“An act to allow a drawback of the duties of customs on the exportation of tea to any of his Majesty's colonies or plantations in America; to increase the deposit on bohea tea to be sold at the [East] India Company's sales, and to empower the commissioners of the treasury to grant licenses to the East India Company to export tea duty-free …”
– Long title of the “Tea Act 1773,” as passed by the Parliament of Great Britain (incidentally, this act led to the Boston Tea Party, to which the Parliament responded with the “Coercive Acts” – known in America as the “Intolerable Acts”)
Anecdote about the Boston Tea Party, and how Britain responded with the Intolerable Acts
In 1773, the British East India Company got permission from Parliament to sell some of its tea in the British colonies in North America. The trouble was that there were still some Parliamentary taxes on the tea (from the earlier Townshend Acts), and these taxes were somewhat unpopular in America. Thus, a group of Americans calling themselves the “Sons of Liberty” implemented a protest one night. Dressing up as Native Americans, they went into the British ships anchored in Boston harbor, and dumped the tea overboard into the waters of the harbor. At that time, any submission to the British taxes (to which the colonial legislatures had not consented) seemed like tacit approval of Parliamentary tyranny. To quote a popular slogan from the time, “no taxation without representation.” This is why they felt justified in preventing other colonists from buying the tea, rather than simply refusing to buy it for themselves. This protest would go down in history as the “Boston Tea Party.” As many British commentators have noted, the Boston Tea Party was a classic example of gesture politics. And it certainly angered the British Parliament. In 1774, the British responded with what they called the “Coercive Acts.” But these acts would instead become known in America as the “Intolerable Acts.” There were originally four of these acts, although a fifth one (largely unconnected) would later be added. Thus, this might be a good time to talk here about the Intolerable Acts. Many of the grievances from these acts found their way into the United States Declaration of Independence. Some of the concerns from the acts even found their way into the United States Constitution – and, more specifically, into the United States Bill of Rights.
Boston Tea Party, 1773 – which Parliament considered sufficient to warrant the Intolerable Acts
The Boston Port Act closes the port of Boston, cutting off its trade with the outside world
The first of these acts was the Boston Port Act (also called the Trade Act). Or, to use its official long title, “An act to discontinue, in such manner, and for such time as are therein mentioned, the landing and discharging, shipping of goods, wares, and merchandise, at the town, and within the harbour, of Boston, in the province of Massachusetts Bay, in North America.” As Wikipedia puts it, the act closed the port of Boston “until the colonists paid for the destroyed tea and the king was satisfied that order had been restored. Colonists objected that the Port Act punished all of Boston rather than just the individuals who had destroyed the tea, and that they were being punished without having been given an opportunity to testify in their own defense.” (Source: Their page on the “Intolerable Acts,” section entitled “The Acts”) The British government was cutting off the colonies’ trade in many other ways as well. This was part of why the era’s smuggling laws were routinely evaded, and smugglers were seen in the American colonies as “heroic” defenders of free trade. Incidentally, these general concerns about trade would later enter the United States Declaration of Independence. Specifically, the Declaration’s list of grievances complained that the present King of Great Britain was “cutting off our trade with all parts of the world” (Source: Declaration of Independence). Obviously, the colonists weren’t too happy about that, which was why they inserted that complaint into their list of grievances.
1886 engraving of the burning of the schooner Gaspee by the Sons of Liberty in 1772
The Massachusetts Government Act revokes colonial charters and limits colonial meetings
Even more unpopular was the Massachusetts Government Act. Or, to use its official long title, “An act for the better regulating the government of the province of the Massachusetts Bay, in New England.” The act said that “so much of the charter granted by their Majesties King William and Queen Mary, to the inhabitants of the said Province of the Massachusetts Bay, in New England, and all and every clause, matter, and thing, therein contained, which relates to the time and manner of electing the Assistants or Counsellors for the said Province, be revoked, and is hereby revoked and made void and of none effect” (Source: Text of the act) The act also provided that nearly all positions in the colonial government, as Wikipedia summarizes it, were to be “appointed by the governor, Parliament, or the king” (Source: Their page on the “Intolerable Acts,” section entitled “The Acts”) And, to again quote the text of the act itself, the act said that “no meeting shall be called by the Selectmen, or at the request of any number of freeholders of any township, district, or precinct, without the leave of the Governor, or, in his absence, of the Lieutenant Governor, in writing, expressing the special business of the said meeting, first had and obtained,” and that “no other matter shall be treated of at such meetings, except the election of their aforesaid officers or Representatives, nor at any other meeting, except the business expressed in the leave given by the Governor, or, in his absence, by the Lieutenant Governor.” (Source: Text of the act) These concerns would later enter the United States Declaration of Independence. Specifically, the Declaration’s list of grievances complained that the present King of Great Britain was “taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments.” (Source: Declaration of Independence) That list of grievances also complained that the present King of Great Britain was “suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.” (Source: Declaration of Independence) That last part was a reference to the earlier Declaratory Act, from which I quote here. Here, I will only say that it did indeed include the infamous phrase “in all cases whatsoever.” These concerns may also have found their way into the United States Constitution. Perhaps partially as a response to these restrictions on meetings, the United States Bill of Rights would later protect “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” (Source: First Amendment)
1774 political cartoon showing the Intolerable Acts being forced down the colonies’ throats
The Administration of Justice Act gives immunity to most British soldiers in America
But the most unpopular of the four acts may have been the Administration of Justice Act. Or, to use its official long title, “An act for the impartial administration of justice in the cases of persons questioned for any acts done by them in the execution of the law, or for the suppression of riots and tumults in the province of Massachusetts Bay, in New England.” As Wikipedia puts it, the act “allowed the royal governor to order trials of accused royal officials to take place in Great Britain or elsewhere within the Empire if he decided that the defendant could not get a fair trial in Massachusetts. Although the act stipulated for witnesses to be reimbursed after having traveled at their own expense across the Atlantic, it was not stipulated that this would include reimbursement for lost earnings during the period for which they would be unable to work, leaving few with the ability to testify.” (Source: Their page on the “Intolerable Acts,” section entitled “The Acts”) Many colonists pointed out that the British soldiers accused of the so-called “Boston Massacre” had been acquitted by a local Boston jury. Thus, it seemed clear to the colonists that these radical measures were unnecessary. George Washington even went so far as to call this act the “Murder Act.” These concerns would later enter the United States Declaration of Independence. Specifically, the Declaration’s list of grievances complained that the present King of Great Britain was “protecting [his troops], by a mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states” (Source: Declaration of Independence). An earlier act from 1772, called the “Dockyards &c. Protection Act 1772,” was providing that the colonists would be tried in England, if it was felt that a conviction in the colonies would be unlikely. In the words of the act, “any person who shall commit any of the offences before mentioned in any place out of this realm, may be indicted and tried for the same either in any shire or county within this realm, in like manner and form as if such offence had been committed within the said shire or county, or in such island, country, or place where such offence shall have been actually committed, as his Majesty, his heirs or successors, may deem most expedient for bringing such offender to justice, any law, usage, or custom notwithstanding.” (Source: Text of the act) Therefore, the Declaration’s list of grievances also complained that the present King of Great Britain was “transporting us beyond seas, to be tried for pretended offenses” (Source: Declaration of Independence). Obviously, these things were very unpopular in the American colonies.
A somewhat-inaccurate engraving of the earlier (so-called) “Boston Massacre,” 1770
The Quartering Act allows the forced housing of British soldiers in American homes
The last of the original four “Coercive Acts” was the Mutiny in America Act 1774, better known as the “Quartering Act 1774.” Or, to use its official long title, “An act for further continuing two acts, made in the sixth and ninth years of His Majesty's reign, for punishing mutiny and desertion; and for the better payment of the army and their quarters, in His Majesty's dominions in America.” The text of the act said that “if it shall happen at any time that any officers or soldiers in his Majesty’s service shall remain within any of the said colonies without quarters, for the space of twenty-four hours after such quarters shall have been demanded, it shall and may be lawful for the governor of the province to order and direct such and so many uninhabited houses, out-houses, barns, or other buildings, as he shall think necessary to be taken, (making a reasonable allowance for the same), and make fit for the reception of such officers and soldiers, and to put and quarter such officers and soldiers therein, for such time as he shall think proper.” (Source: Text of the act) Some have pointed out that the act specifically singles out “uninhabited” houses. Thus, they conclude that the soldiers were not allowed to “force” themselves into houses that were, in fact, inhabited. But, as the aforementioned text shows, it also included “other buildings, as he [that is, the Governor] shall think necessary to be taken.” Thus, if the governor considered houses that were indeed inhabited as “necessary to be taken,” the act (unfortunately) gave him the legal power to quarter his soldiers there, with or without the consent of the owner – despite the modern revisionist arguments to the contrary. This sort of thing was forbidden by prior British laws like Sir Edward Coke’s Petition of Right. But Parliament seems to have enjoyed the authority to repeal those prior laws at will. That is, these prior laws did not have the same “untouchable” status of the later United States Constitution, and could thus be repealed at the whim of Parliament.
Join or Die political cartoon from back in 1754, attributed to Benjamin Franklin
Influence on the later Third Amendment to the United States Constitution
These concerns would later enter the United States Declaration of Independence. Specifically, the Declaration’s list of grievances said that the present King of Great Britain “has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies, without the consent of our legislatures.” (Source: Declaration of Independence) That list of grievances also said that the present King of Great Britain “has affected to render the military independent of, and superior to, the civil power.” (Source: Declaration of Independence) And, most relevantly, they complained that the present King of Great Britain was “quartering large bodies of armed troops among us” (Source: Declaration of Independence). Incidentally, these concerns about quartering would later enter the United States Constitution as well. Specifically, the United States Bill of Rights says that “No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.” (Source: Third Amendment to the United States Constitution)
British grenadier of the 40th Regiment of Foot, 1767
The Quebec Act is later added – which was popular in Canada, but unpopular in America
Some would also include a fifth act amongst the Intolerable Acts. Specifically, some would include the later Quebec Act 1774 (British laws are not cited as being “of” a particular year – it’s just the “Quebec Act 1774”). The Quebec Act was not officially connected with the “Coercive Acts,” although it was actually passed in the same legislative session. The act’s official long title was simply: “An act for making more effectual provision for the government of the province of Quebec in North America.” The act expanded the territory of the province of Quebec. It appeared to void the relevant land claims of the Ohio Company, and even extended so far as the Great Lakes region. These territorial expansions were popular in Canada, but very unpopular in the thirteen American colonies. This act also said that “His Majesty's subjects, professing the religion of the Church of Rome of and in the said province of Quebec, may have, hold, and enjoy, the free exercise of the religion of the Church of Rome, subject to the King's supremacy” (Source: Text of the act) The act also provided that “the clergymen enjoy their accustomed dues,” and that “the clergy of the said church may hold, receive, and enjoy, their accustomed dues and rights, with respect to such persons only as shall profess the said religion.” (Source: Text of the act) The colonists (perhaps erroneously) interpreted this as an “establishment” of religion. Sadly, nothing like the religious freedom clauses of the later United States Bill of Rights had so far been established in this country. Wikipedia also argues that the colonists “resented the lenient provisions granted to their erstwhile enemies whom they had fought hard against during the French and Indian War.” (Source: Their page on the “Intolerable Acts,” section entitled “The Acts”) This may have been partially true. However, the colonists also believed that the Quebec Act was introducing absolute and arbitrary government into Canada, and abolishing its free system of English laws. This is why these kinds of concerns would later enter the United States Declaration of Independence. Specifically, the Declaration’s list of grievances said that the present King of Great Britain was “abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province [namely, Canada], establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries, so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these colonies” (Source: Declaration of Independence) This seems to be a clear reference to the Quebec Act.
Original manuscript of the Quebec Act, 1774
Conclusion: The Intolerable Acts contributed to the outbreak of the American Revolution
The Boston Port Act was repealed in January 1776, and the Quartering Act was repealed in March 1776. The United States Declaration of Independence came out some months later – on July 4th, 1776. The Massachusetts Government Act was repealed two years later in 1778, and the Quebec Act was repealed in 1791 – eight years after the mother country had recognized American independence. However, the infamous “Administration of Justice Act” was not repealed until 1871, roughly a century after its original enactment. Small wonder, then, that the repeals were seen in America as “too little, too late.” Along with other acts (like the Sugar Act, the Currency Act, and the Stamp Act), the “Intolerable Acts” had made Britain many enemies in its American colonies. The Intolerable Acts would contribute to the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War – and, as mentioned earlier, they were often cited with great disapproval in America’s Declaration of Independence. And they totally backfired on the British government, by causing them to lose many of their North American colonies – which had actually tended to be fairly loyal before then. Among other things, the Intolerable Acts contributed to the creation of the separate United States of America, which said that “all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.” (Source: Declaration of Independence) Many of these unfortunate breaches have since been repaired, but the two regions remain separate countries today – more than 200 years later.
If you liked this post, you might also like:
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment