Hutchinsons Strictures upon the Declaration of Congress - Research Paper Example

 In the Spring of 1764, a comprehensive blueprint was developed, comprising ninety seven propositions, to “redefine the nature of the imperial-colonial relationship.”1 The Declaration of Independence was a response to such a redefinition of Britain’s imperial relationship with her colonies. It lists the grievances of the Colonies with Great Britain, its major purpose being to secure their independence. The Declaration of Independence states that it was necessary to dissolve political bands and become “separate and equal” with other nations in the world; a nation that enshrined “life liberty and the pursuit of happiness” among its goals.2 All subsequent grievances derive from the damage to these goals arising due to colonial policies. Thomas Hutchinson, erstwhile Governor of Massachusetts, claimed that the Declaration of Independence was obsolete and that the grievances listed in it were paltry excuses for the rebels to use while justifying their revolution against the British Crown. But while Hutchinson’s strictures sought to justify British exploitation, the words actually proved that every grievance listed in the Declaration was valid. The Declaration of Independence is supported by historical fact and by the essences of nationalism and justice, making Hutchinson’s Strictures a prime example of Britain’s attempt to belittle the American clamor for freedom, which resulted in the American Revolution. In Hutchinson’s letter to a British noble he introduces the Declaration with this insult “I thought there would have been more policy in leaving the World altogether ignorant of the motives of the Rebellion, than in offering such false and frivolous reasons in support of it”3. But historical evidence supports the fact that Britain did tax the colonies unmercifully, and quelled any resistance the American settlers raised, using their Redcoats. The taxes were levied to help pay off Great Britain’s 143 million dollar debt, plus an added $5 million in interest, after the pace of Paris in 1763.4 This proved that the Congress of Philadelphia had a strong reason for Rebellion i.e. the protection of their economy and their rights to autonomy, which were being undermined by colonial policies. The Declaration of Independence stated that America wished to sever its political bands with Britain, because its goals were different from Britain. While Hutchinson staunchly believed that Americans were not a distinct nation from Britain, the reality was that Britain supported monarchial rule, while its subjugated western counterparts longed for democracy, liberty and equality. The pre-revolutionaries were heavily influenced by John Locke’s ‘Two Treatises on Government’ as can be seen by a sentence in the Declaration: “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”5 which mirrors Locke’s claim: “if a long train of abuses, prevarications and artifices, all tending the same way, make the design visible to the people, and they cannot but feel what they lie under, and see whither they are going; it is not to be wondered, that they should then rouze themselves, and endeavor to put the rule into such hands which may secure to them the ends for which government was at first erected.”6 Hutchinson’s claim that the rebellion was based on insubstantial grouses with the British Crown was also a direct contradiction of John Locke’s words: “revolutions happen not upon every little mismanagement in public affairs” but by “Great mistakes in the ruling part, many wrong and inconvenient laws.”7 Thus, Hutchinson fails to realize the strength of the grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence and British negligence in addressing them. One significant grievance in the Declaration of Independence states: “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.”8 Hutchinson only reiterates the supreme monarchial authority: “To cause the operation of such laws to be suspended until the King can signify his pleasure by force of instructions, similar to what has been given in all former Reigns, can never be charged as an usurpation upon the rights of the People.”9 But the reality was that while laws were indeed been suspended in the colonies until a thorough introspection had been made, tax laws were enacted quickly and decisively and enforced strictly. Hence, although Britain claimed to be looking out for the Colonies’ best interests, British demands on the colonies intensified, while the colonies’ demands on Britain were ignored and they were not even allowed to have their own currency. This was in accordance with Charles Grenville’s Currency Act. Hutchinson’s views suggest that Britain believed its colonies were appendages rather than fellow societies worthy of economic consideration. The colonies were accorded neither the respect nor recognition provided to British citizens, thereby contesting the declaration in Hutchinson’s Scriptures that that they “never were a distinct people from the kingdom”10 Hutchinson added the statement that “the laws of England are or ought to be the laws of its Colonies”11 although in reality, Englishmen were not subject to taxation like the people in the colonies, neither were the colonists allowed to represent themselves at the British Parliament. Thus, there was no reason why they should have been entitled to or expected to follow the same laws of England and the grievances were valid. The grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence on the refusal of the right to representation and the refusal of the right to frame their own laws rather than having them imposed from Britain are thus valid and contradict Hutchinson’s contention that the laws of England ought to be the law of the colonies. Hutchinson also claimed in his Strictures that the colonies could not be given their freedom because slavery was an accepted institution there, but slavery had been an institution in Britain as well for many years, and many colonists fought for the abolition of slavery. David Rice, an acknowledged American preacher who addressed the drafters of the Kentucky Constitution, said: “When we plead for slavery, we plead for the disgrace and ruin of our own nature.”12 Hutchinson pointed the finger of blame at the Colonies under one category, while they were punished under another. Within the Declaration of Independence there a grievance with reference to the King of England i.e.: “He has refused to pass other laws for [the] accommodation of large districts of People, unless those People would relinquish the rights [right] of Representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them, and formidable to tyrants only.”13 During the French and Indian wars of 1763, the colonies were assigned the duty of supplying the West Indies with foodstuffs and molasses, and in return for free food, the colonists accepted cash payments only for molasses, which they used to buy themselves cheaper sugar and molasses in French owned Caribbean territory. Due to these actions, the colonists were forced to pay exorbitant tax under Charles Grenville’s Stamp Acts and Sugar Acts. To further punish the Colonists, the British made a deal with the Ottawa Indian Chief, Pontiac, and issued the Proclamation of 1763, which forbade the Colonists from settling in the Ohio Valley, a rich region beyond the Appalachian Mountains. Therefore, the Colonists were not allowed to establish new towns in Indian Territory, which was the reason for the grievances with regard to the towns. As for those towns to be constructed in the Crown’s approved areas, the Governor would allow the new town’s construction only if it agreed to follow British authority and forfeit the right to representation within the Colony itself. Hutchinson explains that this happened in the Massachusetts Bay Colony but claims that new representation could not be allowed because the number of representatives was exceeding the limit that could be accommodated by the original charter. As a result, not only was there inadequate representation of Americans in the British Parliament, but to add to this grievance, the colonies were not allowed to represent themselves on their own soil, if they chose establish a new town. When the Declaration of Independence refers to tyranny these are the actions of the British Government that it is alluding too; or in the words of John Locke: “wherever the power, that is put in any hands for the government of the people, and the preservation of their properties, is applied to other ends, and made use of to impoverish, harass, or subdue them to the arbitrary and irregular commands of those that have it.”14 The British denied the Colonies representation in Parliament, at the time when they needed it most to object to the Stamp Duties, Sugar Duties and other such taxes that were levied on them. “He [King George] has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures”15 and “He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly for opposing with manly firmness his Invasions of [on] the Rights of the People” were more grievances of the Declaration with reference to the political rights of the Colonies. The Townsend Acts, which had been made law in 1767, required the colonies to pay taxes on tea, paper, paint and glass effectively taking money from the colonial economy. John Dickinson, the lead drafter of the Articles of Confederation, declared that the British Crown was trying to strangle the colonial Economy and advocated violence unless the Acts were revoked. The Townsend Acts caused much upheaval in the Boston Area, with many riots and uprisings, like the riots which included beating up customs officials after the British attempt to seize John Hancock’s merchant- ship The Liberty in June 1768 and like the Boston Tea Party of 177316. It was during riots like these that British troops were stationed in Boston and prominent Bostonian politicians were forced to vacate the Assembly Hall at Boston. In Massachusetts Bay, the House of Representatives was dissolved both in 1768, because Americans were furious with the Townsend Acts and planned to take legislative action against it and in 1773, because Americans had refused to pay Britain 9,570 pounds as a fine for dumping British tea overboard during the Boston Tea Party. Although Hutchinson claimed that the dissolution was justified because of growing American resentment in American politicians whose actions he found to be “incompatible with the subordination of the Colonies to the supreme authority of the Empire”17 dissolution was in fact one of the many measures that Britain took in order to stifle protest from the Colonies and control American economy. After the Townsend legislative program was made into law in November, 1767, British customs officials and commissioners entered the colonies to ensure that the new taxes were paid in full. The British Government set up a Board of Commissioners of the Customs for this purpose and it was permitted to try cases without the presence of a jury. The Declaration of Independence alleged that this was akin to a “mock trial”18 and protection from such from punishment was necessary, to which Hutchinson made the counterclaim: “It is happy for a state, that there can be an interposition of legislative power in those cases, where an adherence to established rules would cause injustice”19. But legislative interference in a judiciary decision is precisely what constitutes a mock trial, and the democracy formed by the Colonists after independence redressed the grievance of “depriving us, in many cases, of the benefit[s] of a trial [of trial] by jury.”20 Hutchinson responds that “Offences against their Laws of Excise, and some other Laws, are also determined without a Jury; and civil actions, under a sum limited, are determined by a Justice of the Peace”. But this does not stand because without the presence of a jury, any attempt to circumvent British attempts to drain colonial wealth only resulted in imprisonment and severe fines for defrauding on tax. Many of the grievances listed in the Declaration had to do with these events, such as: “He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers” and “He has made Judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries”. Hutchinson responded to this objection with the contention that: “Creditors in England have received a few shillings only on the pound. This frustrates our own bankrupt laws”, hence he viewed this restriction as an equalizing of English and American debt collection, while the colonists saw it as a deliberate attempt to sabotage their occupational success. As a part of the resistance to the Townsend Acts, the Colonists boycotted British goods for colonial or smuggled goods. Accounts tallied in the spring of 1769 showed that Britain had lost nearly 7.3 million pounds as a result of the trade boycott. To punish the smugglers, who were helping the Revolutionaries uphold the trade boycott and to bring itself back from the verge of insolvency, the East India Company, under orders from Townsend’s successor Lord North, the new Chancellor of the Exchequer, decided to sell its tea at much lower prices than those offered by smugglers and Dutch traders. The colonists were certain that lowering the prices of tea was a ploy by Britain to make America more willing to pay the many new taxes. Sam Adams and John Hancock directed fellow revolutionaries to take revenge on the British by dressing up like Indians and dumped British Tea into the Boston Harbor in 1773. This resulted in new Parliamentary restrictions upheld by the British Crown and allowed for a new Quartering Act as well as the Administration of Justice Act, which not only enforced a trial in Britain for colonial officials who supported the Revolution but which gave Canada favorable treatment, including and in the Ohio River Valley.21(4). This policy of sending colonials to Britain for British trials in a presumably biased courtroom was another grievance that was addressed in the Declaration of Independence. The Quartering Act was one of the English laws that the Declaration strongly denounced as it Act gave British soldiers the right to quarters within private colonial Households. Hutchinson claimed in his letter that the Quartering Act had been enforced to give protection to Americans when the Seven Years War was being fought with France on American soil in 1763. Although this Act was a clear invasion of the privacy and freedom of American homes, Hutchinson claimed that there was nothing uncomfortable in the situation and colonists were only blowing up the issue because of a feeling of self-importance and a desire to deny the authority of the British Parliament. The presence of a standing army on American soil was another grievance listed in the Declaration of Independence - “He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies, without the consent of our legislatures” and “He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power”. Hutchinson’s justification for the first claim was that the legislatures themselves had allowed the standing troops and that no action could be taken that wasn’t approved by the legislature. Even if Hutchinson’s claim was true, many of the Governors were dependant on the British Crown for their income and would support the British against colonial interests. Hutchinson himself was the Governor of Massachusetts, the heart of the American Revolution, and yet his words clearly highlight who he supported and why. Hutchinson also claims that the Military has every right to interfere with subordinate Civil Power when they supported the Revolution and that the Supreme Civil Powers i.e. the Governors validated military interference on monarchial authority. But since British soldiers were quartered in colonial homes without the consent of its residents, the Declaration rightly claimed it to be an usurpation of military and a degradation of civil rights and powers. Added concerns with regard to legislature, laws and limitations were stated in the Declaration of Independence, which itself was compiled after the ‘Intolerable’ or ‘Coercive’ Acts were put into force. These were charges leveled against the British Government “For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves [in]vested with power, to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever” and “For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, [and] altering fundamentally the forms of our Governments”. Hutchinson himself admits that the legislature of New York was suspended for not complying with the Quartering Act, which he claims was there for protection against the French. Hutchinson responded to the second clause by claiming that it was “the authority of Parliament to revoke, or alter Charters, or legislative powers once granted and established, than to the injurious or oppressive use of the authority upon these occasions”. However, the authority that he referred to was Britain, whose intention as to further their profits at the expense of the Colonies. In spite of the protests of many colonists, British interests were given prominence over American efforts, thus making the legislature altered and obsolete. John Locke wrote with reference to the ‘Social Contract’ that: “The legislative cannot transfer the power of making laws to any other hands: for it being but a delegated power from the people, they who have it cannot pass it over to others. The people alone can appoint the form of the common-wealth, which is by constituting the legislative, and appointing in whose hands that shall be.”22 American Representation in the English Parliament was not enough to convince them that they were citizens of England, and the increasing English interference in colonial Parliamentary affairs was considered a grievance by the drafters of the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson, for example, took offence to Parliament’s right to legislate colonial matter and claimed in his Summary View of the Rights of British America that: “The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time.23” After the Intolerable Acts came into force, there was a large amount of angst among the colonists. On September 5th, 1774 representatives from every American colony except Georgia met at Philadelphia for the first Continental Congress to decide what action should be taken against the British. The Congress members were feeling decidedly radical at the Convention and thus voted for a Declaration of Rights that conceded British Rule, but asserted American rights like John Locke’s ‘life, liberty and property’ as well as the right to self-government on internal policies and taxation. King George III was infuriated when he heard of the Congress and claimed: “The New England Governments are in a state of rebellion; Blows must decide whether they are subject to this country or independent.”24 British troops were sent to destroy a supply facility at Concord, and burnt their supplies, although local farmers attacked them on their way back to Boston. The farmers, who outnumbered the Redcoats five to one, managed to kill 273 of them.25 This event was found listed under the Declaration of Independence as a grievance: “He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions to cause others to be erected [elected] whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasions [invasion] from without, and Convulsions within.” Hutchinson scorned this statement, claiming that the soldiers were imperative for the preservation of peace and that the “Convulsions within were the tumults, riots and acts of violence which this Convention was called, not to suppress but to encourage.” However, the battle at Concord did cause the death of 93 Americans proving it to be a fair argument in favor of the Declaration of Independence. Another objection the Declaration raised was: “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[s] hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.” The British Crown had authorized the naturalization of foreigners if they had resided in America for seven years. When the colonies tried to pass more Acts and make changes in the already existing system of naturalization, the British squashed their attempts. Hutchinson claimed that it was “a mere favor” on the part of the British that deemed naturalization a fit process, and that the Colonies had no right to complain, and no right to an opinion regarding settlement on their shores. With regard to new land grants that the colonies wanted, Hutchinson pointed out that refusing the colonials land rights was a way to punish them for their insubordination to the British Crown or to use his own words : “If there had been further conditions annexed to the grants of un-appropriated lands, than have ever yet been, or even a total restriction of such grants when the danger of Revolt was foreseen, it might have been a prudent measure; it certainly was justifiable, and nobody has any right to complain.” The Ohio River Valley was one such piece of real estate that Americans were not allowed to cultivate. The Declaration of Independence listed the favoring of the Indians as a grievance: “He has excited domestic insurrections amongst 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 of all ages, sexes and conditions”. The colonists closely resembled the British in many ways, which was why many of them were reluctant to join the rebellion in the first place and the reason why they were able to fight their Mother Country and win. They were essentially a population with British roots but American trunks and branches. In many other British colonies, like India and Africa, the rebellion was comprised of a race that was ethnically distinct from the British and this was a binding factor that aided their Independence movement. The Declaration however, was drafted by Americans who were ancestrally linked with the British and who had modeled their society after England. Many Americans were under obligation to Britain, because of these close ties, to support it over their own homeland, and to uphold British interests or suffer the consequences. Thus the grievance: “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”. Although Hutchinson was right in stating that the Declaration was not a request for reformation but rather a notification for actions already taken, he was not accurate in his claim that the Americans had no real reason for rebellion, and that they had just arbitrarily decided that they wanted freedom from Great Britain and had hence justified their actions with inadequate excuses. Although the Declaration was a justification, it did have better arguments than Hutchinson’s Strictures, which apportioned no blame to Britain even though Britain’s tax plans had been a major factor in the aggravation of the once peaceful colonists. The Revolution had already begun as was indicated in the Declaration: “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.”; so the Declaration could not have been a request or a retraction. Colonials claimed that: “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” and this was why they thought the King was a tyrant and therefore unfit to guide America. Hutchinson is partial to Britain and the King, which is why he makes statements in his letter such as: “Indignant resentment must seize the breast of every loyal subject.” and “Has there ever been a Prince by whom subjects in rebellion have been treated with less severity, or with longer forbearance?” His arguments base themselves upon the simple fact that Britain treated America according to the laws it applied to its other colonies even as he contradicts himself to state that Americans are Englishmen and must therefore pay their taxes. Americans obviously felt, that since they had British roots, they were entitled to more economic and political freedom that Britain’s other overseas colonies. If Britain chose to treat them as a part of the British Empire that was basically a sink for resources and a ground for economic exploitation, then the colonials themselves would consider America a different society from Britain and would fight for their freedom. In my opinion, the Declaration of Independence was supported by historical fact as every grievance that was stated in this document was based on an actual event in history. Hutchinson’s Strictures tried at every turn to undermine the seriousness of the grievances. The Battle of Concord and the ensuing bloodsheds was compared to a ‘preservation of peace’. The dissolution of the Massachusetts Assembly was called ‘a vacation of three months’ and the separation of the Assembly from its people during a riot accompanied by the stationing of Redcoats under Bostonian roofs was apparently ‘not unusual’. Hutchinson’s arguments were also written in a biased manner, claiming that it was the King’s duty to suppress the rebellion by armed force and legislative breakdown. Although, Britain needed to protect its own interests, many of its inflammatory actions could have been avoided, as the colonials were quite cordial with the Crown before the Grensville and Townshend taxes forced them into action. The arguments of the Declaration are both rational and concise, stating reasons for its decision. Hutchinson already has a preconceived notion in his letter and does not give a reason for it. The Declaration is a list of historically validated events that are neither embellished nor imagined, while Hutchinson’s Strictures is an attack on the American character, on the apparently “ungrateful subjects”. Bibliography 1. Greene, Jack P, 1975. “Colonies to nation 1763-1789 : A documentary history of the American Revolution”, W.W. Norton and Company 2. Hutchinson’s Strictures upon the Declaration of the Congress of Philadelphia, Available at URL: http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1130&Itemid=264 , Accessed: August 1,2008 3. American Political Writing During the Founding Era: 1763-1789, Volume II, a. The History of the American Revolution by David Ramsey (1789), b. Slavery Inconsistent With Justice and Good Policy by David Rice(1792), Available at URL: http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2068&layout=html , Accessed: July 31, 2008. 4. Locke’s Second Treatise of Government (1) Of Conquest (Chap XVI), Available at URL: http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/locke/locke2/locke2nd-d.html#Sect.%20212. (2)Of Tyranny (Chap XVIII) Available at URL: http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/locke/locke2/locke2nd- d.html#Sect.%20202. (3)Of the extent of the Legislative Power (Chap XI), Available at URL: http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/locke/locke2/locke2nd-c.html#Sect.%20135 Accessed: August 2, 2008. 5. Brinkley, Douglas. American Heritage: History of the United States, New York: Penguin Putnam Inc 6. The Declaration of Independence, Available at URL: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html , Accessed: July 30, 2008. Read More