants. It was hoped that these concessions would enable the
company to dispose of a 17 million pound surplus of tea without
depressing the price in the world tea market.
The Tea Act was remarkably effective in driving American conservatives
into the ranks of the Sons of Liberty. Merchants became frantic with fear
that the law would give the British a complete monopoly on the colonial
tea market; not only the legitimate traders but also the smugglers of Dutch
tea expected to be undersold by the East India Company. Businessmen
viewed the act as a possible precedent for other monopolies, and in their
determination to oppose the trend, they took common cause with the
radicals.
Approximately 18,000 pounds (sterling) worth of East India Company tea
was consigned to the deep in the Boston Tea Party (December 16, 1773).
The citizens of other port towns were equally determined to frustrate the
intent of the new British measure; some tea was destroyed, considerable
quantities were locked up (and late sold to raise funds for the
Revolutionary armies), and several shiploads were returned to England.
From the English point of view, this was the critical challenge. Unless
such rebelliousness was effectively punished, the whole colonial system
would collapse. The effort to administer that punishment precipitated the
military phase of the Revolution.
IV. The Intolerable Acts  The First Continental Congress
The Boston Tea Party convinced the North ministry and Parliament that an
example should be made of Massachusetts in an effort to bring all the
colonies into obedience to law. Four laws, collectively denounced by the
colonists as the “Intolerable Acts,” were passed by overwhelming
majorities in the Spring of 1774.
The Boston Port Act declared that the chief port of Massachusetts would
be closed until the tea was paid for. This was disastrous to the prosperity
of Boston.
The Massachusetts Government Act revoked the colonial charter; forbade
town meetings; and said that the council would be appointed by the
governor instead of elected.
The Act for the Impartial Administration of Justice allowed British
officials charged with capital offences in connection with the suppression
of riots or the enforcement of laws could be taken to England or to another
colony for trial. The measure was designed to secure a fair trial of such
cases, but the colonists denounced it as “The Murder Act.”
The Quartering Act authorized the governors of all the colonies to
requisition private buildings for the housing of troops when the available
public quarters were insufficient.
The Quebec Act was also passed by Parliament in 1774, and although the
act had no immediate connection with the punitive measures against
Massachusetts, certain of its provisions caused the colonists to include it
among the “Intolerable Acts.” The act extended the boundary of Quebec
to include the whole region between the Great Lakes and the Ohio River, a
region to which many of the 13 colonies had claims under the terms of
their original charters. This shift in boundaries gave the fur traders of
Montreal an advantage in the Ohio Valley over those who operated from
New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia. The provisional government
which was established for Quebec did not include local self-government.
While perhaps understandable, considering the French Canadians had no
experience with self-government, to the colonists it seemed a precedent
for encroachments upon their own liberties.
The measures taken to enforce these laws were to the colonists as
objectionable as the laws themselves. General Thomas Gage, the British
commander in Boston, was named governor of Massachusetts, and several
regiments of reinforcements were sent from England. At the time he
assumed office, Gage had no doubt that order could be maintained; in
common with almost every other British military leader at this time, he
had a very low opinion of the fighting qualities of the colonists and of
their capacity for united action.
The Intolerable Acts and the troop movements made it clear to the
colonists that Parliament had no intention of backing down again. The
American radicals, who were similarly uninterested in compromising,
found new allies because the punitive measures threatened both the
economic and the political well-being of the colonies.
In June 1774, the Virginia House of Burgesses, meeting unofficially after
the governor had dissolved it for radicalism, invited all the colonies to
send delegates to a meeting at Philadelphia. With the exception of
Georgia, where the governor interfered, every colony was represented,
either by appointees of the legislature or by men chosen by illegal mass
meetings. Many of the ablest leaders in America were in the group that
met in Carpenter‟s Hall, September 5, 1774.
The 56 delegates were by no means of one mind as to a desirable line of
action; in his diary, John Adams described them as being “one third
Patriots, one third Tories, and one third “Mongrels.” However, they did
agree on several moves:
o A “Declaration of Rights and Grievances” was adopted. It
elaborated the arguments against taxation without representation,
and flatly denied the British doctrine of virtual representation.
Arguments almost forgotten during the tranquil interlude from
1770-1773 were revived, and the final step was taken in the
evolution of the colonial attitude—a complete rejection of the right
of Parliament to levy taxes of any kind or for any purpose upon the
colonies. The “Intolerable Acts” were denounced, and other
grievances, real and fancied, were listed.
o In communicating their views to the King and the English people,
the congress denied any intent to seek independence, but stressed
the urgency of a change of British policy.
o For the more radical members of the congress, speeches and
petitions were not enough. They secured the formation of a
“Continental Association,” the purpose of which was to enforce a
complete boycott of British goods until the injuries were redressed.
“Committees of Safety” were formed to carry the boycott into
effect. The measure was particularly effective in forcing the
„Mongrels‟ to choose one side or the other. Nor could the choice
be long delayed, for tar and feathers and other drastic penalties
were inflicted upon boycott violators. Mass meetings in many
communities endorsed the actions of the congress, and companies
of local militia began to drill in anticipation of any eventuality.
o Before adjourning, the delegates at Philadelphia provided for the
meeting of a second Continental Congress in 1775 in the event the
British position didn‟t change.
Lord North made no official response to the statement of the congress, nor
did he indicate any willingness to compromise. Edmund Burke, Pitt, and a
few other Whigs urged compromise on minor matters, but no English
leader was disposed to yield on any basic component of mercantilist
colonial policy. North went so far as to offer to grant exemption from
Parliamentary taxation to any colony that would voluntarily tax itself for
colonial defense, but this gesture was unacceptable to the radicals in
America, who were by now in control.