USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
Assignment 1: Identity-through-Exclusion
Discussion Question
After reading the materials for this module, reflect on the different ways that various groups in American history have tried to define the national identity in terms of exclusion—whether it be whites excluding non-whites, males excluding females, natives excluding immigrants, and so on.
For this discussion thread, think about ways that such a process of identity-through-exclusion persists today.
For instance, one of the most obvious examples of “identity-through-exclusion” is our national identity. We know we are Americans because we are not Canadians, or Germans, or Japanese, and so on. Within American culture, we often define our identity in similar ways. Some stores exclude non-members from shopping there, some clubs or organizations require certain traits (for example, being a certain age, a certain religion, a certain ethnicity), and some rights exclude groups (voting rights, citizenships rights, and so on). Such exclusions are sometimes rooted in monetary gain (like requiring shoppers to buy memberships), sometimes in efficiency (like preventing children from voting), and sometimes in other goals.
Can you think of any instances where Americans find or define their identity by excluding other groups? What groups are excluded, and what groups are doing the excluding? What does the excluding group hope to gain by preventing the other group from being counted as a member?
Submit your responses to the appropriate Discussion Area. Start reviewing and responding to your peers’ posts as early in the module as possible. Expand on your classmates’ posts to critically engage in the discussion. You can ask a question, post a comment, or add a point to expand the discussion. Write your initial response in 3–4 paragraphs.
By the due date assigned, post your response to the appropriate Discussion Area. Through the end of the module review and comment on at least two peers’ responses.
All written assignments and responses should follow APA rules for attributing sources.
Grading Criteria Maximum Points Quality of initial posting, including fulfillment of assignment instructions 16 Quality of responses to classmates 12 Frequency of responses to classmates 4 Reference to supporting readings and other materials 4 Language and grammar 4 Total:40
5 What Kind of Revolution?: JUSTIFICATIONS FOR REBELLION
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Independence movements were everywhere at the end of the last century. Many French-speaking Canadians sought independence for Quebec, while the majority of the country denounced separation. In Eastern Europe, Bosnians, Serbs, and Croats killed one another in the name of self-rule. The former Soviet Union no longer exists because its ethnic groups—Ukranians, Armenians, Lithuanians, and others—demanded independence. In Africa, competing ethnic factions vied for recognition. Muslims in India demanded greater autonomy from the Hindu majority, while the movement to free Tibet from Chinese rule gained international support.
Although calls for liberty and self-determination have wide appeal, the road to self-rule is often littered with the debris of internal strife, mob violence, and even civil war. Nevertheless, the desire of ethnic, national, and religious groups for autonomy—sometimes in opposition to powerful colonialist or imperialist nations—often becomes an irresistible force in the world.
One of the critical questions facing all humans in such crises is when and under what circumstances rebellions against established authorities are justified. This was the great question that confronted theEnglish subjects who lived in America during the decade of the 1770s. After months of intense debate, during which many ideas were presented, considered, and rejected, the Americans declared the colonies to “be free and independent states.” With this declaration, they launched the first national rebellion against colonial rule in modern times.
The American War of Independence began first in people’s minds. Before a shot was fired, the colonists had to break the laws that governed them and to deny the right of those who had ruled them to do so any longer—in short, to reject what they had accepted for decades. Their intellectual work of justifying rebellion has inspired other people around the world for over two hundred years.
Years of controversy between the colonies and England divided the colonists into several schools ofthought. On the one extreme were the militants, who vowed never to yield to British pretensions. In themiddle were the moderates, who, while denouncing British encroachments on their liberties, saw benefits from their association with England and favored policies of conciliation. At the other extreme were theTories, who desired to remain loyal to the Crown. These groups were roughly equal in numbers.
When the First
Continental Congress
opened in September 1774, the delegates debated and then rejected aplan of compromise proposed by Joseph Galloway of Pennsylvania. In its stead, the militants within thecongress pushed through a Declaration of Rights and Grievances that attacked England’s right to tax thecolonists and demanded the repeal of several acts viewed by the delegates as “intolerable.” The ensuing spring, the British Parliament considered the American question. In the end, it also rejected a plan ofreconciliation and voted instead to send more troops to America.
With the militants in control on both sides of the Atlantic, the stage was set for confrontation. On April 18, 1775, General Thomas Gage dispatched 700 British troops from Boston to capture colonial leaders and supplies at Concord, Massachusetts. The Boston Committee of Correspondence immediately sent Paul Revere and two other patriots to warn the colonists of the British movements. At dawn the following morning, 70 “minutemen”—about half the adult males in Lexington—encountered the British regulars at a bridge along the road to Concord. Guns flashed, men fell, and a war began.
Three weeks later, colonial delegates to the Second Continental Congress gathered in Philadelphia. This body promptly resolved to undertake “the defense of American liberty.” To secure this end, it created an army and appointed George Washington as commander-in-chief. These initial actions, however, did not include a demand for independence. Rather, for the next 15 months, the chief objective of the delegates to the congress was to secure the repeal of parliamentary legislation they considered oppressive. They wanted, they said, not independence, but the constitutional liberties due all Englishmen, including those who lived in America.
As the rebellion continued, however, hopes for reconciliation evaporated. Late in the summer of 1775, British king George III issued a Proclamation for Suppressing Rebellion and Sedition and then hired mercenary soldiers to help crush the revolt. Meanwhile,
Lord Dunmore
, the Royal Governor of Virginia, placed his colony under martial law, issued a proclamation that offered freedom to slaves and indentured servants who joined the Loyalist army, and ordered the bombing of Norfolk. Early in 1776, another royal governor, Josiah Martin, also raised a force of 1,500 Scottish Highlanders in an attempt to seize control ofNorth Carolina. Such actions by the king and his men provoked many planters from the South as well as patriots from the North to demand a final break with Great Britain.
Perhaps the individual most influential in arousing public sentiment for independence was Thomas Paine. As a recent British immigrant who had been in America scarcely a year, Paine was an unlikely person to assume this role. Born in 1737, the son of a poor Quaker father and an Anglican mother, Paine had known poverty and hardship from birth. In his youth, Paine had lived an unsettled life, finding temporary employment as a sailor, a teacher, a tobacconist, a grocer, and an exciseman. His two unhappy marriages were brief—the first ending with the death of his wife, the second in legal separation. Aworking man with a lively intellectual curiosity, Paine often championed the causes of England’s laboring classes. On occasions his crusades got him into trouble. In the winter of 1772–1773, for instance, Paine lobbied Parliament for higher wages for underpaid excisemen. For leading this effort, he was dismissed from his government post and forced to sell his possessions to escape imprisonment for debt.
In 1774, without work or money, Paine left England for the New World. Armed with a letter ofintroduction from Benjamin Franklin, Paine found employment with a Philadelphia printer and rapidly rose in prominence, securing in February 1775 the editorship of the Pennsylvania Magazine. During theensuing months, Paine published several promising pieces, including “African Slavery in America,” an article that compared slavery with “murder, robbery, lewdness and barbarity.” Another essay, “A Serious Thought,” included the bold prediction that “the Almighty will finally separate America from Britain.” In these pieces, Paine flashed glimpses of his literary genius, a genius that became fully manifest in January 1776 with the publication of his electrifying masterpiece Common Sense.
The influence of this pamphlet can hardly be exaggerated. Written in a simple, plain, and direct style, easily read and understood by all, Common Sense became an instant hit, selling 120,000 copies in three months and more than half a million copies altogether. Newspapers across the colonies printed extended excerpts from Common Sense and summarized its arguments in favor of independence. Given the wide circulation of the tract and the low population of the period, it is probable that virtually everyone in thecolonies either read Common Sense or heard it discussed in public forums.
The arguments in Common Sense appealed to Americans of varying stations. Common people applauded those passages that ridiculed hereditary monarchy and denounced the British ruling classes for exploiting the lower classes in America and in England. More cautious Americans were persuaded by Paine’s promise that an independent America would be better able to remain aloof from European conflicts. Similarly, Paine’s optimistic forecasts of enormous European markets for American merchants and farmers freed from British mercantile policies convinced others to favor a final break with England. Like a catalytic agent, Paine’s brilliant piece of propaganda helped transform reluctant rebels into republican revolutionaries inflamed with a passion for independence.
As Americans discussed Common Sense in town meetings and taverns, colonial assemblies debated thedesirability of independence. In April 1776, North Carolina became the first colony to empower its delegates to the Second Continental Congress to support “independency.” A month later, a Virginia convention passed a resolution instructing its delegates to introduce to the congress a motion declaring the colonies to be “free and independent States, absolved from all allegiance to, or dependence on, theCrown or Parliament of Great Britain.” In early June, Richard Henry Lee presented the Virginia Resolution to the congress, and John Adams of Massachusetts seconded the motion. When moderate delegates questioned the wisdom of declaring independence before the people of the middle colonies demanded it, the congress decided to postpone debate on the resolution until July 1, hoping that a three-week delay would produce a more united front. In the interim, the congress appointed a committee, composed ofThomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Robert Livingston, and Roger Sherman, to draft adocument proposing a rationale for independence.
The Committee of Five selected the 33-year-old Jefferson to write the preliminary draft of the declaration. Despite his youth, Jefferson was the obvious choice. He was a Virginian, and according to protocol, it was proper for a delegate from the colony that had introduced the resolution to draft the formal declaration. Moreover,
Jefferson was an eloquent writer. He labored for about two weeks on his preliminary draft, showing it privately to Adams and Franklin (who offered a few suggestions) before bringing it back to the committee for further revisions.
This oil painting by Robert Edge Pine and Edward Savage (1785) depicts John Adams, Roger Sherman, Robert Livingston, and Thomas Jefferson presenting a draft of the Declaration of Independence to Congress. Benjamin Franklin, the fifth member of the draft committee, is seated in the center-left foreground. (Courtesy of The Historical Society ofPennsylvania Collection, Atwater Kent Museum of Philadelphia)
On July 1, as agreed upon, the congress reopened debate on the Virginia Resolution. When John Dickinson of Pennsylvania attempted to delay the decision—saying he did not oppose the action as much as thetiming—John Adams responded with a lengthy rebuttal, recapitulating once again the arguments in favor of immediate action. Nine colonies expressed support for the resolution, and two (Pennsylvania and South Carolina) opposed the motion. Meanwhile, the delegation from Delaware was evenly split, and New York’s delegation refused to vote until it received specific instructions on the matter from home. With only nine affirmative votes, the congress decided to defer the decision to another day.
By the next morning, however, circumstances had changed considerably. The South Carolina delegation agreed for the sake of unity to support independence. Similarly, two Pennsylvania delegates who had opposed the resolution agreed to stay away so that the majority of their colleagues could vote affirmatively. Finally, Caesar Rodney, an absent delegate from Delaware, rode 80 miles on horseback, night and day, and arrived in time to break the tie in his delegation. Thus, on
July 2, 1776
, the congress voted unanimously—12 colonies in favor, none opposed, with New York abstaining—to sever all ties with England and become free and independent states.
Having made the critical decision, the congress began debate on the wording of the formal declaration that would announce the birth of a nation. For two days the congress examined, line by line, thedocument originally drafted by Jefferson and revised by the Committee of Five. After making a number ofmodifications, on July 4 the congress officially approved the Declaration of Independence.
THE DOCUMENTS
Introduction to Documents 1, 2, and 3
By 1774, the British Parliament’s power to regulate trade and tax goods had been challenged with boycotts, the destruction of property, and the intimidation of customs officials by organized mobs. When Bostonians threw chests of East India Company tea into the harbor rather than pay taxes on it, Parliament reacted by closing the port of Boston, sending soldiers to enforce order, exempting those soldiers fromlocal civil laws, tightening colonial control over the Massachusetts legislature, banning town meetings, and installing a British general, Thomas Gage, as the new royal governor. In response to these Intolerable Acts, as some called them, the colonies sent delegates to what became known as the First Continental Congress. Rather suddenly, 13 separate disputes with England found a single, although extralegal, forum.
The issues that confronted the congress give us a good sense of how divided people were ideologically. Thefirst document here is an excerpt from Joseph Galloway’s “Plan of Union.” Galloway was a moderate fromPennsylvania, and he sought some way to reconcile the colonists’ desire to rule their own destinies with their status as British subjects. The congress rejected his plan of union, demanding instead the repeal ofthe Intolerable Acts.
Reverend
Samuel Seabury
reacted in January 1775 with his appeal to the New York legislature to resist thedrift toward radical ideas and to become a bulwark of loyalism to the Crown and Parliament. On the other side, Benjamin Franklin wrote personally to Galloway from London in February 1775, explaining thelimits of his own moderation. In all of these documents, note how charged the rhetoric had become, an indication of the emotional depth of the issues. Note especially how Franklin contrasted England’s “extreme corruption” with America’s “glorious public virtue.”
DOCUMENT 1 “Plan of Union”
Joseph Galloway
Resolved, That this Congress will apply to His Majesty for a redress of grievances, under which his faithful subjects in America labour, and assure him that the colonies hold in abhorrence the idea of being considered independent communities on the British Government, and most ardently desire theestablishment of a political union, not only among themselves, but with the mother state, upon those principles of safety and freedom which are essential in the constitution of all free governments, and particularly that of the British Legislature. And as the colonies from their local circumstances cannot be represented in the Parliament of Great Britain, they will humbly propose to His Majesty, and his two Houses of Parliament, the following plan, under which the strength of the whole Empire may be drawn together on any emergency; the interests of both countries advanced; and the rights and liberties ofAmerica secured.
A Plan of a proposed Union between Great Britain and the Colonies. . .
That a British and American Legislature, for regulating the administration of the general affairs ofAmerica, be proposed and established in America, including all the said colonies; within and under which government, each colony shall retain its present constitution and powers of regulating and governing its own internal police in all cases whatsoever.
That the said government be administered by a President-General to be appointed by the King, and aGrand Council to be chosen by the representatives of the people of the several colonies in their respective Assemblies, once in every three years. . . .
That the Grand Council shall meet once in every year if they shall think it necessary, and oftener if occasions shall require, at such time and place as they shall adjourn to at the last preceding meeting, or as they shall be called to meet at, by the President-General on any emergency.
That the Grand Council shall have power to choose their Speaker, and shall hold and exercise all the like rights, liberties, and privileges as are held and exercised by and in the House of Commons of Great Britain.
That the President-General shall hold his office during the pleasure of the King, and his assent shall be requisite to all Acts of the Grand Council, and it shall be his office and duty to cause them to be carried into execution.
That the President-General, by and with the advice and consent of the Grand Council, hold and exercise all the legislative rights, powers, and authorities, necessary for regulating and administering all the general police and affairs of the colonies. . . .
That the said President-General and Grand Council be an inferior and distinct branch of the British Legislature, united and incorporated with it for the aforesaid general purposes; and that any of the said general regulations may originate, and be formed and digested, either in the Parliament of Great Britain or in the said Grand Council; and being prepared, transmitted to the other for their approbation or dissent; and that the assent of both shall be requisite to the validity of all such general Acts and Statutes. . . .
DOCUMENT 2 “An Alarm to the Legislature”
Honourable Gentlemen,
When you reflect upon the present confused and distressed state of this, and the other colonies, I am persuaded, that you will think no apology necessary for the liberty I have taken, of addressing you on that subject. The unhappy contention we have entered into with our parent state, would inevitably be attended with many disagreeable circumstances, with many and great inconveniences to us, even were it conducted on our part, with propriety and moderation. What then must be the case, when all proper and moderate measures are rejected? When not even the appearance of decency is regarded? When nothing seems to be consulted, but how to perplex, irritate, and affront, the British Ministry, Parliament, Nation and King? When every scheme that tends to peace, is branded with ignominy; as being the machination ofslavery! When nothing is called FREEDOM but SEDITION! Nothing LIBERTY but REBELLION! . . .
When the Delegates had met at Philadelphia, instead of settling a reasonable plan of accommodation with the parent country, they employed themselves in censuring acts of the British parliament, which were principally intended to prevent smuggling, and all illicit trade;—in writing addresses to the people ofGreat-Britain, to the inhabitants of the colonies in general, and to those of the province of Quebec, in particular; with the evident design of making them dissatisfied with their present government; and ofexciting clamours, and raising seditions and rebellions against the state;—and in exercising a legislative authority over all the colonies. They had the insolence to proclaim themselves “A FULL AND FREE REPRESENTATION OF”—“HIS MAJESTY’S FAITHFUL SUBJECTS IN ALL THE COLONIES FROM NOVA-SCOTIA to GEORGIA;” and, as such, have laid a tax on all those colonies, viz. the profits arising from the sales of all goods imported from Great-Britain, Ireland, &c. during the months of December and January: Which taxis to be employed for the relief of the Boston poor. . . .
I must beg leave to enumerate a few of the effects of the measures of the Congress.—The government ofRhode-Island have dismantled the fort in their harbour, and carried off the cannon, in order to employ them against his Majesty’s forces. The inhabitants of New-Hampshire have, under the command of Major SULLIVAN, one of the Delegates, attacked, and by force of arms taken a FORT at Portsmouth, belonging to his Majesty, and carried off all the powder and small arms found in it. The people of Maryland have had aprovincial Congress who have assessed that colony in the sum of £.10,000, to be expended in arming and disciplining the inhabitants, to fight against the King. The people in New-England are raising, arming and disciplining men, for the same loyal and christian purpose. . . .
The state to which the GRAND CONGRESS, and the subordinate Committees, have reduced the colonies, is really deplorable. They have introduced a system of the most oppressive tyranny that can possibly be imagined;—a tyranny, not only over the actions, but over the words, thoughts, and wills, of the good people of this province. People have been threatened with the vengeance of a mob, for speaking in support of order and good government. Every method has been used to intimidate the printers frompublishing any thing, which tended to peace, or seem’d in favour of government; while the most detestable libels against the King, the British parliament, and Ministry, have been eagerly read, and extravagantly commended. . . .
Behold, Gentlemen, behold the wretched state to which we are reduced! A foreign power is brought in to govern this province. Laws made at Philadelphia, by factious men from New-England, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and the Carolinas, are imposed upon us by the most imperious menaces. Money is levied upon us without the consent of our representatives: which very money, under colour of relieving the poor people of Boston, it is too probable will be employed to raise an army against the King. Mobs and riots are encouraged, in order to force submission to the tyranny of the Congress. . . .
Act now, I beseech you, as you ever have done, as the faithful representatives of the people; as the real guardians of their Rights and Liberties. Give them deliverance from the tyranny of the Congress and Committees: Secure them against the horrid carnage of a civil war: And endeavour to obtain for them aFREE AND PERMANENT CONSTITUTION. . . .
Be assured, Gentlemen, that a very great majority of your constituents disapprove of the late violent proceedings, and will support you in the pursuit of more moderate measures, as soon as You have delivered Them from the tyranny of Committees, from the fear of violence, and the dread of mobs. Recur boldly to your good, old, legal and successful way of proceeding, by petition and remonstrance.
Address yourselves to the King and the two Houses of Parliament. Let your representations be decent and firm, and principally directed to obtain a solid American Constitution; such as we can accept with safety,and Great-Britain can grant with dignity. Try the experiment, and you will assuredly find that our most gracious Sovereign and both Houses of Parliament will readily meet you in the paths of peace. Only shew your willingness towards an accommodation, by acknowledging the supreme legislative authority ofGreat-Britain, and I dare confidently pronounce the attainment of whatever YOU with propriety, can ask,and the LEGISLATURE OF GREAT-BRITAIN with bonour concede.
DOCUMENT 3 Benjamin Franklin on the Galloway Plan and the North Resolution
Dear Friend,—In my last I mentioned to you my showing your plan of union to Lords Chatham and Camden. I now hear that you had sent it to Lord Dartmouth. . . .
I have not heard what objections were made to the plan in the Congress, nor would I make more than this one, that, when I consider the extreme corruption prevalent among all orders of men in this old, rotten state, and the glorious public virtue so predominant in our rising country, I cannot but apprehend more mischief than benefit from a closer union. I fear they will drag us after them in all the plundering wars which their desperate circumstances, injustice, and rapacity may prompt them to undertake; and their wide-wasting prodigality and profusion is a gulf that will swallow up every aid we may distress ourselves to afford them.
Here numberless and needless places, enormous salaries, pensions, perquisites, bribes, groundless quarrels, foolish expeditions, false accounts or no accounts, contracts and jobs, devour all revenue, and produce continual necessity in the midst of natural plenty. I apprehend, therefore, that to unite us intimately will only be to corrupt and poison us also. . . .
. . . However, I would try anything, and bear anything that can be borne with safety to our just liberties, rather than engage in a war with such relations, unless compelled to it by dire necessity in our own defence.
But should that plan be again brought forward, I imagine that before establishing the union, it would be necessary to agree on the following preliminary articles.
(1) The Declaratory Act; (2) all Acts of Parliament, or parts of Acts laying duties on the colonies; (3) all Acts of Parliament altering the charters, or constitutions, or laws of any colony; (4) all Acts of Parliament restraining manufactures; to be repealed. (5) Those parts of the Navigation Acts, which are for the good ofthe whole Empire, such as require that ships in the trade should be British or Plantation built, and navigated by three-fourths British subjects, with the duties necessary for regulating commerce, to be re-enacted by both Parliaments. (6) Then, to induce the Americans to see the regulating Acts faithfully executed, it would be well to give the duties collected in each colony to the treasury of that colony, and let the Governor and Assembly appoint the officers to collect them, and proportion their salaries. Thus thebusiness will be cheaper and better done, and the misunderstandings between the two countries, now created and fomented by the unprincipled wretches generally appointed from England, be entirely prevented.
These are hasty thoughts submitted to your consideration.
You will see the new proposal of Lord North, made on Monday last, which I have sent to the committee. Those in [the English] administration, who are for violent measures, are said to dislike it. The others rely upon it as a means of dividing, and by that means subduing us. But I cannot conceive that any colony will undertake to grant a revenue to a government that holds a sword over their heads with a threat to strike the moment they cease to give or do not give so much as it is pleased to expect. In such a situation, where is the right of giving our own property freely or the right to judge of our own ability to give? It seems to me the language of a highwayman who, with a pistol in your face, says: “Give me your purse, and then I will not put my hand into your pocket. But give me all your money, or I will shoot you through the head.” With great and sincere esteem, I am, etc.,
B. Franklin.
Introduction to Document 4
The convening of the First Continental Congress in 1774 was an enormous step in the thinking of thecolonists. If Patrick Henry went further than most in declaring himself an American more than aVirginian, he nonetheless captured the drift of events. The Continental Congress was only one quasi-governmental body among countless others throughout the colonies, all of which were completely unauthorized by British law. In 1775 and 1776, extralegal institutions raised money, passed legislation, and gathered armed militia. And the radicals had effectively ended trade with Britain. With the bloody day in Lexington and Concord, when scores of British and Colonial troops fell, and then with theconvening of the Second Continental Congress, the die of rebellion was cast.
Yet what was the meaning of these events? Why were people fighting and dying? Thomas Paine helped provide some answers. The following is an excerpt from his Common Sense. In reading this document, consider how eighteenth-century men and women from various social groups would respond to his arguments. What were Paine’s ideas about the origins of law, government, and community? How did theEnglish monarchy deviate from these origins? Pay particular attention to the metaphors that Paine used to make his case.
DOCUMENT 4 From Common Sense
Thomas Paine
. . . Mankind being originally equals in the order of creation, the equality could only be destroyed by some subsequent circumstance: the distinctions of rich and poor may in a great measure be accounted for, and that without having recourse to the harsh ill-sounding names of oppression and avarice. Oppression is often the consequence, but seldom or never the means of riches; and though avarice will preserve a man from being necessitously poor, it generally makes him too timorous to be wealthy.
But there is another and greater distinction for which no truly natural or religious reason can be assigned, and that is the distinction of men into KINGS and SUBJECTS. Male and female are the distinctions of nature, good and bad the distinctions of heaven; but how a race of men came into the world so exalted above therest, and distinguished like some new species, is worth inquiring into, and whether they are the means ofhappiness or of misery to mankind.
In the early ages of the world, according to the scripture chronology there were no kings; the consequence of which was, there were no wars; it is the pride of kings which throws mankind into confusion. . . .
In the following pages I offer nothing more than simple facts, plain arguments, and common sense: and have no other preliminaries to settle with the reader, than that he will divest himself of prejudice and prepossession, and suffer his reason and his feelings to determine for themselves: that he will put on, or rather that he will not put off, the true character of a man, and generously enlarge his views beyond the present day. . . .
The sun never shone on a cause of greater worth. ’Tis not the affair of a city, a country, a province, or a kingdom; but of a continent—of at least one eighth part of the habitable globe. ’Tis not the concern of a day, a year, or an age; posterity are virtually involved in the contest, and will be more or less affected even to the end of time, by the proceedings now. Now is the seed-time of continental union, faith and honor. The least fracture now will be like a name engraved with the point of a pin on the tender rind of a young oak; the wound would enlarge with the tree, and posterity read it in full grown characters. . . .
I have heard it asserted by some, that as America has flourished under her former connection with Great Britain, the same connection is necessary towards her future happiness, and will always have the same effect. Nothing can be more fallacious than this kind of argument. We may as well assert that because achild has thrived upon milk, that it is never to have meat, or that the first twenty years of our lives is to become a precedent for the next twenty. But even this is admitting more than is true; for I answer roundly, that America would have flourished as much, and probably much more, had no European power taken any notice of her. The commerce by which she hath enriched herself are the necessaries of life, and will always have a market while eating is the custom of Europe.
But she has protected us, say some. That she hath engrossed us is true, and defended the continent at our expense as well as her own, is admitted; and she would have defended Turkey from the same motive, viz.for the sake of trade and dominion.
Alas! we have been long led away by ancient prejudices and made large sacrifices to superstition. We have boasted the protection of Great Britain, without considering, that her motive was interest not attachment; and that she did not protect us from our enemies on our account; but from her enemies on her own account, from those who had no quarrel with us on any other account, and who will always be our enemies on the same account. Let Britain waive her pretensions to the continent, or the continent throw off the dependance, and we should be at peace with France and Spain, were they at war with Britain. The miseries of Hanover’s last war ought to warn us against connections.
It hath lately been asserted in Parliament, that the colonies have no relation to each other but through theparent country, i.e., that Pennsylvania and the Jerseys, and so on for the rest, are sister colonies by theway of England; this is certainly a very roundabout way of proving relationship, but it is the nearest and only true way of proving enmity (or enemyship, if I may so call it.). France and Spain never were, nor perhaps ever will be, our enemies as Americans, but as our being the subjects of Great Britain.
But Britain is the parent country, say some. Then the more shame upon her conduct. Even brutes do not devour their young, nor savages make war upon their families; wherefore, the assertion, if true, turns to her reproach; but it happens not to be true, or only partly so, and the phrase parent or mother country hath been jesuitically adopted by the king and his parasites, with a low papistical design of gaining an unfair bias on the credulous weakness of our minds. Europe, and not England, is the parent country ofAmerica. This new world hath been the asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty from every part of Europe. Hither have they fled, not from the tender embraces of the mother, but fromthe cruelty of the monster; and it is so far true of England, that the same tyranny which drove the first emigrants from home, pursues their descendants still. . . .
I challenge the warmest advocate for reconciliation to show a single advantage that this continent can reap by being connected with Great Britain. I repeat the challenge; not a single advantage is derived. Our corn will fetch its price in any market in Europe, and our imported goods must be paid for, buy them where we will.
But the injuries and disadvantages which we sustain by that connection, are without number; and our duty to mankind at large, as well as to ourselves, instruct us to renounce the alliance: because, any submission to, or dependence on, Great Britain, tends directly to involve this continent in European wars and quarrels, and set us at variance with nations who would otherwise seek our friendship, and against whom we have neither anger nor complaint. As Europe is our market for trade, we ought to form no partial connection with any part of it. It is the true interest of America to steer clear of European contentions, which she never can do, while, by her dependence on Britain, she is made the makeweight in the scale of British politics.
Europe is too thickly planted with kingdoms to be long at peace, and whenever a war breaks out between England and any foreign power, the trade of America goes to ruin, because of her connection with Britain.The next war may not turn out like the last, and should it not, the advocates for reconciliation now will be wishing for separation then, because neutrality in that case would be a safer convoy than a man of war. Every thing that is right or reasonable pleads for separation. The blood of the slain, the weeping voice ofnature cries, ’TIS TIME TO PART. Even the distance at which the Almighty hath placed England and America is a strong and natural proof that the authority of the one over the other, was never the design of heaven. The time likewise at which the continent was discovered, adds weight to the argument, and the manner in which it was peopled, encreases the force of it. The Reformation was preceded by the discovery ofAmerica: As if the Almighty graciously meant to open a sanctuary to the persecuted in future years, when home should afford neither friendship nor safety. . . .
Though I would carefully avoid giving unnecessary offence, yet I am inclined to believe, that all those who espouse the doctrine of reconciliation, may be included within the following descriptions.
Interested men, who are not to be trusted, weak men who cannot see, prejudiced men who will not see, and a certain set of moderate men who think better of the European world than it deserves; and this last class, by an ill-judged deliberation, will be the cause of more calamities to this continent than all the other three. . . .
Men of passive tempers look somewhat lightly over the offences of Great Britain, and, still hoping for thebest, are apt to call out, Come, come, we shall be friends again for all this. But examine the passions and feelings of mankind: bring the doctrine of reconciliation to the touchstone of nature, and then tell me whether you can hereafter love, honor, and faithfully serve the power that hath carried fire and sword into your land? If you cannot do all these, then are you only deceiving yourselves, and by your delay bringing ruin upon posterity. Your future connection with Britain, whom you can neither love nor honor, will be forced and unnatural, and being formed only on the plan of present convenience, will in a little time fall into a relapse more wretched than the first. But if you say, you can still pass the violations over, then I ask, hath your house been burnt? Hath your property been destroyed before your face? Are your wife and children destitute of a bed to lie on, or bread to live on? Have you lost a parent or a child by their hands, and yourself the ruined and wretched survivor? If you have not, then are you not a judge of those who have. But if you have, and can still shake hands with the murderers, then are you unworthy thename of husband, father, friend, or lover, and whatever may be your rank or title in life, you have theheart of a coward, and the spirit of a sycophant. . . .
’Tis repugnant to reason, to the universal order of things, to all examples from former ages, to suppose that this continent can long remain subject to any external power. The most sanguine in Britain doth not think so. The utmost stretch of human wisdom cannot, at this time, compass a plan, short of separation, which can promise the continent even a year’s security. Reconciliation is now a fallacious dream. Nature has deserted the connection, and art cannot supply her place. For, as Milton wisely expresses, “never can true reconcilement grow where wounds of deadly hate have pierced so deep.”
. . . Small islands not capable of protecting themselves are the proper objects for government to take under their care; but there is something absurd, in supposing a Continent to be perpetually governed by an island. In no instance hath nature made the satellite larger than its primary planet; and as England and America, with respect to each other, reverse the common order of nature, it is evident that they belong to different systems. England to Europe: America to itself.
I am not induced by motives of pride, party or resentment to espouse the doctrine of separation and independence; I am clearly, positively, and conscientiously persuaded that it is the true interest of this continent to be so; that everything short of that is mere patchwork, that it can afford no lasting felicity,—that it is leaving the sword to our children, and shrinking back at a time when a little more, a little further, would have rendered this continent the glory of the earth.
As Britain hath not manifested the least inclination towards a compromise, we may be assured that no terms can be obtained worthy the acceptance of the continent, or any ways equal to the expence of blood and treasure we have been already put to. . . .
. . . As I have always considered the independency of this continent, as an event which sooner or later must arrive, so from the late rapid progress of the continent to maturity, the event cannot be far off. Wherefore, on the breaking out of hostilities, it was not worth the while to have disputed a matter which time would have finally redressed, unless we meant to be in earnest: otherwise it is like wasting an estate on a suit at law, to regulate the trespasses of a tenant whose lease is just expiring. No man was a warmer wisher for a reconciliation than myself, before the fatal nineteenth of April, 1775, but the moment theevent of that day was made known, I rejected the hardened, sullen-tempered Pharaoh of England for ever; and disdain the wretch, that with the pretended title of FATHER OF HIS PEOPLE can unfeelingly hear oftheir slaughter, and composedly sleep with their blood upon his soul. . . .
. . . But where, say some, is the king of America? I’ll tell you, friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the royal brute of Great Britain. Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the Word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America the law is king. For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other. But lest any ill use should afterwards arise, let the crown at the conclusion of the ceremony be demolished, and scattered among the people whose right it is.
A government of our own is our natural right: and when a man seriously reflects on the precariousness ofhuman affairs, he will become convinced, that it is infinitely wiser and safer, to form a Constitution of our own in a cool deliberate manner, while we have it in our power, than to trust such an interesting event to time and chance. . . . Ye that oppose independence now, ye know not what ye do: ye are opening a door to eternal tyranny, by keeping vacant the seat of government. There are thousands and tens of thousands, who would think it glorious to expel from the continent, that barbarous and hellish power, which hath stirred up the Indians and the Negroes to destroy us; the cruelty hath a double guilt, it is dealing brutally by us, and treacherously by them.
To talk of friendship with those in whom our reason forbids us to have faith, and our affections wounded through a thousand pores instruct us to detest, is madness and folly. Every day wears out the little remains of kindred between us and them; and can there be any reason to hope, that as the relationship expires, the affection will increase, or that we shall agree better when we have ten times more and greater concerns to quarrel over than ever?
Ye that tell us of harmony and reconciliation, can ye restore to us the time that is past? Can ye give to prostitution its former innocence? neither can ye reconcile Britain and America. The last cord now is broken, the people of England are presenting addresses against us. There are injuries which nature cannot forgive; she would cease to be nature if she did. As well can the lover forgive the ravisher of his mistress, as the continent forgive the murders of Britain. The Almighty hath implanted in us these unextinguishable feelings for good and wise purposes. They are the guardians of his image in our hearts. They distinguish us from the herd of common animals. The social compact would dissolve, and justice be extirpated from the earth, or have only a casual existence were we callous to the touches of affection. Therobber and the murderer would often escape unpunished, did not the injuries which our tempers sustain, provoke us into justice.
O! ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose not only the tyranny but the tyrant, stand forth! Every spot of the old world is overrun with oppression. Freedom hath been hunted round the globe. Asia and Africa have long expelled her. Europe regards her like a stranger, and England hath given her warning to depart. O! receive the fugitive, and prepare in time an asylum for mankind.
Introduction to Document 5
Notwithstanding Paine’s persuasive pen, not everyone agreed with his assertions. For American Loyalists, it was the so-called “patriots” and not the King who were waging war against basic English liberties. One Englishman who articulated this position was the Rev.
John Wesley
, an Anglican minister beloved both in England and the colonies by all who called themselves “
Methodists
.” A lifelong
Tory
(according to Wesley, a Tory was “one who believes God, not the people, to be the origin of all civil power”), Wesley was an outspoken critic of the rebellion. When asked to deliver a “charity sermon” for the benefit of the widows and orphans of the early victims of the war, Wesley wrote and later published “National Sins and Miseries.” Compare the argument and rhetoric of this sermon with Paine’s Common Sense. What groups would have been more persuaded by Wesley than Paine? Which argument do you find to be the most compelling?
DOCUMENT 5 From “A Sermon Preached at St. Matthew’s, Bethnal Green, on Sunday, Nov. 12, 1775”
Let not anyone think this is but a small calamity which is fallen upon our land. If you saw, as I have seen, in every county, city, town, men who were once of a calm, mild, friendly temper, mad with party zeal, foaming with rage against their quiet neighbours, ready to tear out one another’s throats, and to plunge their swords into each other’s bowels; if you had heard men who once feared God and honoured the king now breathing out the bitterest invectives against him, and just ripe, should any occasion offer, for treason and rebellion; you would not then judge this to be a little evil, a matter of small moment, but one of the heaviest judgments which God can permit to fall upon a guilty land.
Such is the condition of Englishmen at home. And is it any better abroad? I fear not. From those who are now upon the spot I learn that in our colonies, also, many are causing the people to drink largely of thesame deadly wine; thousands of whom are there inflamed more and more, till their heads are utterly turned, and they are mad to all intents and purposes. Reason is lost in rage; its small still voice is drowned by popular clamour. Wisdom is fallen in the streets. And where is the place of understanding? It is hardly to be found in these provinces. Here is slavery, real slavery indeed, most properly so called. For theregular, legal, constitutional form of government is no more. Here is real, not imaginary, bondage; not theshadow of English liberty is left. Not only no liberty of the press is allowed—none dare print a page or aline unless it be exactly conformable to the sentiments of our lords, the people—but no liberty of speech.Their ‘tongue’ is not ‘their own.’ None must dare to utter one word either in favour of King George, or in disfavour of the idol they have set up—the new, illegal, unconstitutional government, utterly unknown to us and to our forefathers. Here is no religious liberty; no liberty of conscience from them that ‘honour theKing,’ and whom consequently a sense of duty prompts them to defend from the vile calumnies continually vented against him. Here is no civil liberty; no enjoying the fruit of their labour any further than the populace pleases. A man has no security for his trade, his house, his property, unless he will swim with the stream. Nay, he has no security for his life if his popular neighbour has a mind to cut this throat. For there is no law, and no legal magistrate to take cognizance of offenses. There is the gulf oftyranny—of arbitrary power on one hand, and of anarchy on the other. And, as if all this were not misery enough, see likewise the fell monster, war! But who can describe the complicated misery which is contained in this? Hark! The cannons roar! A pitchy cloud covers the face of the sky. Noise, confusion, terror, reign over all! Dying groans are on every side. The bodies of men are pierced, torn, hewed in pieces; their blood is poured on the early like water! Their souls take their flight into the eternal world; perhaps into everlasting misery. The ministers of grace turn away from the horrid scene; the minister ofvengeance triumph. Such already has been the face of things in that once happy land where peace and plenty, even while banished from great part of Europe, smiled for near a hundred years.
And what is it which drags on these poor victims into the field of blood? It is a great phantom which stalks before them, which they are taught to call, ‘liberty’! It is this which breathes
. . . into their hearts stern love of war,
And thirst of vengeance, and contempt of death.
Real liberty, meantime, is trampled underfoot, and is lost in anarchy and confusion.
But which of these warriors all the while considered the wife of his youth, that is now left a disconsolate widow—perhaps with none that careth for her; perhaps deprived of her only comfort and support, and not having where to lay her head? Who considered his helpless children, now desolate orphans, it may be, crying for bread, while their mother has nothing left to give them but her sorrows and her tears?
Introduction to Documents 6, 7, and 8
Even as Paine and Wesley penned their tirades against the evils of tyranny, events in Virginia were forcing Patriots and Loyalists alike to reflect upon the condition of that group of Americans most robbed ofhuman freedoms. On November 7, 1775, Lord Dunmore issued a proclamation for the colony of Virginia that offered freedom to any slave who agreed to join the fight for the British side. This proclamation caused a immediate stir, and in mid-December, the Virginia colonial assembly responded with its own proclamation threatening strict punishment for slaves deserting to the British. The following documents include Lord Dunmore’s Proclamation, a published letter about the proclamation, and Virginia’s official reaction to the proclamation. What insights about American and British attitudes toward slavery and liberty are contained in these documents? How do you think southern planters and African-Americanslaves would have responded to the arguments in this debate?
DOCUMENT 6 By His Excellency the Right Honorable JOHN Earl ofDUNMORE, His Majesty’s Lieutenant and Governor General of theColony and Dominion of VIRGINIA, and Vice Admiral of the Same
A Proclamation
As I have ever entertained Hopes, that an Accommodation might have taken Place between GREAT-BRITAIN and this Colony, without being compelled by my Duty to this most disagreeable but now absolutely necessary Step, rendered so by a Body of armed Men unlawfully assembled, firing on His MAJESTY’S Tenders, and the formation of an Army, and that Army now on their March to attack his MAJESTY’S Troops and destroy the well disposed subjects of the Colony. To defeat such treasonable Purposes, and that all such Traitors, and their Abettors, may be brought to Justice, and that the Peace, and good Order of this Colony may be again restored, which the ordinary Course of the Civil Law is unable to effect; I have thought fit to issue this my Proclamation, hereby declaring, that until the aforesaid good Purpose can be obtained, I do in Virtue of the Power and Authority to ME given, by His MAJESTY, determine to execute Martial Law, and cause the same to be executed throughout this Colony: and to ****** the Peace and good Order may the sooner be restored, I do require every Person capable of bearing Arms, to resort to His MAJESTY’S STANDARD, or be looked upon as Traitors to His MAJESTY’S Crown and Government, and thereby become liable to the Penalty the Law inflicts upon such Offenses; such as forfeiture of Life, confiscation of Lands, &. &. And I do hereby further declare all indented [sic] Servants, Negroes, or others, (appertaining to Rebels,) free that are able and willing to bear Arms, they joining His MAJESTY’S Troops as soon as may be, for the more speedily reducing this Colony to a proper Sense of their Duty, to His MAJESTY’S Crown and Dignity. I do further order, and require, all His MAJESTY’S Liege Subjects, to retain their Quitrents, or any other Taxes due or that may become due, in their own Custody, till such a Time as Peace may be again restored to this at present most unhappy Country, or demanded ofthem for their former salutary Purposes, by Officers properly ***** to receive the same.
GIVEN under my Hand on board the Ship WILLIAM by Norfolk, the 7th Day of November in theSIXTEENTH Year of His MAJESTY’S Reign. DUNMORE (GOD save the KING.)
DOCUMENT 7 Letter Regarding Dunmore’s Proclamation from theVirginia Gazette (Dixon and Hunter), November 5, 1775
The second class of people, for whose sake a few remarks upon this proclamation seem necessary, is theNegroes. They have been flattered with their freedom, if they be able to bear arms, and will speedily join Lord Dunmore’s troops. To none then is freedom promised but to such as are able to do Lord Dunmore service: The aged, the infirm, the women and children, are still to remain the property of their masters, masters who will be provoked to severity, should part of their slaves desert them. Lord Dunmore’s declaration, therefore, is a cruel declaration to the Negroes. He does not even pretend to make it out ofany tenderness to them, but solely on his own account; and should it meet with success, it leaves by far thegreater number at the mercy of an enraged and injured people. But should there be any amongst theNegroes weak enough to believe that Dunmore intends to do them a kindness, and wicked enough to provoke the fury of the Americans against their defenceless fathers and mothers, their wives, their women and children, let them only consider the difficulty of effecting their escape, and what they must expect to suffer if they fall into the hands of the Americans. Let them farther consider what must be their fate, should the English prove conquerors in this dispute. If we can judge of the future from the past, it will not be much mended. Long have the Americans, moved by compassion, and actuated by sound policy, endeavoured to stop the progress of slavery. Our Assemblies have repeatedly passed acts laying heavy duties upon imported Negroes, by which they meant altogether to prevent the horrid traffick; but their humane intentions have been as often frustrated by the cruelty and covetousness of a set of English merchants, who prevailed upon the King to repeal our kind and merciful acts, little indeed to the credit ofhis humanity. Can it then be supposed that the Negroes will be better used by the English, who have always encouraged and upheld this slavery, than by their present masters, who pity their condition, who wish, in general, to make it as easy and comfortable as possible, and who would willingly, were it in their power, or were they permitted, not only prevent any more Negroes from losing their freedom, but restore it to such as have already unhappily lost it. No, the ends of Lord Dunmore and his party being answered, they will either give up the offending Negroes to the rigour of the laws they have broken, or sell them in the West Indies, where every year they sell many thousands of their miserable brethren, to perish either by the inclemency of the weather, or the cruelty of barbarous masters. Be not then, ye Negroes, tempted by this proclamation to ruin yourselves. I have given you a faithful view of what you are to expect; and I declare, before GOD, in doing it, I have considered your welfare, as well as that of the country. Whether you will profit by my advice I cannot tell; but this I know, that whether we suffer or not, if you desert us, you most certainly will.
DOCUMENT 8 By the Representatives of the People of the Colony and Dominion of VIRGINIA, assembled in GENERAL CONVENTION
A Declaration
WHEREAS lord Dunmore, by his proclamation, dated on board the ship William, off Norfolk, the 7th day of November 1775, hath offered freedom to such abled-bodied slaves as are willing to join him, and take up arms, against the good people of this colony, giving thereby encouragement to a general insurrection, which may induce a necessity of inflicting the severest punishments upon those unhappy people, already deluded by his base and insidious arts; and whereas, by an act of the General Assembly now in force in this colony, it is enacted, that all negro or other slaves, conspiring to rebel or make insurrection, shall suffer death, and be excluded all benefit of clergy: We think it proper to declare, that all slaves who have been, or shall be seduced, by his lordship’s proclamation, or other arts, to desert their masters’ service, and take up arms against the inhabitants of this colony, shall be liable to such punishment as shall hereafter be directed by the General Convention. And to that end all such, who have taken this unlawful and wicked step, may return in safety to their duty, and escape the punishment due to their crimes, we hereby promise pardon to them, they surrendering themselves to col. William Woodford, or any other commander of our troops, and not appearing in arms after the publication hereof. And we do farther earnestly recommend it to all humane and benevolent persons in this colony to explain and make known this our offer of mercy to those unfortunate people.
Edmund Pendleton, president.
Introduction to Documents 9 and 10
The War for Independence had multiple causes: political, economic, and social. The following visual documents of a revolutionary battle flag and the title page of a published sermon also suggest a religious role in the rebellion. What groups would have supported or rejected the attitudes expressed in the visuals?
DOCUMENT 9 Revolutionary Battle Flag
From Gostelowe Standard No. 10, c. 1776 Watercolor once in possession of Edward W. Richardson. Reprinted with permission from the Library of Congress.)
DOCUMENT 10 “God Arising and Pleading His People’s Cause”
(From God Arising and Pleading His People’s Cause; or The American War . . . Shewn to Be the Cause of God. Abraham Keteltas Newbury-Port: John Mycall for Edmund Sawyer, 1777.)
Introduction to Documents 11 and 12
Just half a year after Paine published his stirring call for rebellion, the 13 colonies declared themselves free and independent states. The following documents are taken from this period of decision.
Document 11
contains selections from the letters of John and Abigail Adams that were written during 1776 while John was a delegate to the Second Continental Congress. Consider the advice that Abigail gave to John in these letters, and John’s response to her requests. Also note John’s predictions about how future generations would celebrate July 2, 1776, the day that Congress first declared its independence fromEngland. The spelling in the letters has been modernized.
Document 12
is the finalized draft of the Declaration of Independence, which was originally written by Thomas Jefferson in June 1776 and then edited and approved by Congress on July 4, 1776. This historic document consists of two parts: an introduction that justifies the abstract right of revolution and as much longer section listing specific grievances against George III that explains to the world why the colonists felt driven to exercise the inalienable rights outlined in the introduction. While the list of grievances was probably the section of greatest importance to the generation that fought the Revolution, the words contained in the preamble have proved timeless, inspiring oppressed peoples all across the world for more than two centuries.
DOCUMENT 11 Correspondence of Abigail and John Adams
Braintree March 31 1776
Abigail Adams to John Adams
I long to hear that you have declared an independency—and by the way in the new Code of Laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make I desire you would Remember the Ladies, and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands ofthe Husbands. Remember all Men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the Ladies we are determined to foment a Rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any Laws in which we have no voice, or Representation.
That your Sex are Naturally Tyrannical is a Truth so thoroughly established as to admit of no dispute, but such of you as wish to be happy willingly give up the harsh title of Master for the more tender and endearing one of Friend. Why then, not put it out of the power of the vicious and the Lawless to use us with cruelty and indignity with impunity. Men of Sense in all Ages abhor those customs which treat us only as the vassals of your Sex. Regard us then as Beings placed by providence under your protection and in imitation of the Supreme Being make use of that power only for our happiness.
[Philadelphia,] April 14 1776
John to Abigail
As to Declarations of Independency, be patient. Read our Privateering Laws, and our Commercial Laws. What signifies a Word.
As to your extraordinary Code of Laws, I cannot but laugh. We have been told that our Struggle has loosened the bands of Government every where. That Children and Apprentices were disobedient—that schools and Colleges were grown turbulent—that Indians slighted their Guardians and Negroes grew insolent to their Masters. But your Letter was the first Intimation that another Tribe more numerous and powerful than all the rest were grown discontented.—This is rather too coarse a Compliment but you are so saucy, I won’t blot it out.
Depend upon it., We know better than to repeal our Masculine systems. Although they are in full Force, you know they are little more than Theory. We dare not exert our Power in its full Latitude. We are obliged to go fair, and softly, and in Practice you know We are the subjects. We have only the Name ofMasters, and rather than give up this, which would completely subject Us to the Despotism of thePetticoat. I hope General Washington and all our brave Heroes would fight. I am sure every good Politician would plot, as long as he would against Despotism, empire, Monarchy, Aristocracy, Oligarchy, or Ochlocracy,—A fine Story indeed. I begin to think the Ministry as deep as they are wicked. After stirring up Tories, Landjobbers, Trimmers, Bigots, Canadians, Indians, Negroes, Hanoverians, Hessians, Russians, Irish Roman Catholics, Scotch Renegades, at last they have stimulated the to demand new Privileges and threaten to rebel.
B[raintre]e May 7 1776
Abigail to John
I can not say that I think you very generous to the Ladies, for while you are proclaiming peace and good will to Men, Emancipating all Nations, you insist upon retaining an absolute power over Wives. But you must remember that Arbitrary power is like most other things which are very hard, very liable to be broken—and notwithstanding all your wise Laws and Maxims we have it in our power not only to free ourselves but to subdue our Masters, and without violence throw both your natural and legal authority at our feet—
“Charm by accepting, by submitting sway
Yet have our Humor most when we obey.”
Philadelphia, July 3 1776
John to Abigail
. . . The Hopes of Reconciliation, which were fondly entertained by Multitudes of honest and well meaning though weak and mistaken People, have been gradually and at last totally extinguished. . . . The Second ofJuly 1776, will be the most memorable Epoch, in the History of America.—I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shows, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.
You will think me transported with Enthusiasm but I am not.—I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States.—yet through all the Gloom I can see the Rays of ravishing Light and Glory. I can see that the End is more than worth all the Means. And that Posterity will triumph in that Day’s Transaction, even although We should rue it, which I trust in God We shall not.
DOCUMENT 12 The Declaration of Independence
Text Approved by Congress, July 4, 1776 The Unanimous Declaration ofthe Thirteen United States of America
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to theopinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from theconsent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. 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.
He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He 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.
He 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.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from thedepository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing, with manly firmness, his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby thelegislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; thestate remaining, in the mean time, exposed to all the dangers of invasions from without and convulsions within.
He 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 theconditions of new appropriations of lands.
He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.
He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies, without the consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the military independent of, and superior to, the civil power.
He 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:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us;
For protecting them, by a mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on theinhabitants of these states;
For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world;
For imposing taxes on us without our consent;
For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury;
For transporting us beyond seas, to be tried for pretended offenses;
For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, 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;
For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms ofour governments;
For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is 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.
He 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.
He has excited domestic insurrection among us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction ofall ages, sexes, and conditions.
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.
Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them, from time to time, of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity; and we have conjured them, by the ties of our common kindred, to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They, too, have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.
We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.
Introduction to Document 13
One of the changes that the Second Continental Congress made in Jefferson’s draft of the Declaration was to delete a passage condemning King George for foisting slavery on the colonists: “He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither.” Worse, Jefferson wrote, having forced colonists to buy and sell other human beings, the king had encouraged the slaves to rebel and kill their masters.
Historians have long noted the contradiction of the colonists’ championing liberty while they practiced slavery. The northern colonies had fewer slaves and therefore less at stake; as states they assumed phased-out bondage. But in the South, the ideal of equality contrasted most sharply with slavery. Thehistorian Edmund S. Morgan has argued that the contradiction was more apparent than real. Indeed, thetwo were dependent on each other during the Revolutionary era: “Aristocrats could more safely preach equality in a slave society than in a free one. Slaves did not become leveling mobs, because their owners would see to it that they had no chance to. The apostrophes to equality were not addressed to them. And because Virginia’s labor force was composed mainly of slaves, who had been isolated by race and removed from the political equation, the remaining free laborers and tenant farmers were too few in number to constitute a serious threat to the superiority of the men who assured them of their equality. . . . Virginia’s small farmers could perceive a common identity with the large. . . . Neither was a slave. And both were equal in not being slaves.”
The revolutionary idea that human beings were equal by natural right allowed the colonists to ridicule aking and reject the rule of Parliament. But their devotion to equality had severe limits. In 1787, just four years after the victory over the British, Thomas Jefferson published his Notes on the State of Virginia. He lamented the fact that whites had not yet taken the opportunity to view blacks and Indians as “subjects ofnatural history.” In
Document 11
, he offers observations on those of African lineage.
DOCUMENT 13 From Notes on the State of Virginia
Thomas Jefferson
. . . The first difference which strikes us is that of colour. Whether the black of the negro resides in thereticular membrane between the skin and scarf-skin, or in the scarf-skin itself; whether it proceeds fromthe colour of the blood, the colour of the bile, or from that of some other secretion, the difference is fixed in nature, and is as real as if its seat and cause were better known to us. And is this difference of no importance? Is it not the foundation of a greater or less share of beauty in the two races? Are not the fine mixtures of red and white, the expressions of every passion by greater or less suffusions of colour in theone, preferable to that eternal monotony, which reigns in the countenances, that immoveable veil of black which covers all the emotions of the other race? Add to these, flowing hair, a more elegant symmetry ofform, their own judgment in favour of the whites, declared by their preference of them, as uniformly as is the preference of the Oranootan [orangutan] for the black women over those of his own species. Thecircumstance of superior beauty, is thought worthy of attention in the propagation of our horses, dogs, and other domestic animals; why not in that of man? Besides those of colour, figure, and hair, there are other physical distinctions proving a difference of race. They have less hair on the face and body. They secrete less by the kidnies, and more by the glands of the skin, which gives them a very strong and disagreeable odour. This greater degree of transpiration renders them more tolerant of heat, and less so ofcold, than the whites. . . . A black, after hard labour through the day, will be induced by the slightest amusements to sit up till midnight, or later, though knowing he must be out with the first dawn of themorning. They are at least as brave, and more adventuresome. But this may perhaps proceed from a want of forethought, which prevents their seeing a danger till it be present. When present, they do not go through it with more coolness or steadiness than the whites. They are more ardent after their female: but love seems with them to be more an eager desire, than a tender delicate mixture of sentiment and sensation. Their griefs are transient. Those numberless afflictions, which render it doubtful whether heaven has given life to us in mercy or in wrath, are less felt, and sooner forgotten with them. In general, their existence appears to participate more of sensation than reflection. To this must be ascribed their disposition to sleep when abstracted from their diversions, and unemployed in labour. An animal whose body is at rest, and who does not reflect, must be disposed to sleep of course. Comparing them by their faculties of memory, reason, and imagination, it appears to me, that in memory they are equal to thewhites; in reason much inferior, as I think one could scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the investigations of Euclid; and that in imagination they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous. . . . Some have been liberally educated, and all have lived in countries where the arts and sciences are cultivated to a considerable degree, and have had before their eyes samples of the best works from abroad. The Indians, with no advantages of this kind, will often carve figures on their pipes not destitute of design and merit. They will crayon out an animal, a plant, or a country, so as to prove theexistence of a germ in their minds which only wants cultivation. They astonish you with strokes of themost sublime oratory; such as prove their reason and sentiment strong, their imagination glowing and elevated. But never yet could I find that a black had uttered a thought above the level of plain narration; never see even an elementary trait of painting or sculpture. In music they are more generally gifted than the whites with accurate ears for tune and time, and they have been found capable of imagining a small catch. Whether they will be equal to the composition of a more extensive run of melody, or of complicated harmony, is yet to be proved. Misery is often the parent of the most affecting touches in poetry.—Among the blacks is misery enough, God knows, but no poetry. . . .
. . . I advance it therefore as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstances, are inferior to the whites in the endowments both of body and mind. It is not against experience to suppose, that different species of the same genus, or varieties of the same species, may possess different qualifications. Will not a lover of natural history then, one who views thegradations in all the races of animals with the eye of philosophy, excuse an effort to keep those in thedepartment of man as distinct as nature has formed them? This unfortunate difference of colour, and perhaps of faculty, is a powerful obstacle to the emancipation of these people. Many of their advocates, while they wish to vindicate the liberty of human nature, are anxious also to preserve its dignity and beauty. . . .
Introduction to Documents 14 and 15
Benjamin Banneker
was a free black living in Maryland. Although his early education was minimal, as an adult he taught himself trigonometry and calculus. In 1791 he served as assistant surveyor in laying out the boundaries for the newly created District of Columbia. That same year, he used his mathematical abilities to do the calculations for an astronomical almanac (people relied on such works to learn thetiming of natural phenomena, such as tides, seasons, and lengths of days). Banneker’s almanac went through twenty-nine editions and sold in cities throughout the Middle Atlantic states. Having read theNotes on the State of Virginia, Banneker sent a copy of his almanac to then secretary of state Thomas Jefferson, along with the following letter. Jefferson’s reply to Banneker follows.
DOCUMENT 14 Letter from Benjamin Banneker to Thomas Jefferson
Maryland, Baltimore County, Near Ellicott’s Lower Mills August 19th. 1791.
Thomas Jefferson Secretary of State.
Sir, I am fully sensible of the greatness of that freedom which I take with you on the present occasion; aliberty which Seemed to me Scarcely allowable, when I reflected on that distinguished, and dignifyed station in which you Stand; and the almost general prejudice and prepossession which is so previlent in the world against those of my complexion. . . .
Sir I freely and Chearfully acknowledge, that I am of the African race, and, in that colour which is natural to them of the deepest dye,
*
and it is under a Sense of the most profound gratitude to the Supreme Ruler of the universe, that I now confess to you, that I am not under that State of tyrannical thraldom, and inhuman captivity, to which too many of my brethren are doomed; but that I have abundantly tasted ofthe fruition of those blessings which proceed from that free and unequalled liberty with which you are favoured and which I hope you will willingly allow you have received from the immediate Hand of that Being from whom proceedeth every good and perfect gift.
Sir, Suffer me to recall to your mind that time in which the Arms and tyranny of the British Crown were exerted with every powerful effort, in order to reduce you to a State of Servitude; look back I intreat you on the variety of dangers to which you were exposed, reflect on that time in which every human aid appeared unavailable, and in which even hope and fortitude wore the aspect of inability to the Conflict, and you cannot but be led to a Serious and grateful Sense of your miraculous and providential preservation; You cannot but acknowledge, that the present freedom and tranquillity which you enjoy you have mercifully received, and that it is the peculiar blessing of Heaven.
* My Father was brought here a Slave from Africa.
This, Sir, was a time in which you clearly saw into the injustice of a State of Slavery, and in which you had Just apprehensions of the horrors of its condition, it was now Sir, that your abhorrence thereof was so excited, that you publickly held forth this true and invaluable doctrine, which is worthy to be recorded and remembered in all Succeeding ages. “We hold these truths to be Self evident, that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that amongst these are life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness.”
Here, Sir, was a time in which your tender feelings for your selves engaged you thus to declare, you were then impressed with proper ideas of the great valuation of liberty, and the free possession of those blessings to which you were entitled by nature; but Sir how pitiable is it to reflect, that altho you were so fully convinced of the benevolence of the Father of mankind, and of his equal and impartial distribution of those rights and privileges which he had conferred upon them, that you should at the Same time counteract his mercies, in detaining by fraud and violence so numerous a part of my brethren under groaning captivity and cruel oppression, that you should at the Same time be found guilty of that most criminal act, which you professedly detested in others, with respect to yourselves.
Sir, I suppose that your knowledge of the situation of my brethren is too extensive to need a recital here; neither shall I presume to prescribe methods by which they may be relieved, otherwise than by recommending to you, and all others, to wean yourselves from those narrow prejudices which you have imbibed with respect to them, and as Job proposed to his friends “Put your Souls in their Souls’ stead,” thus shall your hearts be enlarged with kindness and benevolence towards them, and thus shall you need neither the direction of myself or others in what manner to proceed herein.
And now, Sir, altho my Sympathy and affection for my brethren hath caused my enlargement thus far, I ardently hope that your candour and generosity will plead with you in my behalf, when I make known to you, that it was not originally my design; but that having taken up my pen in order to direct to you as apresent, a copy of an Almanack which I have calculated for the Succeeding year, I was unexpectedly and unavoidably led thereto. . . .
And now Sir, I . . . Shall conclude and Subscribe my Self with the most profound respect,
Your most Obedient humble Servant
Benjamin Banneker.
DOCUMENT 15 Reply of Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Banneker
Philadelphia, Aug. 30. 1791.
SIR, I Thank you sincerely for your letter of the 19th instant and for the Almanac it contained. No body wishes more than I do to see such proofs as you exhibit, that nature has given to our black brethren, talents equal to those of the other colors of men, and that the appearance of a want of them is owing merely to the degraded condition of their existence, both in Africa & America. I can add with truth, that no body wishes more ardently to see a good system commenced for raising the condition both of their body & mind to what it ought to be, as fast as the imbecility of their present existence, and other circumstances which cannot be neglected, will admit.
I have taken the liberty of sending your Almanac to Monsieur de Condorcet, Secretary of the Academy ofSciences at Paris, and member of the Philanthropic society, because I considered it as a document to which your whole colour had a right for their justification against the doubts which have been entertained of them.
I am with great esteem, Sir your most obedt humble servt.
Thomas Jefferson.
QUESTIONS
Defining Terms
Identify in the context of the chapter each of the following:
| Continental Congress | Methodists |
| Lord Dunmore | July 2, 1776 |
|
Galloway’s “Plan of Union” |
“self-evident truths” |
| Tory | Benjamin Banneker |
Probing the Sources
· 1. Present arguments for and against Galloway’s “Plan of Union.”
· 2. Compare Seabury’s arguments for cooperation with Britain with Paine’s arguments for independence. Which do you find most persuasive? Why?
· 3. Compare Paine and Wesley’s comments concerning slavery and liberty. Which do you find most persuasive? Why?
· 4. Compare the ideas and the rhetoric in Paine’s Common Sense and Jefferson’s Declaration ofIndependence. Account for the similarities and the differences.
Interpreting the Sources
· 1. Discuss the metaphors and rhetorical devices used by the various authors. How do you account for their language and tone?
· 2. What are the “self-evident truths” mentioned in the Declaration of Independence? Are these truths self-evident to you? Justify your response.
· 3. Can Jefferson’s ideas in the Declaration be reconciled with his comment in Notes on the State ofVirginia? Justify your answer.
· 4. Would you have supported the patriots or the loyalists? Justify your response.
ADDITIONAL READING
Two of the better introductions to this period are Peter D. G. Thomas, Tea Party to Independence: TheThird Phase of the American Revolution, 1773–1776 (1991), and Benson Bobrick, Angel in the Whirlwind: The Triumph of the American Revolution (1997). An interesting account of the drafting of the Declaration of Independence is Pauline Maier’s American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence (1997). John C. Dann, ed., The Revolution Remembered: Eyewitness Accounts of the War for Independence (1980), includes an interesting sample of primary materials from the Revolutionary era. For a stirring account ofPaine’s struggles for political equality, see Eric Foner, Tom Paine and Revolutionary America (1975). Edmund Morgan’s American Slavery, American Freedom (1975) offers an interpretation that links black slavery to white equality. Among the more provocative interpretations of the period are Bernard Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (1967), Gordon Wood, The Radicalism of the AmericanRevolution (1992), and Ronald Hoffman and Peter J. Albert, eds., The Transforming Hand of Revolution: Reconsidering the American Revolution as a Social Movement (1996). For a popular account of therevolution, see Thomas Fleming, Liberty (1997). Prominent in recent historical debates on the Revolution are Gary Nash, The Unknown American Revolution (2005); Gordon Wood, Revolutionary Characters(2006); and Harvey Kaye, Thomas Paine and the Promise of America (2005).
