MY PERSPECTIVE, Gary Damron
After ten articles which have highlighted some causes of the Revolutionary War, we'll pause this week to show some applications, as a transfer of power began between the mother land and her subjects across the Atlantic.
Until the conclusion of the French and Indian War in 1763, salutary or benign neglect had been the practice of Britain toward the colonies. Economic systems and methods of governance had been developed in accordance with royal charters; so in most respects, Colonials were free to practice self-governance according to English common law.
After France surrendered, England had many reasons to begin asserting power over her now expansive empire. Controlling a large territory and paying off war debt would require different methods, which were new and unwelcome to people who had mostly operated independently of regulation. A gradual transfer of power, from the King's government to the colonists, began when colonials reacted to British initiatives. The first few years, they simply resisted, within acceptable limits, to perceived violations of their rights.
For instance, leaders in the colonies had hoped that protests of the Stamp Act passed in 1765 would stay focused on parliamentary taxation without representation. However, protests soon turned to violent actions which involved destruction of property, attacks on court and custom officials, and in some cases, riots. These actions proved counterproductive, as they alienated potential supporters and provoked English authorities. They also violated standards, advocated by people like John Locke and Algernon Sydney, whom colonists read and followed. Rebellion, they wrote, should happen only in response to threats to liberty that were so significant that most people would recognize the problem. Force was only justifiable after peaceful means had failed; protests against encroachment should not involve further injustice; and resistance should only be attempted if there was a good chance of success.
Committees of Correspondence were organized first in 1764 to allow colonial leaders to share information, spread propaganda, and promote unity against British policies. Detailing British abuses, protests, and legislative actions, they operated through an interconnected system that linked major coastal cities with rural areas. Town meetings addressed large-scale political issues, where citizens could discuss and vote on colonial responses. The committees evolved into extra-legal governments, enforcing policies, managing local militias, and providing financing.
Colonial leaders advocated social and economic boycotts, but tried to control extra-legal action - sometimes accompanied by threats and violence - so as not to damage their cause. Inter-colonial associations called the Sons of Liberty formed in 1765, composed mostly of middle- and upper-class colonists, to maintain order by organizing these spontaneous efforts. Their desire was to raise and coordinate physical resistance only if the crown used the army to enforce its laws. They stressed loyalty to the crown, though they protested what they saw as unconstitutional actions. The organization even adopted rules “for binding acts that disturbed the public tranquility or private piece of any person”. The Sons of Liberty thus were taking on responsibility for maintaining the peace, a primary function of government.
Another component added that same year was non-importation associations. Committees formed which were responsible for enforcing boycotts. They investigated complaints and imposed sanctions against those found guilty, much like a regular court system. They also attempted to regulate prices, so colonial merchants couldn't profit using their old inventories of British goods. They asserted regulations regarding contraband items; for instance, smuggled tea from Holland could be lawfully sold, but it was a high crime to sell goods from England. Non-importation associations then were taking on regulatory responsibilities, another function of government.
By the time Parliament approved the Coercive Acts in 1774, the transfer of authority from the King's government was becoming well developed. Royal English governors refused to convene assemblies, or dissolved them in an effort to prevent the election of delegates to a Continental Congress scheduled to meet in Philadelphia that Fall. The Superior Court could not meet because jurors refused to take an oath under the new laws. In Massachusetts, members of the upper house appointed by Governor Gage either resigned or fled to the protection of the British army.
Provincial governments began to perform more acts of government, the crisis deepened, and royal governments in many colonies began to collapse. Twelve colonies, all but Georgia, sent delegates to the First Continental Congress in September 1774. Its purpose was to coordinate colonial opposition to the Coercive Acts; to consider new non-importation agreements, and to agree on efforts throughout the colonies. Their initial purpose was, by a strong and unified resistance, to bring about restoration and reconciliation. However, as we've seen above, England's expansion of power had already compelled the colonies to organize a mostly self-governing system.
With each British effort to assert authority, colonial resistance increased. To protect their rights, the colonies developed systems for self-governance. By 1776, when Americans decided to sever ties, many well-organized governing structures were already in place. Next week, we’ll see how the Continental Congress moved the colonies further toward the political positions of its more radical members.
