The Olive Branch Petition
Even though they were already at war, the Continental Congress decided to make one more effort to get King George III to stop the fighting — or rather, to ask him to change British policies, and then the colonists themselves would stop fighting.
Certainly, not all of the American political leaders thought this was a good idea; John Adams, for example, later called it a “Measure of Imbecility”. But others thought that the King might listen, or at least that if he didn’t, then they couldn’t be blamed for not doing their part. John Dickinson, in particular, thought that they should submit a petition to the King (as they had done the previous year), and he was the one who wrote it.
Among other things, the petition said:
…we think ourselves required by indispensable obligations to Almighty God, to your Majesty, to our fellow subjects, and to ourselves, immediately to use all the means in our power not incompatible with our safety, for stopping the further effusion of blood, and for averting the impending calamities that threaten the British Empire.
…we solemnly assure your Majesty, that we not only most ardently desire the former harmony between her and these colonies may be restored but that a concord may be established between them upon so firm a basis, as to perpetuate its blessings uninterrupted by any future dissentions to succeeding generations in both countries…
…the apprehensions that now oppress our hearts with unspeakable grief, being once removed, your Majesty will find your faithful subjects on this continent ready and willing at all times, as they ever have been with their lives and fortunes to assert and maintain the rights and interests of your Majesty and of our Mother Country.
Although the petition was worded very humbly, it wasn’t wimpy or cowardly. It stated very clearly that the British government (though not the King himself) had caused the problems by making bad policies and laws, and that the colonists were going to stand for their rights, but that if the King got the policies and laws changed, then the colonists would be glad to stop fighting.
Did it work? No. It was signed and sent to London right away, but the King basically ignored it.
An Address to the Inhabitants of Great Britain
On the same day, the Congress finalized an “address”, appealing to the inhabitants of Great Britain to side with them in getting British policies changed. They talked about how they had been badly treated by the British government, how the British military was oppressing them, and so on. Here’s an example of what they said:
When Hostilities were commenced, when on a late Occasion we were wantonly attacked by your Troops, though we repelled their Assaults and returned their Blows, yet we lamented the Wounds they obliged us to give; nor have we yet learned to rejoice at a Victory over Englishmen.
The address was sent to England, and — unlike the petition to the King — doubtless many people read it; but it still didn’t change the course of events.
Notes
The petition was not originally or officially called the “Olive Branch Petition”; it got that name later, because an olive branch was a symbol of peace.
Richard Henry Lee of Virginia was probably the main writer of the address to the inhabitants of Great Britain.
Along with the petition and the address, the Congress sent a letter to the Lord Mayor, Aldermen and Livery of London, thanking them for standing up for the colonists’ rights.
Sources
“[In Congress, June and July 1775] ,” Founders Online, National Archives, accessed April 11, 2019, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/01-03-02-0016-0025. [Original source: The Adams Papers, Diary and Autobiography of John Adams, vol. 3, Diary, 1782–1804; Autobiography, Part One to October 1776, ed. L. H. Butterfield. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1961, pp. 321–324.]
“Second Petition from Congress to the King, 8 July 1775,” Founders Online, National Archives, accessed April 11, 2019, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-01-02-0114. [Original source: The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 1, 1760–1776, ed. Julian P. Boyd. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950, pp. 219–223.]
Journals of the Continental Congress, 2:163-70