“Whereas many of our subjects in divers parts of our colonies and plantations in North America … have at length proceeded to open and avowed rebellion, by arraying themselves in a hostile manner, to withstand the execution of the law, and traitorously preparing, ordering and levying war against us: And whereas, there is reason to apprehend that such rebellion hath been much promoted and encouraged by the traitorous correspondence, counsels and comfort of divers wicked and desperate persons within this realm: To the end therefore, that none of our subjects may neglect or violate their duty through ignorance thereof, or through any doubt of the protection which the law will afford to their loyalty and zeal, we have thought fit, by and with the advice of our Privy Council, to issue our Royal Proclamation …”
– The “Proclamation of Rebellion” by King George the Third (23 August 1775)
In the eighteenth century, Americans had strong disagreements about colonial grievances
We today remember the Declaration of Independence for its ideas, and it is right that we do so. But, surprisingly, it was most famous in its own time … for the list of colonial grievances. To the people of that time, the list of grievances was the most important part, and certainly the most interesting. The grievances addressed the fiery controversies of the day, about whether the king had broken his end of a social contract with the people. Some American Loyalists actually agreed with the idea that the king had done some terrible things to the American colonies. Many of them even agreed that, if these provocations were indeed bad enough, rebellion would indeed be justified. But they needed to be convinced that the provocations were indeed bad enough to justify this radical course of action.
Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence
That’s why the grievances section of the Declaration of Independence was so important
It was in this context that the Declaration of Independence listed colonial grievances against the British government. Again, we today remember the Declaration of Independence for its stirring ideas and philosophy. And many of us today would thus be tempted to find this list of grievances rather long and tedious. But the attitude of its contemporary audience would have been far different. For them, the philosophy contained in the Declaration of Independence was known to be accepted by both sides. This was why the Declaration could rightly refer to these ideas as “self-evident.” The real controversies tended to swirl around the facts, rather than the ideas. Thus, let us examine some of the grievances contained in the Declaration of Independence. By so doing, we may better understand why the colonies decided to rebel against British authority in the first place. Incidentally, it is interesting that these grievances are directed against the British king, rather than the British Parliament. This is because the people’s social contract was deemed to be with the king, rather than with the Parliament. The only complaint about the Parliament said that the king has “combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution and unacknowledged by our laws, giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation.” But, again, the primary target of that complaint was still King George the Third himself. As the Declaration of Independence put it, “The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.”
United States Declaration of Independence – July 4th, 1776
In many ways, the king was having a bad influence upon the laws of the American colonies
In those days, the monarch’s assent was always required for Parliament to pass any law. More about that in another blog post. Thus, the very first grievance in the Declaration of Independence addressed this important concern. Specifically, the Declaration said that the king has “refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.” The next grievance said that the king has “forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and, when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.” Another grievance said that the king has “refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them, and formidable to tyrants only.” The next grievance said that the king has “called together legislative bodies at places unusual uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.” Another grievance said that the king has “dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing, with manly firmness, his invasions on the rights of the people.” The next grievance said that the king has “refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining, in the mean time, exposed to all the dangers of invasions from without and convulsions within.”
King George the Third
Complaints about naturalization, judges depending upon the king, and bureaucracy
In 1739, Parliament had passed the “Naturalization Act 1739.” There was some delay in its taking effect. Thus, it would also be known as the “Naturalization Act 1740,” or even the “Plantation Act 1740.” The act’s longer official title was as follows: “An act for naturalizing such foreign Protestants and others therein mentioned, as are settled or shall settle in any of His Majesty's colonies in America.” In the colonists’ minds, this clause may also have been somewhat related to the slave trade, with the “migration” of slaves from abroad to fill the plantations. Hence, the alternative title of the “Plantation Act 1740.” Thus, another clause in the Declaration of Independence addressed this concern. This clause said that the king has “endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.” With one exception to be shown hereafter, this is the only clause in the Declaration about which I have some reservations. The next grievance said that the king has “obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.” In those days, judges were still entirely dependent upon the king for their authority. Thus, another grievance said that the king has “made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.” The next grievance said that the king has “erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.”
John Locke, English philosopher
“No taxation without representation,” and depriving colonists of a trial by jury
In 1774, the Parliament had also passed what it called the “Coercive Acts.” But they were instead known in America as the “Intolerable Acts.” There are a fair number of grievances in the Declaration of Independence about the various laws that comprise the “Intolerable Acts.” Thus, I have instead saved my discussion of those particular grievances for another post. In this post, I will instead develop some other sections of the list of grievances. I will now skip to some of these later sections. Specifically, the Parliament had tried to impose many taxes on the American colonies. These included the Sugar Act, the Stamp Act, and the Townshend Acts (among many others). The trouble, to put it bluntly, was that the colonies were not represented in this Parliament that was taxing them. This violated the principles of the long-dead English philosopher John Locke, a favorite of the American Revolutionary enthusiasts. Thus, the Declaration of Independence also lambasted the king for “imposing taxes on us without our consent.” This would later be expressed in a popular slogan: “No taxation without representation.” This issue is so important that it might be worth a post all its own. Thus, I have addressed that problem here. The Declaration of Independence also lambasted the king for “depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury.” This violated a number of prior laws from Great Britain itself, as Sir William Blackstone describes here.
Battle of Lexington, 1775
Response to the Parliament’s Prohibitory Act, and the king’s Proclamation of Rebellion
Some of the next sections are also about the aforementioned “Intolerable Acts.” Thus, I have likewise saved my discussions of these sections for another post. Thus, I will again skip to some of the later grievances. In 1775, the American Revolutionary War had begun with the bloodshed at Lexington and Concord. Thus, the Parliament responded with the “Prohibitory Act 1775.” The official long title of the act reads in part: “An act to prohibit all trade and inter-courses with the colonies … during the continuance of the present rebellion within the said colonies respectively” (Source: Long title) Thus, the Parliament was cutting off all of the colonies’ trade with the outside world. In 1775, the Battle of Bunker Hill (actually nearby Breed’s Hill) was fought. This was the first major battle of the American Revolutionary War. The battle was technically a British victory, in that the Redcoats had succeeded in taking the field. But, as British general Henry Clinton said at the time, “A few more such victories would have shortly put an end to British dominion in America.” The king responded to this costly battle with the Proclamation of Rebellion in 1775, quoted at the beginning of this post. In that proclamation, the king said that “not only all our officers, civil and military, are obliged to exert their utmost endeavors to suppress such rebellion, and to bring the traitors to justice, but that all our subjects of this realm, and the dominions thereunto belonging, are bound by law to be aiding and assisting in the suppression of such rebellion, and to disclose and make known all traitorous conspiracies and attempts against us, our crown and dignity; and we do accordingly strictly charge and command all our Officers, as well civil as military, and all others our obedient and loyal subjects, to use their utmost endeavors to withstand and suppress such rebellion, and to disclose and make known all treasons and traitorous conspiracies which they shall know to be against us, our crown and dignity; and for that purpose, that they transmit to one of our principal Secretaries of State, or other proper officer, due and full information of all persons who shall be found carrying on correspondence with, or in any manner or degree aiding or abetting the persons now in open arms and rebellion against our government, within any of our colonies and plantations in North America, in order to bring to condign punishment the authors, perpetrators, and abettors of such traitorous designs.” (Source: Text of the proclamation) Thus, the Declaration of Independence complained that the king has “abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.” This was a response to both the Prohibitory Act and the Proclamation of Rebellion. The Declaration of Independence then continues, saying that the king has “plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.” This was a reference to the already-ongoing violence of the Revolutionary War.
Battle of Bunker Hill, 1775
Complaints about mercenaries, impressment, slave rebellions, and indigenous violence
At that time, the king was starting to use a group of German mercenaries. They came from many German states. But, most prominently, they came from the German states of Hesse-Kassel and Hesse-Hanau. Thus, these mercenaries came to be known as the “Hessians.” The Declaration of Independence thus complained that the king was “at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.” The king was also enacting a policy called “impressment.” This involved drafting American sailors into the Royal Navy, without the consent of the colonial legislatures. It was one thing for Americans to be drafted by their own colonial legislatures, in which they were indeed represented. It was another thing for them to be drafted by a Parliament, in which they were not represented. Thus, the Declaration of Independence complained that the king has “constrained our fellow-citizens, taken captive on the high seas, to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.” The colonies may also have been (at least somewhat) worried about the king inciting slave rebellions in the American colonies. They were also worried about the king’s inciting violence from Native American tribes. Thus, the Declaration’s list of grievances ended with the clause that is now the most controversial part. In that clause, the Declaration of Independence complained that the king has “excited domestic insurrection among us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers the merciless Indian savages [their words, not mine], whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions.” With the earlier-mentioned exception about the slave trade, this is the only clause in the Declaration about which I have some reservations.
Hessian grenadiers, the unpopular foreign mercenaries hired by the British
1780 caricature of a “press gang,” or impressment of sailors into the Royal Navy
Conclusion: The case for the American Revolution is, and always has been, sound
Despite that last clause, I consider the Declaration’s case for the American Revolution to be sound. Again, I have saved my discussion of many of the other grievances … for another post about the “Intolerable Acts.” Between that post and this one, I have now covered all of the grievances listed in our Declaration of Independence. Again, this list of grievances was considered quite topical at the time. Those grievances helped to explain why many Americans were now being “constrained” (as Jefferson put it) towards the radical course of revolution. They were indeed being “constrained,” and were left with little choice but to rebel against British authority. If you’ve ever wondered why they did so, the Declaration of Independence may still be the most helpful explanation of its reasons. Some Americans may have remained unmoved by its arguments, but others saw it as a persuasive case for the American Revolution. And the Declaration remains a fascinating read, all of these years later.
“In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms; our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”
If you liked this post, you might also like:
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment