King George III – Day-By-Day America

The Leaden George

A mob pulled down a lead statue of King George III in New York on July 9, 1776.

What do you think about pulling down statues? That and similar things happened during the American Revolution. Sometimes it was done by mobs, sometimes by the civil authorities. In New York City, for example, a mob pulled down a statue of King George III. Symbols of royal authority in government buildings were taken down and destroyed. A tavern in Worcester, Massachusetts, called the King’s Arms, used the royal coat of arms for its sign; the sign was taken down (and I’m guessing that the owner changed the name of the tavern thereafter). Many of these things happened just after the Declaration of Independence, which makes sense.

The Hatter

Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence

After the Continental Congress set a date to decide whether to declare independence, they appointed five men to draft a formal declaration that could be published to the world. They wanted to be ready ahead of time so that they could move quickly if the decision was made. One of those five was Thomas Jefferson.

The other members of the committee — John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, and Robert R. Livingston — chose Jefferson to be the writer. During the month of June, he worked on writing a declaration that would show to the world why they were deciding to become independent. At the same time, he was working on a constitution for Virginia, and of course he had other Congressional duties as well.

After he finished writing it, the document was reviewed by the other members of the committee. Adams and Franklin made some minor changes. The committee reported to Congress on Friday, June 28, and the declaration was “laid on the table”.

The Sword and the Olive Branch

Thomas Jefferson, John Dickinson, and Richard Henry Lee. Jefferson and Dickinson wrote the Declaration of the Causes and Necessity for Taking Up Arms; Dickinson wrote the Olive Branch Petition; and Lee was probably the main author of the Address to the Inhabitants of Great Britain.

In general, American political leaders wanted peace — but they were determined to keep fighting, if necessary, in order to protect their liberties. They wanted to be united with Britain, but they also wanted to enjoy the same rights as the people in Britain did. So, in early July 1775, the Continental Congress published a declaration of why they had taken up arms against the British, a petition asking King George III to step in and solve the problem, and an address asking the British people to stand up for them. Here are some excerpts from these documents:

Declaration of the Causes and Necessity for Taking Up Arms

We are reduced to the alternative of chusing an unconditional Submission to the tyranny of irritated Ministers, or resistance by Force. The latter is our choice. We have counted the cost of this contest, and find nothing so dreadful as voluntary Slavery. Honour, Justice, and Humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that Freedom which we received from our gallant Ancestors, and which our innocent Posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding Generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them, if we basely entail hereditary Bondage upon them.

Second Petition to the King (a.k.a. Olive Branch Petition)

We therefore beseech your Majesty, that your royal authority and influence may be graciously interposed to procure us releif from our afflicting fears and jealousies occasioned by the system before mentioned, and to settle peace through every part of your dominions, with all humility submitting to your Majesty’s wise consideration, whether it may not be expedient for facilitating those important purposes, that your Majesty be pleased to direct some mode by which the united applications of your faithful colonists to the throne, in pursuance of their common councils, may be improved into a happy and permanent reconciliation; and that in the meantime measures be taken for preventing the further destruction of the lives of your Majesty’s subjects; and that such statutes as more immediately distress any of your Majestys colonies be repealed…

Address to the Inhabitants of Great Britain

A Cloud hangs over your Heads and ours; ‘ere this reaches you, it may probably burst upon us; let us then (before the remembrance of former Kindness is obliterated) once more repeat those Appellations which are ever grateful in our Ears; let us entreat Heaven to avert our Ruin, and the Destruction that threatens our Friends, Brethren and Countrymen, on the other side of the Atlantic.

For more about these documents, see July 6 and July 8.

True Quacks

May 2, 1775

“True quacks”, “headless beings”, “tools to do [the King’s] dirty work” — all of these were terms that someone used to describe the high officials of the British government (and the same person said that it was “like man like master”, meaning that King George III was just as bad as they were):

When the Parliament met, I was in hopes the manly Address of the General Congress [that is, a petition from the Continental Congress] to the King, and that to the people of England, would have opened their eyes, and have led them to apply a remedy suitable to the disease; but instead of that, what have they done? Like true quacks, they deal in inflammatories, and attempt to heal by exasperating the evil they should cure…. Never, sure, were Ministers [that is, the top officials in the British government] more infatuated than those headless beings who manage the affairs of England…. Don Quixote like, they are obstinately bent on fighting wind-mills; and no wonder if they get broken heads in the encounter. Were they alone to smart, it were no great matter; but the mischief is, that I fear they will draw down irreparable evils upon both Englands. Lord North is only a tool to do the dirty work of his more dirty superiours; and the precious Parliament are, in their place, the tools to do his dirty work in return, for the pay he gives them.

Lord North, the British Prime Minister — “a tool to do the dirty work of his more dirty superiours”

Politics can be nasty, and I certainly won’t disagree that today’s American politics are very much so; but nastiness in politics didn’t start yesterday; it’s been around for ages, as shown by this letter.

The writer of this letter, who I think was probably either an Englishman or an American, was in Holland at the time, writing to the Reverend William Gordon of Roxbury, Massachusetts (who later wrote a history of the Revolutionary War).

Source

“Extract of a Letter from Holland, of May 2, 1775, to the Rev. Mr. William Gordon, of Roxbury.” American Archives, ed. Peter Force, Series 4, Volume 2, 462-3.

Prime Minister North Says That Britain Can’t Be Silent Any Longer

Will this country sit still, when they see the Colony [of Massachusetts] proceeding against your own subjects, tarring and feathering your servants; denying your laws and authority; refusing every direction and advice which you send? Are we, Sir, seeing all this, to be silent, and give the Governor no support?

To change the government of Massachusetts is to take away their colony charter, which was granted by King William III and Queen Mary II, all the way back in 1691! Since the Americans aren’t here to defend themselves, it’s like holding a trial without even letting the defendant come into the courtroom! It’s not right to do this without giving them a chance to make up for what they did!

These were some of the arguments used in the British House of Commons against the bill to alter the government of Massachusetts, which was one of the “Intolerable Acts” passed in reaction to the Boston Tea Party. (The bill gave more power to the governor — who was appointed by the Crown — in hopes that he would be able to stop the rebellious demonstrations and enforce the law.) The opponents of the bill were very vocal and sometimes eloquent in their opposition. Those who supported the bill, on the other hand, had numbers on their side, so they could afford to be fairly quiet; but sometimes they matched their opponents in eloquence and energy. Lord North, for example, who was the Prime Minister, usually stuck to calm speeches, but on at least one occasion he put a bit of fire in his remarks about this bill:

Will this country sit still, when they see the Colony proceeding against your own subjects, tarring and feathering your servants; denying your laws and authority; refusing every direction and advice which you send? Are we, Sir, seeing all this, to be silent, and give the Governor no support? Gentlemen say, let the Colony come to your bar, and be heard in their defence; though it is not likely that they will come, when they deny your authority in every instance. Can we remain in this situation long? We must, effectually, take some measure to correct and amend the defects of that Government. … The Americans have tarred and feathered your subjects, plundered your merchants, burnt your ships, denied all obedience to your laws and authority; yet so clement, and so long forbearing has our conduct been, that it is incumbent on us now to take a different course. … It is not I say, again, political convenience, it is political necessity that urges this measure: if this is not the proper method, shew me any other which is preferable, and I will postpone it.

Of course, he didn’t postpone it; nobody presented an option that was preferable. (Personally, I doubt that any other plan, no matter how good, would have seemed preferable to him, or that he would have allowed it to be pursued.)

While some members of Parliament argued that Britain was taking too high-handed an approach, the King, and Lord North and his supporters, were tired of letting the Americans push the bounds of British authority. Theirs was a “no more Mr. Nice Guy” approach. When the Parliamentary session had opened in March 1774, the King had urged the members to take steps to “better [secure] the execution of the Laws, and the just dependence of the Colonies upon the Crown and Parliament of Great Britain.” And they did.

Source

American Archives, Series 4, Volume 1, pages 5, 73.