Knollenberg Bernhard. Growth of the American Revolution: 1766-1775
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
their friends, I am persuaded they will struggle through the conflict, firm and
steady,” same –.
Gage to Dartmouth May to July , , giving optimistic reports quoted in the
text, Gage I –.
Gage to Dartmouth July , , telling of prospective opposition to the Mass.
Regulating Act and observance of the “fast day” appointed by the “Faction,” same
I . The fast day of July , referred to by Gage, is discussed in Love Fast Days ,
and several of the sermons preached that day are listed in same –. Date of
receipt of this letter and the one of July , Dartmouth to Gage, Sept. , Gage II .
Gage to Dartmouth July , , for the first time informing Dartmouth that the
so-called “Faction” in Mass. was “numerous and powerful,” same I . A letter
from Dartmouth to Gage of June indicates that Dartmouth was then still under
the illusion that the opposition in Mass. consisted of but “a few desperate Men,”
same II –.
Salem town meeting called by local Comm. of Corresp. held Aug. , , An-
drews to Barrell Aug. and , “Andrews Letters” , ; Gage to Dartmouth
Aug. , Gage I . The two accounts differ somewhat as to Gage’s efforts to stop
the meeting, but both agree they were futile. By adjourning town meetings held
before the act took effect, Boston was able to hold meetings without call by the
selectmen, minutes of the adjourned meetings in Boston from Aug. , , to
March , , Boston Records (for –) – passim.
Gage to Dartmouth Sept. , , saying nobody consulted by him could tell him
“what to do” as to town meetings held throughout Mass. in defiance of the Mass.
Regulating Act, Gage I .
Sec. of the act provided for not fewer than twelve nor more than thirty-six Coun-
cil members. The King appointed the full number, whose names were listed in an
instruction to Gage accompanying the act. Only two of these, John Erving, Sr., of
Boston and Samuel Danforth of Cambridge, were among the twenty-eight last
elected councilors. Erving declined the King’s nomination and Danforth, though
initially accepting, soon resigned, Matthews “Royal Council” , , , .
Gage to Dartmouth Sept. and , , telling of the resignation of nine of the
councilors who had accepted appointment, Gage I , , . None of those
mentioned in Gage’s original list as doubtful or unreachable later accepted; a list
of the full membership of them as members, Matthews “Royal Council” .
The pressure on members of the new Council outside Boston is described in
Matthews “Royal Council” – and Gage to Dartmouth Sept. to Dec. ,
, Gage I –. They were Peter Oliver of Middleborough, William Brown
of Salem, Timothy Ruggles of Hardwicke, Josiah Edson of Bridgewater, John
Murray of Rutland, Nathaniel Roy Thomas of Marshfield, Daniel Leonard of
Taunton, Thomas Oliver of Cambridge, and William Pepperell and Joshua Lor-
ing of Roxbury, Rowe and various Mass. town histories.
There are biographical sketches of John Murray and his son Daniel in Jones Loy-
alists of Mass. – and Sabine Loyalists II –.
Daniel Murray in Rutland, Mass., to his father, John Murray, Aug. , ,
quoted in the text, Matthews “Royal Council” –. John Murray retained his
royal commission as councilor, and his son fought on the British side in the war,
Jones Loyalists of Mass. –. I have found no evidence that the threat to destroy
buildings on the estate was carried out, but the estate was among the Tory estates
confiscated by the Mass. government during the war, same.
I have seen several interesting letters and diaries written by ordinary farmers dur-
ing the war; but none of much consequence bearing on the controversy with Great
Britain in the pre-war (–) period. (I have seen more of such documents
written by minors at college or by women not married to ordinary farmers than by
such farmers.) Hopefully, the suggestion that the American Revolution Bicenten-
nial Commission sponsor an intensive search for letters and diaries of the Ameri-
can rank and file during the period – will be adopted and prove fruitful.
A striking example of the lack of comment on the controversy with Great Britain
appears in the well-known diary of Matthew Patten of the farming community of
Bedford, New Hampshire, for the period of to April, , The Diary of
Matthew Patten () –. Diaries of the period, listed in Forbes New England
Diaries –, are similarly unenlightening as to the reaction of the diarists to
the controversy with Great Britain in –.
Gage to Dartmouth Aug. , , stating that the Mass. courts “can and will be
protected in many places,” same . In a private letter of this same date to Lord
Barrington, Secretary at War, Gage stated he had “no doubt” that the New En-
gland colonies could be subdued “in a year or two” and that, though people in the
southern colonies “talk very high,” the “slaves in the bowells of their country and
the Indians at their backs will always keep them quiet,” Alden Gage .
Gage to Dartmouth Sept. , , as to the impossibility of holding court after all,
same . The Massachusetts Gazette of Feb. , , gives a review of the methods
used to prevent judges from sitting in various country courts, Force I . Addi-
tional details will be found in the sources cited in Newcomer Embattled Farmers
n., , .
Gage to Dartmouth Sept. , , reporting Lieut. Gov. Thomas Oliver’s enforced
resignation of his commission as a mandamus councilor, Gage I –. Oliver’s
estimate that the crowd compelling him to resign numbered , is in Oliver to
Dartmouth Sept. , enclosed in Gage’s letter. Oliver’s letter is in Matthews “Royal
Council” –.
Gage to Dartmouth Sept., , as to the resisters being “not a Boston Rabble, but
the Freeholders and Farmers of the Country,” Gage I .
Gage to Dartmouth Sept. , , as to the uprising against the Mass. Regulat-
ing Act, same –. Gage further warned Dartmouth on Sept. that the Reg-
ulating Act could be enforced only by “first making a Conquest of the New-
England Provinces,” same .
Chapter
The statement in the text as to the initial optimism of those in power in Great
Britain is based on Lord Dartmouth’s letters to Governor General Thomas Gage
July and Aug. , , Gage II , –; the King to Lord North July , Geo.
III III ; and diary entries of ex-Governor Thomas Hutchinson, e.g., on July ,
Hutchinson Diary I .
Gage’s alarming letters to Dartmouth of Aug. and Sept. and , , same I
–, received Oct. , Dartmouth () . Gage’s reports to Dartmouth were
confirmed by letters of Aug. and Sept. , from Admiral Samuel Graves, com-
manding the British squadron at Boston, to the Admiralty Board, Aug. and
Sept. , Calendar H.O. Papers (–) –; Gage to Lord Barrington, Sec-
retary at War, Aug. , Gage II ; and Lieut. Gov. Thomas Oliver to Dartmouth
Sept. , enclosed in one of Gage’s letters, Matthews “Royal Council” –.
Decision as to sending additional warships and marines to Boston at Cabinet meet-
ing Oct. , , quoted in the text, Sandwich I , digested in Dartmouth () .
Lord Sandwich to Dartmouth Oct. , , stating that the Cabinet’s request for
troops and marines could be met without “any material inconvenience,” Calendar
H.O. Papers (–) ; Dartmouth to Gage Oct. , informing him of the
ships and marines being sent to Boston, Gage II .
The King’s proclamation Oct. , , forbidding the export of arms or ammu-
nition from Great Britain to the colonies for six months, Acts P.C. V ; Clerk
Naval Doc. I –. The circular letter of Oct. , to colonial Governors and naval
commanders to prevent the importation of arms or ammunition into the colonies,
N.Y. Col. Doc. VIII .
Gage to Dartmouth Sept. and , , describing the rebellion in most of New
England, Gage I –. The date of receipt, Nov. , Hutchinson’s diary for that
date, Hutchinson Diary I .
Corroborating letters of Admiral Graves to the Admiralty Board Sept. , ;
Calendar H.O. Papers (–) ; Gage to Barrington Sept. , Gage II ; and
Gage to Hutchinson Sept. , Dartmouth () , and more fully in Donoughue
Brit. Politics . In his letter to Hutchinson, Gage went so far as to suggest that “it
would be policy to temporize a while by suspending the execution of the Acts for
a time” until “Hanoverians [and] Hessians may be hired and other steps taken
necessary to secure success,” same.
The King to North Nov. , , as to “Rebellion” and “blows must decide,” Geo.
III III . As early as Sept. the King had written North, “the dye is now cast,
the Colonies must either submit or triumph; I do not wish to come to severer mea-
sures but we must not retreat....I have no objection...to their seeing that there
is no inclination for the present to lay fresh taxes on them; but I am clear there
must always be one tax to keep up the right, and as such I approve of the Tea
Duty,” same .
North’s statement to Hutchinson as to “Rebellion,” Hutchinson’s diary for Nov.
, , Hutchinson Diary I . Both North and the King scoffed at Gage’s sug-
gestion that the acts provoking the rebellion be suspended, same I and Geo. III
III .
North told Hutchinson Nov. , , that “until some further was known of what
was doing in Philadelphia, no particular measures could be determined,”
Hutchinson’s diary for that date, Hutchinson Diary I .
The Septennial Act of , Geo. I second session ch. , provided that “all par-
liaments...shall and may respectively have continuance for seven years and no
longer. . . .” The Thirteenth Parliament had opened May , , Parl. Hist.
XVI .
The peace between Russia and Turkey was regarded by the King as threatening
Great Britain presumably because this would free Russia for aggression against
other nations. The unsettled state of the French Ministry was caused by the recent
death of Louis XV and succession (May , ) of Louis XVI.
The King to North Aug. , , suggesting acceleration of the elections for a
new Parliament, Geo. III III –. North later told Hutchinson that Parliament
was dissolved to enable the Ministry to take such measures concerning the colo-
nies “as we could depend upon a Parliament to prosecute to effect,” Hutchinson’s
diary for Nov. , Hutchinson Diary I . But, as shown by the King’s letter of
Aug. , this was not the sole reason.
The King’s proclamation Sept. , , dissolving the existing Parliament and
summoning a new, Journals H. of C. XXXV . The Cabinet had voted the day be-
fore “to submit their opinion to his Majesty that it would be advisable to dissolve
the present Parliament and call for a new one,” Donoughue Brit. Politics , inad-
equately summarized in Dartmouth () .
The sang-froid with which political leaders bought borough seats in the Com-
mons controlled by various “patrons” is illustrated by North to John Robinson,
Oct. and Nov. , , complaining of Lord Falmouth for demanding ,
guineas instead of pounds for each of three seats controlled by him and of Lord
Edgecombe for demanding £, each for five seats controlled by him
—for
which North thought he was to have £, each, H.M.C. Appendix Part VI
and Laprade Robinson .
North to the King Nov. , , enclosing a list showing that at the very least
members elected to the new House of Commons could be counted on to favor the
administration, and the King’s reply of the same date expressing his pleasure, Geo.
III III –. The total membership of the House was , Namier and Brooke
Commons I . There are excellent accounts of the elections in same – and
Donoughue Brit. Politics –.
The analysis of the elections to the House of Commons, Namier and Brooke
Commons I , states, “America was mentioned as an issue in not more than ten
constituencies. . . .” The number of constituencies, , same I .
The King’s speech Nov. , , the day after the opening of Parliament and the
answers of the two Houses, Force I –, –.
The votes of Nov. and Dec. , , mentioned in the text, were on proposed
amendments to proposed answers to the King’s speech, same , ; the an-
swers proper were adopted apparently without a division. Edward Gibbon, the
historian, to John Baker Holroyd, on or shortly after Dec. , , gives an inter-
esting account of the speeches in the Commons, Norton Gibbon II . The op-
position in both Houses consisted of regular followers of Lord Rockingham and
Chatham and a few unaligned members, notably Charles James Fox.
The quotation in the text as to the administration’s decision to defer decision
as to “particular” measures is from a diary entry, Dec. , , of Hutchinson
recording what North had just told him, Hutchinson Diary I –.
John Pownall’s statements to Hutchinson as to secret reports concerning the pro-
ceedings of the Congress, Hutchinson diary for Nov. , , same –. The
question of the informer’s identity is discussed in the first appendix to this chapter.
Arrival Dec. , , of a copy of the proceedings of the Continental Congress
other than the Petition to the King, same . Gov. Cadwallader Colden of N.Y.
to Dartmouth Nov. , enclosed a copy of these proceedings, N.Y. Col. Doc. VIII
. The Petition to the King was delivered on Dec. by Benjamin Franklin and
others to Dartmouth for presentation to the King, Franklin to Charles Thomson
Feb. , , Smyth Franklin VI –, together with Dartmouth () and
Hutchinson Diary I .
Parliament was adjourned on Dec. , (to reconvene Jan. , ), for the
Christmas holidays, Journals H. of C. XXXV . Under Secretary of State William
Knox told Hutchinson on Dec. that “nothing will be done until after the
holidays, the Members being all gone, and they the Ministry can hardly make a
House...,” Hutchinson’s diary for Dec. , Hutchinson Diary I .
Dartmouth wrote a circular letter dated Jan. , , to colonial Governors di-
recting them to “Use your utmost Endeavours” to prevent the election of dele-
gates to attend the proposed Second Continental Congress and to “exhort all Per-
sons to desist from such an unjustifiable Proceeding...,” Gage II , but I have
found no Cabinet order for this.
Gage to Dartmouth Oct. –Dec. , , and Gage to Barrington Oct. , re-
ceived Dec. , , to Jan. , , same I –, II . A transport carrying
Col. Richard Prescott bearing an important letter of Dec. , , from Gage to
Dartmouth, sailed from Boston on Dec. , same I ; if the report that the letter
was received Jan. , , Force I , is correct, the vessel had an amazingly
quick crossing.
The Cabinet, which had remained unchanged since , consisted of North
and Lords Gower, Sandwich, Suffolk, Dartmouth, Apsley, and Rochford, all of
whom were members of the House of Lords except North, and he was the son and
presumptive heir of an English peer, Lord Guilford. The Cabinet later ( Jan. ,
) decided to send three instead of two infantry regiments, Dartmouth ()
–.
The corps to be raised by Timothy Ruggles was proposed by him in a letter to Is-
rael Mauduit Oct. , , Gage II n. and Hutchinson Diary I , which prob-
ably was among the letters that Mauduit passed on to North, Jan. , , Dart-
mouth () . As to Ruggles, biographical sketch in D.A.B.
Cabinet minute Jan. , , quoted or summarized in the text, Dartmouth Pa-
pers D:II , Stafford County Lib., summarized in Donoughue Brit. Politics
–, and less adequately in Dartmouth () .
Three warships with the additional marines aboard reached Boston May , ,
the other troops several weeks later, Lieut. John Barker’s diary. May and June
, Barker Diary , –. The decision to send three major generals, William
Howe, John Burgoyne, and Henry Clinton, Donoughue Brit. Politics –.
Dartmouth to Gage Jan. , , directed him to encourage Ruggles to raise a
corps of loyalists, Gage II .
North’s motion for an act restraining the New England fisheries and trade Feb. ,
, Force I . The proposed act, Geo. III ch. , passed in due course and
was assented to March , Journals H. of C. XXXV .
The act restraining the trade of N.J., Pa., Md., Va., and S.C. was Geo. III ch.
, assented to April , , same . N.Y., N.C., and Del. were omitted. The
omission of N.Y. can be accounted for by the N.Y. Assembly’s vote against sup-
porting the measures of the Continental Congress which Acting Gov. Cadwal-
lader Colden reported to Dartmouth Feb. (Colden ), the omission of N.C.
because the London Agents for N.C. watered down the N.C. protest, Lonn Agents
of the Southern Colonies . I cannot account for the omission of Del.
The proposal at the Cabinet meeting of Jan. , , quoted in the text, to send
commissioners to America, Dartmouth () –. Hutchinson’s diary for Jan.
, Hutchinson Diary I and the King to Dartmouth, Jan. , Dartmouth ()
, indicate that the suggestion was made by Dartmouth.
The King to Dartmouth Jan. , , as to sending Gen. Jeffery Amherst to
America, same . The King had discouraged a plan for a commission, “much
approv’d by Lord Mansfield,” presented earlier by North because, said the King,
“this looks so like the Mother Country being more affraid of the continuance of
the dispute than the Colonies, and I cannot think it likely to make them reason-
able,” North to the King “Tuesday Evening” [Dec. ] and the King’s reply Dec.
, Geo. III III , .
The King to Dartmouth Jan. , , as to Amherst’s refusal, quoted in the text,
Dartmouth () . Amherst added “nothing but retreat would bring him to go
again to America,” same . Did Amherst mean a retreat by the administration
from its recent colonial measures or a military retreat in case of war? I make no
guess. Explanations of Amherst’s refusal by Horace Walpole, Trevelyan, and Ban-
croft, none of them satisfying, are cited in Mayo Amherst .
Cabinet minute Jan. , , quoted in the text, Dartmouth () –, and an
additional undated minute probably of this meeting, Donoughue Brit. Politics .
There was an intervening Cabinet meeting on Jan. , the King to North and
North to the King Jan. , and Lord Rochford to the King Jan. , Geo III III ,
, but no minute of this meeting has been found.
North’s “conciliatory” motion quoted in the text, presented to the House of Com-
mons Feb. , , as printed in the journals of the House for Feb. , Journals H.
of C. XXV ; also in Force I .
Benjamin Franklin to William Franklin March , , quoted in the text, char-
acterizing North’s plan, Letter to W. F. .
Lord Chatham to Lord Mahon Feb. , , and Richard Champion to Willing,
Morris & Co. March , , quoted in the text, as to North’s motion, Pitt IV
and Guttridge Champion . To similar effect, Franklin to James Bowdoin Feb. ,
Smyth Franklin VI .
Edmund Burke to John Noble concerning North’s motion, Feb. , , Burke III
. Further details of the motion and its reception, North to the King, Geo. III III
, and Edward Gibbon, the historian, recently elected to the Commons, to John
B. Holroyd, Feb. , Gibbon (Norton) II .
North’s motion carried to , Feb. , , Force I .
The speakers for and against North’s motion are listed in North to the King, Geo.
III III –. The speeches of several of those listed by North are in Force I
–. The opposition speakers represented followers both of Chatham and
of Lord Rockingham, leaders of the two principal opposition parties.
North’s statement in the debate in the House on his motion, Feb. , , as de-
scribed in the text, same –, –n., .
North to the King “Sunday morning” Feb. , , as to North’s proposed mo-
tion, Geo. III III .
Reconvening of Parliament Jan. , , and presentation of over documents
to both Houses Jan. and , bearing on colonial unrest, Force I –,
.
Chatham’s speech and motion of Jan. , , for withdrawal of the troops, same
–. Williams Pitt II lists several reports of Chatham’s speech in sup-
port of his motion, the best known of which is in Force I –. A good ac-
count not cited by Williams, by Josiah Quincy, dated Jan. , is in Quincy Memoir
– and another, dated Jan. , in the hand of Benjamin Franklin’s great-
nephew Jonathan Williams, is in Knollenberg Franklin –.
Defeat of Chatham’s motion for removal of the troops and the names of those vot-
ing for the motion, Jan. , , Force I . The eighteen peers voting for the mo-
tion were the Duke of Cumberland (brother of the King, with whom he was on bad
terms), the Dukes of Richmond, Portland, and Manchester, the Bishop of Exeter
(Frederick Keppel), and Lords Thanet, Abingdon, Fitzwilliam, Tankerville, Stan-
hope, Spencer, Chatham, Camden, Wycombe (Shelburne), Ponsonby, Sondes, and
Grosvenor, most of whom were regular followers of Rockingham or Chatham.
Merchants’ petition to House of Commons for “healing measures,” same –
. The merchants’ movements for conciliation are well covered in Sosin Agents
–, –, and Kammen Agents – and sources cited therein. The
merchants were spurred to action by Franklin and other London Agents of the
colonies, but as brought out in Kammen Agents passim, the London Agents’ influ-
ence had been greatly weakened from various causes by . George Hayley, who
presented the petition, was the brother-in-law of John Wilkes.
The motion for consideration of the London merchants’ petition by a select com-
mittee, made by Sir William Meredith, member for Liverpool, is in Force I .
The vote of to against the motion, a vote virtually shelving the petition, is
in same . I have found no list of those voting in favor of the amendment.
Chatham’s plan for conciliation presented to the House of Lords Feb. , , same
–. Expected contribution by the colonies as part of the plan did not in-
clude “the new provinces of East and West Florida, Georgia, Nova-Scotia, St.
Johns [present-day Prince Edward Island] and Canada, the circumstances and
abilities of the said Provinces being reserved for the wisdom of Parliament in their
due time,” same . As to Benjamin Franklin’s slight contribution to the plan,
Franklin to William Franklin March , Letter to W. F. .
I recognize that not all colonial Whigs would have been satisfied by Chatham’s
plan had it passed, as illustrated by the contemporary criticism of it quoted in
Force I –n. But I believe the dissatisfied would have been in the minority.
Rejection of Chatham’s plan of conciliation Feb. , , to , same .
Burke’s motion and supporting speech for conciliation, March , , described
in the text, same –. Burke’s famous speech has been published many
times, e.g., in Burke Speeches () –.
Rejection of Burke’s plan, March , , Force I .
David Hartley’s plan of conciliation (March , ), which was defeated with-
out a division, same –. As to Hartley and his plan, Guttridge Hartley pas-
sim, Van Alstyne “Parliamentary Supremacy” –, Namier and Brooke Com-
mons II –.
The motion declaring Mass. in rebellion was supported by the Attorney- and
Solicitor-General’s opinion Feb. , , that some of the resolutions of the Mass.
Provincial Congress “amount to high treason,” Calendar H.O. Papers (for –)
. The law officers had previously (Dec. , ) given a similar opinion as to
the action on Aug. , , of Joshua Bigelow, Edward Rawson, and others in
compelling Timothy Paine of Worcester, Mass., to resign as a mandamus coun-
cilor, same , described in Paine to Gage, Aug. , Matthews “Mass. Royal
Council” –.
North’s motion of Feb. , , in the Commons for an address to the King as to
a rebellion in Mass., quoted in the text, and its adoption Feb. , by a vote of
to ; also the adoption of a similar motion in the Lords Feb. , by a vote of
to , Force I , , , , . Debates in both Houses on the pro-
posed address, same –. The vote in the Commons was on a motion to
recommit the proposed address; the motion for the address itself was thereafter
adopted without a division. The King’s concurring reply Feb. is in same .
The letter of Dartmouth to Gage Jan. , , referred to in the text, spurring
Gage to action, Gage II –. One of the quirks of historiography is that the
great importance of this letter, part of which was quoted by Bancroft (Bancroft
History VII –), was not pointed out until the publication of John R. Alden’s
“Why the March to Concord?” in the American Historical Review of April, .
Chapter
Notice dated Nov. , , by the Philadelphia committee elected in June calling
for a meeting on Nov. at the State House to elect a committee to enforce the
Association in Philadelphia, and election of a committee of sixty-six members for
Philadelphia and suburbs, Force I – and Pa. Gazette Nov. and ;
Schlesinger Col. Merchants –. (Opposition to this among local Quakers is de-
scribed in same –; Sharpless Quakers in the Revolution –; Force I –
, –, –, .)
Notice issued by the Philadelphia enforcement committee, Dec. , , con-
cerning the disposal of banned goods arriving after Dec. , same –.
Jonathan Blake, Daniel Dunscomb, and Christopher Duyckinck are named in
May, , Nov., , and March, , respectively, as “Chairman” of “the
Body” or “the Committee” of Mechanics, Force I , , V , but the com-
position of the group is obscure. Duyckinck, Abraham Brasher, Theophilus An-
thony, Francis Van Dyck, and Jeremiah Platt signed an address in July, , as “a
Committee from a number of citizens,” same , which Leake Lamb speaks of
as “A Committee from the Mechanics,” but gives no evidence supporting this de-
scription of the committee.
Election of N.Y. City enforcement committee of sixty members Nov. , ,
Force I . The background of this election, initially called for Nov. , same –
; Becker N.Y. –. Activity of the N.Y. City enforcement committee is in-
dicated by its report April , , of having netted £ for the poor of Boston
from the sale of imports from England, Ireland, Scotland, the British West Indies,
and Madeira that had arrived after Dec. , , Force II –.
Election of Boston enforcement committee of sixty-two members, any seven of
whom were to constitute a quorum, at a Boston town meeting Dec. , , Boston
Records (for –) –. (This meeting was a postponed meeting from sev-
eral other meetings, the original one of which had legally been summoned before
the Massachusetts Regulating Act, limiting town meetings without the Gover-
nor’s consent, was in effect.)
Evidence of enforcement of the Association’s ban on imports by some group at
Charleston before the end of , S.C. Gazette Dec. and , ; Henry to John
Laurens Jan. , , Clark Naval Doc. I –. Election by the S.C. Congress of
Jan. –, , of enforcement committees except for St. Philip and St. Michael
parishes in Charleston, Force I –, indicates that such a committee was al-
ready acting there. Henry to John Laurens Jan. , has interesting details of the
meeting of this Congress, Clark Naval Doc. I .
Gov. Lord Dunmore of Va. to Lord Dartmouth Dec. , , concerning the es-
tablishment and activities of committees throughout Va. to enforce the Associa-
tion, Force I –. Details of the Va. committees and their activities are
given in same I –, II – passim; Mays Pendleton I –, –; Ed-
mund Pendleton and Walker Taliaferro to Peyton Randolph Dec. , , Mays
Pendleton Letters I ; Bowman “Va. Committees” –.
Formation and activities of committees throughout the colonies represented at the
First Continental Congress, Schlesinger Col. Merchants –, –; Clark
Naval Doc. I – passim; and sources cited, under the names of the several colo-
nies, in Force I, II. Exports from England to the twelve participating colonies
dropped from £,, in , and an average of £,, for the five years
–, to £, in , Hist. Statistics .
Delegates to the Second Continental Congress were elected from Nov. , , to
April , , by the regular Assemblies of Conn., N.J., Pa., Del., S.C., and R.I.
and by conventions in N.H., Mass., Md., Va., and N.C., Journals Cont. Congress II
–. Election by a convention rather than by the regular Assembly in the latter
group of colonies resulted from the failure of the Governors of these colonies to
call a meeting of the Assembly.
The refusal of a majority of members attending the Jan.–April, , session of the
N.Y. Assembly to approve the proceedings of the First Continental Congress or
elect delegates to the proposed Second Congress, is described and discussed in an
appendix to this chapter.
The proceedings of the N.Y. provincial convention, April –, , Force II –
. Richmond and Cumberland counties, represented at the Jan.–April, ,
session of the N.Y. Assembly, sent no delegates to the convention, and the dele-
gates from Queens were so little representative of the county that they were not
permitted to vote. (The N.Y. manors apparently were not granted representation
in the convention; but Abraham Ten Broeck, member of the Assembly for Rens-
selaerwyck Manor, was among the convention delegates from Albany County.)
Reelection of delegates who served in the First Congress to the Second, and their
service there, Journals Cont. Cong. II –; Burnett Letters I xli–lxvi. Joseph Gal-
loway of Pa. was reelected but declined to attend; Samuel Rhoads of Pa. was omit-
ted because “being now the Mayor of the City of Philadelphia...he could not at-
tend the service,” Pa. Assembly VIII , . Isaac Low and John Haring of N.Y.
asked to be omitted, Force II . I have found no explanation of the omission of
Nathaniel Folsom of N.H., who continued to be a leading Whig in the province.
Addition of the persons named in the text to the Mass., N.Y., and Md. delegations
and substitution in N.H., Journals Cont. Cong. II , , , . On May , , Pa.
Assembly added Benjamin Franklin, recently returned from England, Thomas
Willing, and James Wilson to the Pa. delegation, same , and later there were
many changes in the delegates to the Second Continental Congress. In July, ,
Georgia held a convention which elected delegates to the Second Congress, Cole-
man Ga. –.
Statement in the Memorial of the First Continental Congress adopted Oct. ,
, which recommends preparedness for “every contingency,” Journals Cont.
Cong. I .
Measures in preparation for war in Conn. Oct., , described in the text, Conn.
Col. Rec. XIV . Furthermore, in Feb., , the Conn. Council directed the
provincial treasurer to buy for the use of the colony barrels of powder, tons
of lead, and , flints, and in March the Conn. General Assembly provided for
the establishment of additional military companies, same –n., , .
Samuel Ward to John Dickinson, Dec. , , describing the R.I. General As-
sembly’s preparations for war, Knollenberg Ward . The warlike resolutions sum-
marized by Ward are in R.I. Col. Rec. VII –, –. A possible implica-
tion in the instructions to the R.I. delegates to the Second Continental Congress,
that they were not to vote for war measures in the Congress, same , is repelled
by the Assembly’s own war measures.
The resolution of the N.H. convention of Jan. , , concerning the drilling of
the colony’s militia quoted in the text, Force I .
The seizure of powder, cannon, and muskets at Fort William and Mary near
Portsmouth, N.H., on Dec. and , , Gov. John Wentworth of N.H. to
Gen. Thomas Gage and Admiral Samuel Graves Dec. and , Clark Naval Doc.
I , .
Measures of the Md. convention Dec. –, , preparing for war, Force I –
.
Resolution of the S.C. convention Jan. , , recommending that all the in-
habitants of the colony drill and otherwise train themselves in “the use of arms,”
same .
Richard Henry Lee to Samuel Adams Feb. , , explaining the delay in as-
sembling a provincial convention in Va., Ballagh Lee I –.
Washington to an unidentified correspondent Jan. , , as to the widespread
formation of “independent” companies, quoted in Samuel Chase to James Duane
Feb. , , So. Hist. Assoc. Public. XX () . Dunmore wrote Lord Dart-
mouth Dec. , , that “Every County...is now arming a Company of men,