JHUMUNC 2012
Second
Continental
Congress
Overview of the Committee
Background
After the French and Indian War, the British Government decided to claim greater benefits from the
American colonies. Because the Americans were not
represented, the colonies were charged higher taxes,
resulting in the Boston Tea Party1. British merchants
lost huge sums of money on looted, spoiled, and destroyed goods that were shipped to the colonies. In an
attempt to bring the colonies back into submission of
the King, the British Parliament passed the Coercive
Acts (Intolerable Acts according to the Americans).
The Intolerable Acts consisted of several parts, including the Boston Port Act, the Administration of Justice
Act, the Massachusetts Government Act, the Quebec
Act, and the Quartering Act.1
ing King George III for redress of those grievances.
The primary goal was to find agreement among all the
colonies to boycott British goods as early as December
1, 1774. Although the colonies were united in a determination to show authority to Great Britain, their aims
and means of doing so varied immensely.
While everyone could agree that the King and
British Parliament needed to understand the grievances of the colonies and that the Continental Congress would eventually communicate these problems
to the world, there was still much debate. In particular, delegates from New York and Pennsylvania were
focused on seeking a resolution with England. Joseph
Galloway of Pennsylvania, for example, pushed for his
“Plan of Union,3” suggesting an American legislative
body be formed. Yet other colonies were very defensive
of colonial rights. Even more radical were members of
The First Continental Congress
Virginia’s delegation who were ready to call for separaBeginning on September 5, 1774, delegates from twelve tion. At the time, much of the debate centered on the
of the thirteen American colonies met at Carpenters’
distrust of each other. Prior to the First Continental
Hall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. All States were
Congress, most colonies acted independently. Despite
present except for Georgia, totaling 56 members that
the long debate, the First Continental Congress did
were appointed by the Thirteen colonies. At the time,
agree upon meeting a second time, potentially includthe Province of Georgia was not welcome and was
ing Quebec, Saint John’s Island, Nova Scotia, Georgia,
considered a “convict” state. For most of the meeting
East Florida, and West Florida.3
(up until October 26, 1774) Peyton Randolph presided
over the committee, after being elected. However,
during the last four days, Henry Middleton took over
The Second Continental Congress
as President of the Congress. Charles Thomson, the
Britain ended the self-government of Massachusetts,
leader of the Philadelphia Committee of Correspondallowing General Thomas Gage to act as governor.
ence was selected to be the Secretary of the ContinenSimilarly, after hearing about weapons being gath1
tal Congress.
ered in Concord, British troops attempted to seize
The goal of the Congress was to discuss various
and destroy them. On April 18, 1775, British troops
2
options in response to the Intolerable Acts. Topmarched towards Concord in attempt to capture the
ics ranged from economic boycott of British goods,
Sons of Liberty. Paul Revere’s ride through the night
publishing a list of rights and grievances and petitionwarned everybody of the British attack and the Battles
of Lexington and Concord became one of the bloodi1 First Continental Congress.” N.p., 31 10 2011. Web. 2 Nov
est battles yet. The beginning of the Revolutionary War
2011. <http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/ congress.
htm>.
2 “The American Revolution.” Digital History, 02 Nov 2011.
Web. 2 Nov 2011. <http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/ database/
article_display.cfm?HHID=267>.
JHUMUNC 2012
3 “Joseph Galloway, Plan of Union.” The Founders’ Constitution. N.p., n.d. Web. 2 Nov 2011. <http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/
founders/documents/v1ch7s3.html>.
2
had begun. Fresh in the minds of all the colonists, the
Second Continental Congress convened on May 11,
1775 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Many of the same
delegates were present and the delegates appointed the
same President and Secretary of the Congress. Initially,
only twelve of the Thirteen Colonies were present, but
Georgia eventually sent delegates to the Continental
Congress. Because of the beginning of the war, Congress focused upon taking charge of the war effort.1
During Congress, the colonies decided firmly
upon completely breaking away from Great Britain. On
May, 15, 1776, Congress decided to officially put the
colonies on a state of defense. In order to better organize themselves, the colonies formed an army called the
American Continental Army, unanimously appointing George Washington as the commander-in-chief.
The resolution of Independence was crucial to gaining international allies in the War. Independence was
viewed as the only way to gain foreign help because no
European monarchs would deal with the America if
they remained under British rule. On July 4, 1776, the
United States Declaration of Independence was approved. Some difficulty arrived in attempting to fund
the war, without the power of taxation. 1,2
a resolution requiring all states to donate a certain
amount of money or men for the army.
Besides resolutions, the Congress may also pass
three types of other documents to handle the crisis
situations. First, the Congress may pass directives,
which are brief statements similar to an operative
clause in resolutions. Once passed, these directives will
take effect immediately. Keep in mind that the Congress has no authority over the states, and that states
may choose not to follow the directives if it conflicts
with their beliefs. Second, the Congress may pass communiqués, which are messages sent to other countries
involved in the crisis, such as Great Britain, France, or
the Iroquois. Third and lastly, the Congress may pass
public announcements, which are messages intended
to be delivered to the rest of the world, usually to assert
a point or make a statement, such as American independence.
How the Committee will be Run at JHUMUNC
In general, the normal rules for JHUMUNC will be
used, but there will be some exceptions to account for
the crisis aspect and historical accuracy of the committee.
While formulating and discussing resolutions,
please keep in mind the limitations of the Continental Congress. The Congress is in charge of war effort,
which includes raising an army, appointing generals
and ambassadors, managing and signing treaties, and
handling loans from international allies. However,
as the Articles of Confederation are still being slowly
ratified by all the states, the Congress does not have
the power to tax the colonists or levy any significant
authority over the states. Thus, any money or supplies
needed for the war effort must be requested, and not
demanded, from the individual states. The resolutions
involved in the committee must then reflect these
limitations. For example, the Congress may not pass
3
JHUMUNC 2012
Delegate Biographies
John Hancock (January 23, 1737- October 8, 1793)
John Hancock, a colonist from Massachusetts,
replaced Peyton Randolph as President of the Second
Continental Congress. Prior to the American Revolution, Hancock was one of the wealthiest men in the
thirteen colonies. He used much of his wealth to
support the colonial cause and independence from
Britain. As president of the Continental Congress,
John Hancock was the first to sign the Declaration of
Independence.1
Joseph Wood (1712 - September 1791)
Joseph Wood was born in Pennsylvania but
moved to Georgia in the 1760’s. As the Revolution
drew closer, Wood became increasingly frustrated
with Georgia’s lack of participation and their delay in
deciding to support the united colonies against Britain.
After Georgia decided against sending a delegate to the
Continental Congress of 1774, Wood made an appeal
to their General committee to join the war effort. Once
the war began, Joseph Wood joined the Continental
Army. Upon his retirement from the army, Wood was
appointed as one of Georgia’s delegates to the Continental Congress in 1777 and 1778.
Roger Sherman (April 19, 1721- July 23, 1793)
Born in Massachusetts, Roger Sherman served on
the Committee of Five that drafted the Declaration of
Independence. Sherman proposed what would later be
called The Great Compromise. His plan was designed
to be acceptable by both large and small states as it
allowed representation for colonies in two ways. In the
first branch of legislature, the House of Representatives, people would be represented proportional to the
size of the colony. In the second called the Senate, each
state was guaranteed two senators no matter their size.
10
Samuel Chase (April 11, 1741- June 19, 1811)
Samuel Chase lived his entire life in Maryland.
Beginning in 1764, Chase served on the Maryland
General Assembly for 20 years. He was also a signatory
to the Declaration of Independence and an Associate
Justice of the United States Supreme Court. There were
many controversies surrounding Wood. A devoted
Federalist, Joseph Wood was impeached for allegedly
allowing his partisan propensities affect his court decisions. However, he was later acquitted.
Thomas McKean (March 19, 1734- June 24, 1817)
Thomas McKean was a lawyer and Politian from
Pennsylvania. He represented (at separate times) both
Pennsylvania and Delaware in different aspects. In
Delaware, McKean led the effort in the General Assembly of Delaware to declare its separation from British
rule. He also wrote the Delaware Constitution of 1776.
Then, Thomas McKean was elected to Delaware’s first
House Assembly for the first two sessions. In Pennsylvania, McKean served as Chief Justice of Pennsylvania
from 22 years. After his resignation, he was elected
Governor of Pennsylvania and served 3 terms. Thomas
McKean strongly believed in the power of the executive and judicial systems.
Samuel Adams (September 27, 1722- October 2, 1803)
Representing Massachusetts, Samuel Adams was
an American statesman, political philosopher and a
Founding Father of the United States. He came from a
very religious and politically active family. In his earlier years, he attended and graduated Harvard College.
Adams was an influential official of the Massachusetts
House of Representatives and the Boston Town Meeting during the 1760’s. He was part of the movement
opposed to Britain’s efforts to tax the colonies without
the colonies’ consent. In 1772, Adams and his fellow
colleagues formulated a committee of correspondence
system linking like-minded Patriots in the Thirteen
Colonies. Their continued resistance to British policy
resulted in the 1773 Boston Tea Party and later, the
American Revolution.
1 “Biographical Directory of the United States Congress.” http://
bioguide.congress.gov. U.S. Senate Historical Office. and Collection of the U.S. House of Representatives, 2011. Web.
JHUMUNC 2012
4
Josiah Bartlett (November 21, 1729- May 19, 1795)
Josiah Bartlett was an American physician and
statesman. .In 1775, Bartlett was elected to represent
New Hampshire in the Continental Congress. He
voted for independence and was first to sign the Declaration of Independence after John Hancock. Later,
Bartlett became Judge of Common Pleas and a member of the Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Josiah
Bartlett was elected president and then governor of
New Hampshire.
established a law practice and quickly became a member of the political community. John Penn was elected
to the Continental Congress in 1775 and served until
1777. He was elected again in 1779 and appointed to
the Board of War where he served for one year.
Robert Morris (January 20, 1734- May 9, 1806)
Robert Morris was born in England and moved to
Chesapeake Bay in 1744. In 1775, Morris was elected
to the Continental Congress and participated in many
of the committees involved in raising capital and provisions for the Continental Army. Almost single-handedly, Morris saw to the financing of the Revolutionary
War and the establishment of the Bank of the United
States after the war ended.
John Witherspoon (February 5, 1723- November 15,
1794)
John Witherspoon was born in Scotland and
lived there until he emigrated to New Jersey in 1768.
He was asked to take on the duty as President of the
College of New Jersey (later Princeton). During his
first years in the colonies, Witherspoon abstained from
political concerns and debates. However, he later came
to support the revolutionary cause and accepted appointment to the committees of correspondence and
safety in 1776. That year he was elected as a delegate
for New Jersey in the Continental Congress where he
voted in favor of independence from Britain. He was
a very active member of congress and served on more
than a hundred committees through his tenure.
Joseph Reed (August 27, 1741- March 5, 1785)
Joseph Reed was a Pennsylvania lawyer, statesman, and military officer of the Revolutionary Era.
He served as a delegate of Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress beginning in 1778. He was one of
five delegates from Pennsylvania to sign the Articles of
Confederation and on December 1, 1778, was elected
President of the Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania.
John Collins (June 8, 1717- March 4, 1795)
John Collins, a staunch advocate for the independence of the Thirteen Colonies, was elected the
third governor of Rhode Island. In 1778, Collins
represented Rhode Island in the Second Continental
Congress.
John Jay (December 12, 1745- May 17, 1829)
Born in New York, New York, John Jay showed
extraordinary promise at a very young age. By 14, he
was accepted to King’s College (Columbia University)
and graduated with highest honors in 1764. He continued on to study law and was admitted to the Bar of
New York in 1768. By 1774 he was one of the most
prominent members of the New York Committee of
Correspondence. At age 28, he attended the First
Continental Congress and served until 1776 when he
retired instead of signing the Declaration of Independence. Then in 1778, he was elected back to the Congress where he was voted president upon his arrival.
Henry Laurens (March 6, 1724- December 8, 1792)
Henry Laurens was an American merchant and
rice planter from South Carolina. He became a political leader during the Revolutionary War. He was
a delegate to the Second Continental Congress and
later became President of the Congress. He was also
a signatory to the Articles of Confederation. His son,
John Laurens, persuaded the Congress to allow slaves
to enlist in the army in exchange for freedom. It was
his idea that Americans could not fight for their freedom while still keeping slaves. Henry Laurens served
in the militia and rose to the rank of Lt. Colonel. As
John Penn (May 17, 1741- September 14, 1788)
John Penn was born in Virginia and lived there
until 1774. He gained a license to practice law by age
22. In 1774 he moved to North Carolina where he
5
JHUMUNC 2012
the American Revolution grew closer, Laurens was
inclined to support reconciliation with Britain but
later came to fully support the American position for
independence.
Richard Henry Lee (January 20, 1732- June 19, 1794)
Richard Henry Lee was born in to an aristocratic
family in Virginia. In 1757, Lee was appointed Justice of Peace and was elected to the Virginia House
of Burgesses shortly there after. Then in 1774, he was
elected to attend the First Continental Congress. He
served as a member of Congress for many years and
enjoyed many important committee appointments. In
1783 he was selected to be president of the Continental
Congress. As president, he opposed federal constitution and favored strong state rights. However, he was
elected the first State Senator of Virginia under the
new federal government.
JHUMUNC 2012
6
Topic 1: Gaining International
Allies for the War
Introduction
At the onset of the Revolutionary War, the prospect
for an American victory looked bleak, as they had a
substantial disadvantage in virtually all aspects of the
colonial system. As a people in the process of nationbuilding, they lacked the strong economy and military
to provide them with the arms, men, supplies, food,
ships and expertise necessary to win a war against
an accomplished nation like Britain. Thus the British were seen as favorites to win the war, as they had
years of experience and strategic support. Economies
and militaries are organisms need time for growth and
improvement since trends and norms are not reached
hastily, and time was a luxury that the British had but
which the Americans did not.
However, the Patriots possessed two unique
strengths that the British lacked: passion and knowledge of the land. Revolutionary fervor coursed through
their veins, and though it decreased to some extent
throughout the course of the war, it was a special kind
of motivation. Similarly, having spent the past few centuries exploring, traveling around and settling in the
lands of the New World, the colonists had grown quite
used to the layout and geography of their territories,
which became an extremely strategic advantage during
battle.
However these were not nearly strong enough on
their own, so if they hoped to win the war, Congress
knew they would have to elicit support and forge an
alliance with France as they possessed an army, navy,
and financial system to rival the British. The French
also were in the midst of a deep-seated religious,
ideological, and military rivalry with the British, a reality the colonists full intended on exploiting. However,
this alone did not convince the French to enter into an
alliance, as they forced the Americans to jump through
hoops militarily while also courting the French diplomatically.
Background
Decades of colonial exploitation had served to
strengthen the British economy in ways in which the
fledgling American economy faltered. The Pound was
strong, and the British had a complex network of trade
agreements working in their favor to bolster their
economic prowess. In contrast, the American financial
system was based heavily on agriculture, which was
exported to Europe and thus at the mercy of the European demand for a given good. This contributed to a
great deal of fluctuation within the American economy,
and inconclusive conclusions about its status. Not only
did their economy fluctuate according to the global
markets, but so did the individual state economies that
comprised the new national economy. In general, the
South tended to grow faster than the North, because
of the highly agrarian and production-for-exportation
nature of their economy. However, their dependence on the demands of other countries left them
more vulnerable to economic shocks. Boston, on the
other hand, provided an anomalously bustling port
in the slower-paced Northern economy as it served as
the main connection between America and Europe.
Internal fluctuation aside, the American economy did
experience growth, though it still trailed behind the
British financial system.
Due in large part to the strength of their economy, the British were able to fund and maintain a
strong, well-prepared and well-supplied army. Unlike the Continental army, the British could mobilize
a group of highly trained, professional soldiers with
relative ease and speed, as they had an organized
military command structure that could communicate
and act according to preexisting lines and procedures.
The Americans, however, had to gather an army from
scratch, which they did though volunteer enlistment.
To do this, they called on each state to rally its militias and able-bodied men into some semblance of an
army. However, this system of enlistment added state
7
JHUMUNC 2012
divisions as another unfavorable factor to the already
decentralized Continental army.1
On paper, the colonists appeared to possess a sizable army-ready population. However, due in part to
their belief in volunteer enlistment, the numbers fell
short of what was expected. Able-bodied men were
initially enthusiastic to join the cause, but shortly after
the onset of the war, enlistment numbers declined,
as the sentiment turned from excitement to thoughts
of homesickness or of losing one’s livelihood. Many
feared their military service would caused them to
end up too far away from home for too long, so they
hesitated to volunteer. This was the case for the farmers
who were intent on staying at home to tend their field
and due to the highly agrarian nature of the American
economy required its farmers, this accounted for a
large portion of the able-bodied, male population.
To raise revenue for the war effort, Congress and
the states turned to issuing currency, bonds and loans
as well as increasing taxes as a solution.2 This was met
with varying results, though it contributed to an overall sense of ineffectiveness.
With the issuance of paper currency, has historically come a substantial flow of complications, and
the Americans were no exception. Initial depreciation
of paper money caused inflation and other associated
problems.3 Congress also created a series of government bonds as an attempt to offset the costs of what
was becoming a very expensive war. However, the interest rates paid on these bonds was substantially lower
than that of loans in the private sector, so it proved
extremely unpopular. State taxes were imposed as a
final attempt at a solution, which inadvertently established a system of tax reform, but which did not serve
to improve the overall economic well-being in the long
run. Unfortunately it did succeed in hitting those in
the poorest sector of the population especially hard,
squeezing out every last bit of property, commerce and
income tax possible.
French and Britain had become sworn enemies
during the 11th century with the Norman invasion
of England, the first of a long series of Anglo-French
wars. Since then, blatant animosity became strategic
maneuvering as the two nations developed a highly
competitive relationship based around a series of
proxy wars. The most recent was the Seven Years War,
which was fought over colonial territories from the
West Indies to Canada. Unfortunately for France, this
had ended in a British victory, which caused them to
view any potential for future Anglo-French wars as an
opportunity for redemption. Various French idealists
latched on to the concepts of representation, republic
and independence and they came quickly to the aid of
the colonists. However, convincing the French government required more diplomatic maneuvering, as the
bureaucracy required certain decision-making procedures, before it would officially commit. Thus it was
slower to respond to the American’s appeal than might
have been expected.
Their initial hesitance came from the well-known
idea that “France was more likely to help rebels who
could help themselves” and wanted to see some
semblance of self-sufficiency and military skill.4 The
French did so, seeking to ensure that American victory
was possible and likely. In addition, they wanted Spanish support, which the king quickly denied them. So
Benjamin Franklin travelled to Paris, hoping to “wine
and dine” the French government into an agreement.
While they were extremely impressed with his intellect
and persona, his diplomatic presence was not fully responsible for their acquiescence. Ultimately, it was the
capturing of General Burgoyne’s troops by the Continental army that proved to the French that the Americans were not just a bunch of ragtag rebels but rather
a force to be reckoned with. This gave the French the
final piece of evidence they needed to enter into the
alliance, despite the lack of Spain involvement.
So a Franco-American agreement was made.
The French initially agreed to provide the Continental army with “£48 million worth of supplies and
1 Ferguson, E. James. The American Revolution: a General History, 1763-1790. Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey Press, 1974. Print. 115.
2 Ward, Harry M. The American Revolution: Nationhood
Achieved 1763-1788. New York: Saint Martin’s Press, 1995. Print.
203.
3 Ward, Harry M. The American Revolution: Nationhood
Achieved 1763-1788. New York: Saint Martin’s Press, 1995. Print.
203.
JHUMUNC 2012
4 Allison, Robert J. The American Revolution: A Concise History. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2011. Print. 44.
8
Recent Action: What has Congress Done Already?
When the Second Continental Congress met, they
focused their efforts on creating a Continental Army
out of militia who were led by General George Washington. The Declaration of Causes, outlining the
necessity of taking up arms was approved in just over
a year. Soon after, on July 8, 1776, Congress passed
the Olive Branch Petition to the British Crown for one
last attempt at reconciling the problems and avoiding a full-blown war. Initially, most delegates followed
John Dickinson in the quest for reconciliation with
King George III. However, they did meet resistance
from a small group of delegates, led by John Adams,
who believed that war was inevitable.10 John Adams
decided that it was important to remain quiet and wait
for the opportune moment to rally the Colonies and
the World against the British, and so the Olive Branch
Petition was approved, only to be rejected by the British soon after. Because of the rejection of the so-called
“olive branch,” John Adams took advantage of the
situation to push for independence because the choices
were simple: surrender unconditionally or seek complete independence through war.
Although Congress had no explicit authority to
govern, it appointed ambassadors to France, signed
treaties with other nations, raised armies, and obtained
loans from Europe.7 Even when Congress tried to levy
taxes, the independent States tended to ignore the
requests, as Congress had no real power. Thus, records
have shown that it was important for Congress to seek
support through international relations in order to
propose independence and unite the Colonies with
“revolutionary” governments. On May 10, 1776, Congress passed a resolution, led by Richard Henry Lee,
recommending that all colonies form a “proper” government that threw out allegiances and suppressed the
authority of the Crown. On that same day, the Virginia
Convention urged its delegates to propose a declaration of independence and form foreign alliances. On
July 4, 1776, the Declaration of Independence was approved and moved Congress on the path towards true
governing powers.8
weapons.”5 Certain French officers were also eager to
provide their expertise for the cause, the most notable of which was the Marquis de Lafayette. He helped
procure a ship out of his own personal funds for the
revolutionary cause, an immensely helpful addition
considering the lack of an American navy. However,
French support was extremely delayed and lacked the
initial breadth and depth that the Americans needed,
as the purely small-scale financial assistance given was
not nearly enough to aid both their failing economy
and distressed army.
After solely providing economic and strategic
support for a while, France eventually was convinced
to enter the war as a one of the four actors contributing
equally to their respective sides of the war effort. The
British viewed the treaty of alliance with the Americans as a de-facto declaration of war by the French, so
they realized that they could be fully open with their
intentions.6 Also, by this point the Americans had
made a few key advances on the war front, and the
French were enthusiastic to make it a pattern and not
an anomaly. They sent in a fleet of fully outfitted ships,
as the Continental armed forces lacked any kind of a
naval component. Thus, supplemented with a handful
of French officers, the colonists fought on land, while
the French navy took on the British navy on the water.
Thus the French and Americans, when allied,
made a formidable enemy. In the land and naval battles
after the official entrance of the French, the FrancoAmerican armed forces gained substantial ground,
winning strategic victories. The involvement of the
French not only served to provide experienced officers,
quality equipment, and substantial funding, but it also
helped the Americans become motivated once again
and have a reinvigorated sense of faith in the cause.
Thus, talk of ideology and political theory was reborn,
setting the scene for future debates regarding the newly
established nation.
5 Ibid.
6 Worthington C. Ford, et al. (ed.), ed (1904–1939). Journals of
the Continental Congress, 1774–1789. Washington, DC. pp. 2:44–
48.
7 Howard Jones, Crucible of power: a history of American foreign relations to 1913.
8 Maier, Pauline. American Scripture: Making the Declaration
9
JHUMUNC 2012
By November 15, 1777, the Articles of Confederation was approved and served as the first constitution
for the legally established United States of America.9
The Articles allowed the Continental Congress to gain
legitimacy to lead the American Revolutionary War
and conduct diplomacy with Europe and the international world (including Native American relations).
However, during this entire time, it was extremely difficult for funding the war, as the Continental Congress
had to fight by borrowing money and without the use
of taxes. As such, it was crucial for Congress to depend
on foreign allies, like the French and Dutch, to provide
for funding. In an attempt to work with such international allies, several alliances were formed under the
Treaty of Alliance with France, for example. By January of 1778, the British offered their own proposal for
reconciliation. Perhaps with the help of international
allies, such proposals can be easily rejected. Undoubtedly, the Thirteen Colonies relied heavily upon international aid for the war. As such, finding strong relationships is crucial for the war—and independence—effort
that the Second Continental Congress faces.
Congress solicit loans from sympathetic nations and allies?
5. What will Congress have to offer in return for
aid? How does Congress plan on paying back
the debts incurred from their newfound allies?
6. Of course, Congress has options beyond the
European allies. What Native American Tribes
are also interested in helping the colonists’
causes?
A resolution should find a way to address all of
these issues simultaneously. It is important to note that
raising revenues for war requires more than domestic
taxing, donations, etc. Similarly, it is greatly debated on
how the money should be spent for war efforts based
on differing viewpoints. Nevertheless, it is up to you
delegates to fight back against the British!
Bloc Positions
Despite having a common cause – fighting the British – the delegates of the Continental Congress were
still divided over a variety of issues. Most generally,
the delegates were divided between those who wanted
a complete break from the British (liberal tendencies)
and those who were more reserved and felt that relations with the British could be fixed (Loyalist tendencies). (The beliefs of the individual delegates are briefly
mentioned above in the delegate biographies). This
division was notable in many of the issues debated in
the Congress:
Questions a Resolution Must Answer
With the American colonists united against the
King, the common goal is obvious—to fight back and
claim independence. However, since the Great Britain
was one of the largest, most daunting forces in the
world at the time, the colonists were forced to find help
from others to stand a chance at successfully seeking
independence. In finding a solution, the Continental
Congress must identify:
1. The countries/foreign allies that would best aid
the colonists against the British. Which countries have been sympathetic to the American
cause?
2. Which foreigners seek to sabotage the British,
perhaps choosing to help the colonists?
3. How would these countries help the colonists?
Would they send troops to fight or simply donate resources and funds?
4. After finding such international allies, how will
Alliances with Native American tribes
Those with more hatred against the British tended
to be more in support of allying with the Native Americans for the sake of gaining more allies and manpower
to help fight the British. For example, John Adams and
John Hancock were among the Continental Congress
delegates who were thoroughly against the British and
were also more open-minded to the idea of becoming
allies with Native American tribes to improve their
military. Although there had been previous hostilities
due to misconceptions between the Americans and
Natives, some of the other delegates recognized the importance of having at-home-allies, and welcomed the
idea. However, other members were not as accepting,
of Independence (1998).
9 Cogliano, Revolutionary America, 1763-1815, 113.
JHUMUNC 2012
10
as they felt the alliance with so-called “savages” were
unnecessary.10
Centralized vs. decentralized government
The issue of a centralized government versus a
decentralized government to handle current and future
finances also came into question, especially since the
Americans would have to payback numerous loans
to international allies and individual states. The delegates with more liberal tendencies would favor a more
decentralized government because they believed the
centralized government of the British is what led to the
lack of representation in the colonies in the first place.
On the other hand, the delegates with more Loyalist
tendencies would want to favor a centralized government because they would want order and structure in
their government after the war. In 1787, the decision
was made from the help of Roger Sherman. Sherman
proposed what would later be called The Great Compromise. His plan was designed to be acceptable by
both large and small states as it allowed representation
for colonies in two ways. In the first branch of legislature, the House of Representatives, people would be
represented proportional to the size of the colony. In
the second called the Senate, each state was guaranteed
two senators no matter their size. This way, the Americans would have a set government spread out between
states so that each state had its own voice in decisionmaking and elections.11
10 Calloway, Collin. “Stories from the Revolution.” National
Park Service. National Park Services. 20 October 2011. http://
www.nps.gov/revwar/about_the_revolution/american_indians.
html.
11 Independence Hall Association. U.S. History Online. Independence Hall Association, 4 July 1995. Web. 15 October 2011.
11
JHUMUNC 2012
Topic 2: Managing the Iroquois/
British alliance
Introduction
Before the first shot of the Revolutionary War was
fired, the Americans and the Confederacy were at a
disadvantage. Other than the location of the war, taking place on their soil, the colonists were far behind
in resources, finances, and men. As the Revolutionary War began to unfold, the role of alliances became
increasingly important and perhaps decided the fate of
the British. However, prior to their demise, the British
formed a crucial all allegiance with the Iroquois Native
Americans.
At the beginning of the war, Patriots worked
hard to try and ensure Native American neutrality
in the Revolutionary War. The Americans believed
that certain strategic military assistance to the British army might claim their fate. However, over time it
became clear to many native tribes that an independent America posed a much greater threat to their land
and way of life than a continued British presence. The
Natives knew that with Britain still in control of the
colonies, westward expansion was restrained. The British government had afforded native lands a measure
of protection by the Royal Proclamation of 1763 that
attempted to restrict colonial expansion beyond the
Appalachian Mountains.
The Native American neutrality also dissolved
after the Declaration of Independence accused King
George III of releasing “merciless Indian Savages”
against innocent men, women, and children. The
Americans construed this image of the natives as evil
beings and led to their subsequent mal treatment.
Consequently, the Americans needed to gain allies
themselves if they had any hope of achieving freedom.
The Americans officially formed an allegiance with
France after winning the Battle at Saratoga in 1777.
The French extended considerable financial support to
the Congressional forces including: military arms, supplies, money, and soldiers.2
The American Revolution split the Iroquois
Confederacy. Although many chose to join an alliance
with Britain, others did not. Joseph Brant led the Mohawks in their allegiance with the British. Following
the Mohawks lead, the Cayugas, Onondagas, and Senecas joined the allegiance as well. However, the Oneidas
and Tuscaroras sided with the Americans. This led to
a civil war between the Iroquois as the Oneidas clashed
with Senecas at the Battle of Oriskany in 1777.
History and Background
Fighting the war on foreign soil meant that the British
were headed into unknown territory. The Americans
knew the landscapes, and locations of the battles—the
British did not. Even without the proper military arms
and supplies, finances, and army size, the Americans
still had the possibility of garnering freedom if the
right strategies and tactics were put into place. Although the home advantage may have been the Americans sole advantage going into the War, this lead was
significant. In an effort to counter the lead this could
give to their adversaries, the British sought alliance
with the Native Americans. With the help of the Iroquois, the British could learn the terrain and navigate
their way on American territory.1
The allegiance developed between the British and
the Iroquois was desired by both. The British needed
to negate the Americans home advantage by using the
Natives to provide strategic military assistance. The
Native Americans needed the British to ensure the
Americans did not encroach upon the land they were
promised after and during the war.
1 Backend. “The Economics of the American Revolutionary
War.” Economic History Association. 5 February 2010. Economic
History Association. 14 October 2011. <http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/baack.war.revolutionary.us>.
JHUMUNC 2012
2 “The French Contribution to American War of Independence.” The Régiment de Saintonge. 2009. 20 October 2011. http://
people.csail.mit.edu/sfelshin/saintonge/frhist.html.
12
Although the natives fought in the Revolution for
their liberties and homelands and not for the British
Empire, their image had been misconstrued to the
Americans. Most Americans believed that the Native
Americans had backed tyranny and monarchy and
showed little remorse to their sufferings. The Americans felt no repentance about dispossessing and expelling those who had fought against their liberty and
their country’s birth.
In the end, there was nothing gained by the Native Americans; only their homes and hopes were lost
for natives on all sides of the Revolutionary War. To
manage the Iroquois/British alliance the Americans
would need to stop it before it began. The allegiance
would also need to be halted prior to the Americans
misconstrued image of the natives was put into their
minds. This way, the Native Americans would have
hope of saving some of their land as well as aiding the
Americans in their fight towards freedom. With the
help of the Native Americans, the Revolution would a
much different war, and the major advantages that the
British had over the Americans would begin to deteriorate quickly.
Most of the delegates of the Continental Congress
would be in favor of breaking up the alliance between
the Iroquois and the British. Countering the alliance
would help the Americans but the loss Britain would
suffer would be much greater than any gain the Americans could receive. Without the help of the Iroquois,
Britain is fighting on unknown territory. This gives
the Americans an advantageous situation for military
strategies and tactics. When the Americans try to
counter the alliance between the Iroquois and British
by becoming allies with the French, the British are still
given help. However, if the alliance was to be broken
altogether, the Revolutionary War would be a much
different fight for freedom.
If the Americans were to become allies with other
Native American tribes in attempt to counter the Iroquois/British alliance, the same outcome would occur.
Unless the alliance between the Iroquois and the British is broken, the British have access to knowledge of
the land and territory, which tremendously helps their
side of the battle. The Americans need to not only terminate Native American ties to Britain but also garner
ties to other European countries as well as gain support
from Native American tribes. Without having to fight
the natives from their home front and the British from
Europe, the Americans will have an easier time with
strategies to attack the British on native ground.
Recent Action
At the onset of the war, the Iroquois Confederacy
maintained a position of neutrality regarding the British and the Americans. The saw this as a way to increase their autonomy and to maintain prewar trading
habits.3 Both the Americans and the British accepted
this position of neutrality as it neither positively or
negatively affected the other side. However, as individual Iroquois warriors began joining the British in
increasing numbers, it became apparently obvious that
they would have to choose sides, especially after it was
discovered that a Mohawk man was killed by a Continental soldier.4 Ultimately, four of the six Iroquois
nations sided with the British who seemed more likely
to win and thus more likely to benefit the Confederacy.
The Continental Congress had had a long-standing history of land disputes with various native tribes
and continued to see them in terms of the territory
they occupied. Thus in response to the formal announcement of the Anglo-Iroquois alliance, the Continental Congress sent Samuel Kirkland on a diplomatic
mission to the Oneida and Tuscarora tribes to forge
and then maintain an alliance with them.5 However,
this was not enough to assuage General Washington,
who was distressed by the Anglo-Iroquois alliance. He
ordered a group of soldiers to take on the sole duty of
fighting a small-scale guerilla war within the context of
the war in order to destroy the Iroquois people. They
set out to cut down or burn crops, burn houses, and
target women and children, in what was later referred
3 Fitz, Caitlin A. “Suspected on Both Sides: Little Abraham,
Iroquois Neutrality, and the American Revolution.” Journal of the
Early Republic, Vol. 28, No. 3 (Fall, 2008), pp. 301. Print.
4 Crawford, Neta C. “A Security Regime Among Democracies:
Cooperation Among Iroquois Nations.” International Organization, Vol. 48, No. 3 (Summer, 1994), pp. 370. Print.
5 David Levinson. “An Explanation for the Oneida-Colonist
Alliance in the American Revolution.” Ethnohistory, Vol. 23, No. 3
(Summer, 1976), pp. 278. Print.
13
JHUMUNC 2012
to as the “squaw campaign.” Thus the Native American
presence in the war provided increased complexity in
an already multilateral war.
(The beliefs of the individual delegates are briefly mentioned above in the delegate biographies). This division
was again notable in many of the issues debated in the
Congress:
Questions a Resolution Must Answer
At the onset of the war the, Continental army possessed a substantial military disadvantage when compared to the skilled British army. Thus it needed to
insure all possible forms of assistance and to prevent
the British from gaining another ally, especially if it
was as strong, agile, and as familiar with the surrounding land as the Iroquois are. The resolution must either
determine how this alliance can be broken or how the
effects from this alliance can be minimized. In finding
a solution, the Continental Congress must identify:
1. How will the Americans persuade the Iroquois
not to align with the British?
2. If the alliance cannot be broken, how will the
Americans minimize the advantage gained by
the British in this situation?
3. Have all peaceful or diplomatic options been
exhausted first (if the resolution calls for violence)?
4. Where to other Native American tribes factor
into this situation?
5. How will this affect American relations with
the Iroquois in the future?
A resolution should find a way to address all of
these issues simultaneously. It is important to note
that actions taken now could greatly affect American
relations with Native Americans in the future, so the
resolution must have both short-term and long-term
considerations. Similarly, the decisions made the
delegates in the Congress can very well determine how
the Americans handle future situations with the Native
Americans, so delegates should not act too rashly.
Alliances with Native American tribes
Those with more hatred against the British tended
to be more in support of allying with the Native Americans for the sake of gaining more allies and manpower
to help fight the British. For example, John Adams and
John Hancock were among the Continental Congress
delegates who were thoroughly against the British and
were also more open-minded to the idea of becoming
allies with Native American tribes to improve their
military. Although there had been previous hostilities
due to misconceptions between the Americans and
Natives, some of the other delegates recognized the importance of having at-home-allies, and welcomed the
idea. However, other members were not as accepting,
as they felt the alliance with so-called “savages” were
unnecessary.6
Violent vs. peaceful solution
Generally speaking, all delegates would prefer
that the Native American situation be handled peacefully, but realistically, many delegates believed that a
more peaceful option could only be achieved if the
Iroquois willingly ended the British alliance, and they
did not see that as a possibility. Even though those with
more hatred against the British tended to be more in
support of allying with the Native Americans (as seen
in the first topic), they also were in more support of
violent retaliation should the Native Americans chose
to oppose them. The reason for this was that these delegates felt more strongly about the war – they did not
believe a peaceful option with the British was possible
(hence the war) and similarly here, they did not believe
a peaceful option with the Iroquois would be possible
either. On the other hand, the delegates with more
loyalist tendencies were the ones who tried to seek all
possible non-violent options with the British before
resorting to war. In this situation, they would feel a
Bloc Positions
Similar to the bloc positions of the first topic, the delegates were divided between those who wanted a complete break from the British (liberal tendencies) and
those who were more reserved and felt that relations
with the British could be fixed (Loyalist tendencies).
JHUMUNC 2012
6 Calloway, Collin. “Stories from the Revolution.” National Park
Service. National Park Services. 20 October 2011. http://www.
nps.gov/revwar/about_the_revolution/american_indians.html.
14
similar way and would want to seek a peaceful solution
with the Iroquois.
15
JHUMUNC 2012