First Continental Congress In response to the Coercive Acts, the British colonial merchant community again called a Congress. This First Continental Congress, with 12 of the colonies (Georgia was a long way away) met in Philadelphia starting in September of 1774. They met in Carpenter’s Hall a rock’s throw from the colonial Assembly now known as Independence Hall (oops, spoiler). To Historian’s this signaled an unwillingness to meet in a Hall sanctioned by crown government as the proprietary government of Pennsylvania existed through the crown’s permission (the colonial charter).
The first interesting business the delegates undertook was to vote on a proposition of Joseph Galloway, Speaker of the Pennsylvania Assembly. He proposed a plan of union for the colonies and the formation of a colonial charter – union had been proposed by a colonial congress in Albany back in 1756 but was rebuked by the colonies as they thought of themselves as totally separate (British) entities. And apparently nothing had changed as the Galloway’s plan of union was voted down as well, despite the curious quote from Patrick Henry claiming that he was “an American and not a Virginian”, but he didn’t want to live in an America united because he was British. Henry’s quote makes so little sense that I don’t even believe it was uttered, at least not as recorded. Even more curious, the King’s Prime Minister, Lord Frederick North had to have begun a proposal of a very different sort to allow the colonies to tax themselves to pay for the Empire’s expenses, under the approval of Parliament North’s Conciliatory Plan would not arrive in the colonies until after shooting began in 1775, so it was too late and wasn’t liked by the colonists anyway. But the point is that Galloway was branded as sympathetic to the crown for proposing a union of the colonies, an enemy, a traitor. He became a Loyalist, so I guess the delegates of Congress were right?
Declaration of Rights Congress then proceeded to do what they had done in the Stamp Act Congress. Petition the King, and tell him how much they loved him, and how loyally British they were. And in their Declaration of Rights they established how British they were and how they were entitled to all the rights as any Englishman in England was entitled to. On that point, under British law, they were correct.
You see, in British law there were two types of colonies: 1. Colonies by Conquest 2. Colonies by Settlement. In conquest colonies, like Canada, the population was not British by blood and so they had to accept whatever governing institutions and laws that the conquering British gave them. Maybe a say in the legislature, or maybe no legislature. Maybe rights, or maybe no rights. Whatever the conquering British decided. But in a Settlement Colony, the population was British and carried in their blood the entitlement to British rights – the most important of which, as they had claimed for 1,000 years (or at least since Magna Carta in 1215) was the right to consent to the laws that governed them. The right could not be taken away because it was an entitlement of blood, just like representation was by blood in the Commons. But while the colonists desired the British blood right of consent, they denied the existence of blood based representation and stated it right in their Declaration of Rights, that the Commons in England was not where they exercised their consent but in the common Assemblies of each of their 13 colonies. These assemblies, under charter of the King and through his government, were the only bodies that could make law, especially taxes on the inhabitants of those colonies.
Colonial Association The Delegates knew that petitions and declarations would not be enough and so they formed an association, an institution to manage their efforts, that would oversee a colonial embargo of British goods. Hit the British where it hurt, in their bankroll. The 1760s embargo had failed because it had no oversight, no coordination. The Colonial Association was meant to change all that, and it would go into effect at the start of 1775 if the British didn’t agree to the British colonial demands of having their own separate houses of commons. The British did not agree. Beginning in January of 1775 the embargo was underway, to quite an effect. The real British were angry and tired of colonial British games.
Military Action And then fighting broke out in March 1775. You can read what the reasons of Lexington and Concord were (from the colonial perspective anyway, and Paul Revere, yada yada), but truth be known I think the British wanted the gloves to come off and shots to be fired. The colonists had proven to be horrible at war in the French and Indian War, and Britain probably figured this would make it easier for them. People have a tendency to think war and killing make things easier. They are always wrong.
Lexington and Concord led to another battle at Breed’s Hill in Boston called the Battle of Bunker Hill for some reason. The British colonial militia technically lost the battle to the British Army, but there were more British regulars killed than militia, so the colonists claimed it a victory.
Back in the First Continental Congress, when they were wrapping up, they agreed that if anything new should happen that they would convene another Congress on May 10 1775, and sure enough “war” had happened and so they had to meet. Militia fighting regulars made the delegates nervous. Oh, not because it is a mismatch, I mean, real soldiers against “one weekend a month at playing soldier” farmers (that’s the militia). That wasn’t their real fear. Historians speculate that the Merchant/Planter Class members of Congress were afraid that leadership of the “cause” would fall into the wrong hands (they didn’t like lower class people who they called terms like “the great unwashed”). Not very democratic and not very British, either. So, Congress set out to form a real Army for itself. A Continental Army uniting the strength of all of the colonies under the command of Congress (who didn’t want to be united at all – their words not mine).
George Washington wore his old uniform from the French and Indian War every day that Congress discussed who to pick to lead this army of theirs. Washington always denied that he ever sought a reward, or money, or power. He only loved his country so much that he wore a 15 year old uniform to Congress so that they wouldn’t pick him. They picked him and off to Boston he went to organize (under the authority of the elite in Congress) resistance to what was now seen as British tyranny. Tyranny caused not by the King, but by the Commons and Parliament in England.
Declaration on Taking Arms and the Olive Branch Petition They loved the King and didn’t blame him. It was all his evil ministers and members of government that were responsible for a horrible treatment of the King’s most loyal British subjects in the colonies, or at least that’s what they said in the Declaration on Taking Arms and the Olive Branch Petition. Jefferson wrote the first draft of the Declaration but was replaced by Dickinson. Most Historians claim this is because Jefferson was too tough on the British (because he was a real American) and Dickinson’s wording was more polite (he was a little soft on the anti-British thing). But if you read both docs, there is very little difference except in the name. Jefferson, at that point, didn’t have one, and Dickinson, the Pennsylvania Farmer was one of the most significant British colonial writers out there. That reason for the substitution of Dickinson for Jefferson seems much more plausible. They hoped the Declaration and a new Petition to the King would get the British to agree that they had British (blood) rights, and British (voting) representation. One position was British and based on blood and one was colonial based on changes in colonial culture that diverged from the real British. Doesn’t make sense, just like Fanon would have said.
Declaration of Rebellion and Prohibitory Acts By the time this new petition arrived in England (it took weeks for news to cross the Atlantic by ship) The British in Parliament, including the King, were fed up with the British colonists. In speeches in August and September the King declared the colonies no longer in the Empire and out of his protection. “Get out my house. My house, My rules.” He didn’t say that, but any angry parent would have said something like it.
When the Delegates to Congress heard the King’s Speech, they knew what was up. Whether they liked it or not they were now independent in 1775. What?
Yeah, independent.
So why would the King and the British give the colonists their independence. Well it’s a legal thing. You know, that legal thing of how laws are written so they only make sense to lawyers? Same thing, here. To get what they wanted, which was obedience, the King and Parliament couldn’t take away rights from the colonists and just out and out punish them into submission because they were a Settlement Colony. But if they weren’t in the Empire they could be conquered and made into whatever King and Commons wanted them to be – a Colony of Conquest, without the rights of a British birth.
And if the colonists needed any more convincing that they were no longer in the Empire and no longer “British” in the eyes of the British, Parliament passed a series of Acts collectively described as the Prohibitory Acts that declared war on the colonies – not a police action, but war as if they were French, or something.
Stages of Independence The delegates knew it and they took immediate steps when they convened after their winter break in January of 1776. They established a plan and they began putting that plan in action. The plan consisted of forming committees to work on the following: 1. Form a Confederation (which is not really a union, but a cooperative formation)
2. Get Allies – you know France will help fighting the British
3. Make a formal Declaration of Independence – let the colonists know what their leaders think society should be all about and blame all their problems on the British.
In the mean time Congress as a whole had to manage the war of the Continental Army of colonists against the British Army. So they decided to invade Canada!
Canada would make a good base for the British and bringing its population, mostly French into the fight might help. So Canada it was. And this does sound like a plan that an independent people would undertake.
Further evidence that they knew they were independent happened on May 10 1776. On that day Congress introduced a Resolution on Government to be sent to all the colonies, recommending that the colonies now base their governmental authority on the will of the people instead of grants and charters of the King – the King that threw them out of the house. Sounds like independent to me. So what took so long for independence to be declared.
Collapse of Colonial Invasion of Canada, June 1776 The reason it took so long was because of the plan. The colonies never wanted union of any kind, so even making a confederation was going to take a while, and diplomacy to get allies? That was going to take months or years, since the flow of information took months to get from France to Philadelphia. And independence was supposed to be last on the plan.
And then Canada changed the timeline, as indicated in a previous blog post, so I won’t go over it again here, go look at the blog http://americahypothesis.blogspot.com/2018/07/independence-day-why-it-wasnt-june-or.html
Declaration of Independence Now if you think colonists were Americans and they were prepared for Independence, then just go and read the Declaration of Independence and you’ll find out that they had no idea who they were without their British mask.
It’s a confused document. The draft of the final version carried with it a title of “Declaration of the 13 united States of America,” and then after the comma named each of the “states.” Lots to unpack here. Notice the writing “13 united States” as if they were 13 separate things, things that we could call nations, because that would really be more definitive of what was meant by state than the way we use it. We use it to mean a part of a greater whole. They used State to mean a whole thing in and of itself, like we use “nation.” Look at the words, “13 united States” – no, I’m not making a typing error – the u is not capitalized because it is not the “United States” the way we say it, it was more like 13 separate nations united.
Who And Jefferson is revered as a super genius, but look at how he doesn’t really know how to describe this new independent thing. He names the former colonies in several ways – “united States,” “these colonies,” “People of these Colonies” “United Colonies” where he capitalized the U. What does that mean? It means he is in the place that Fanon found many of his patients, somewhere between what they were and what they perceived themselves to have been. And the phrase “Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress Assembled” is the most telling of all. The only time the colonies were united (remember they didn’t want to be united as colonies, they rejected that, yuck!) was when their representatives met in Congress. When not meeting in Congress, not united. And the Who of the Declaration really tells you all you need to know about the Revolution at this point. It is not Americans seeking liberty from a tyrannical conquering Britain, but colonists awash in a post-colonial identity dilemma. They had no idea who they were, and only had their British colonial selves to fall back on – which is why the Declaration articulated a version of British political theory where government had always been meant to protect rights – the big difference is this time it would be without a King, and for now, in 1776, that was the only difference they would make.
No comments:
Post a Comment