Colonial Rights or Imperial Sovereignty: Two Pamphlets from the Pamphlet War

John Adams argued several times that the real American revolution was about the change of heart and mind. As he wrote in 1818 in a letter to Hezekiah Niles:

But what do We mean by the American Revolution? Do We mean the American War? The Revolution was effected before the War commenced. The Revolution was in the Minds and Hearts of the People. A Change in their Religious Sentiments of their Duties and Obligations. While the King, and all in Authority under him, were believed to govern, in Justice and Mercy according to the Laws and Constitutions derived to them from the God of Nature, and transmitted to them by their Ancestors— they thought themselves bound to pray for the King and Queen and all the Royal Family, and all the Authority under them, as Ministers ordained of God for their good. But when they Saw those Powers renouncing all the Principles of Authority, and bent up on the destruction of all the Securities of their Lives, Liberties and Properties, they thought it their Duty to pray for the Continental Congress and all the thirteen State Congresses, &c.

As such, Americans—a deeply literate and Protestant (thus, doubly literate) people—argued about everything through broadsides, books, and, especially, pamphlets. 

Though sermons arrived on American soil with the first English settlers of the American colonies—often printed as independent pamphlets—the actual pamphlet war of the Revolution really began when the imperial crises period began, roughly sometime between 1761 and 1765, its initial phase beginning with Parliament’s unwise and imprudent passage of the Stamp Act. American reaction was swift, and Parliament eventually backed down, realizing it could not enforce the act without tyranny over the colonies. Led by Edmund Burke and the Rockingham Whigs, Parliament rescinded the Stamp Act but not without asserting its complete authority over the colonies in the Declaratory Act of 1766. Americans, of course, rejected such an assertion.

Still, the debate raged, long after the first shots were fired at Lexington. Indeed, the Americans continued the pamphlet tradition—Federalists, Anti-Federalists, Hamiltonians, Jeffersonians, Madisonians—long into the 1790s. Later Americans, such as the nineteenth-century Abolitionists, continued to rally around the publication of pamphlets as a fundamental American tradition. Even into the twentieth century, various groups—often economic interests—continued the pamphlet tradition.

The following two pamphlets examined below take opposite sides in the debate over American independence and Parliamentary sovereignty. Amazingly, even though I printed them out at the same time and placed them together, they did not spontaneously burst into flames upon contact with one another. I exaggerate, of course, but to make a point. They are so opposite as to be matter and anti-matter. They seem to describe two different and unrelated worlds.

The first, pro-American to the extreme, is The Crisis, or, A Full Defence of the Colonies, published by W. Griffin in London in 1766. Immediately upon beginning, The Crisis lays out the two sides of the debate. On the one hand, there are those who believe that Parliament has supreme authority to regulate any and all parts of the British empire, seeing any attack on its authority as a full-scale rebellion against Great Britain as a whole. On the other hand, though, are those who argue that to be English means that one has the right to resist unjust authority. 

The consequences of Parliament’s claims, though, would be devastating to the colonies. “They are utterly unrepresented in the parliament of the Mother Country, a doctrine of this kind must inevitably rob them of the most valuable rights which they ought to possess, as Englishmen, and reduce them in an instant, from a nation of Free-born Subjects, to a set of the most miserable slaves.” Here, though, the author interjects, noting that while Parliament might very well claim to have the power to control the colonies, it, in reality, has no means of enforcing its wishes. Further, the author claims, even if Parliament has the power and even the ability to enforce its wishes, it does not have a right to do so. The results of its false quest have led to nothing but misery. “The American Stamp Act is a very dangerous stretch of power, and has absolutely stripped at least three millions of our fellow subjects of every benefit which, as Englishmen, they were entitled to from the British constitution.” The author stresses this throughout the pamphlet. “What injury did we sustain, from suffering them to possess the natural rights of free-born Englishmen?” The use of “natural rights” here in addition to the rights of Englishmen is fascinating, as “natural rights” talk was rare in 1766. It would not be rare, however, a decade later.

One complaint against the American resistance to the Stamp Act was the formation of mobs and the possible rule of the mob against the decent population in the colonies. To this, the anonymous author responds:

The Mother Country herself, has had her mobs—and no later than last winter, a whole army of the populace, in a manner, besieged both the august Houses of Parliament. As therefore, we on this side of the Atlantic have been frequently subject to popular insurrections, we cannot be surprised at hearing of the same insurrections in the Colonies; more particular too, when we consider, that from nature and education, they are, if possible, more strenuous lovers of liberty than ourselves. Their ancestors, for the most part, were people who underwent a voluntary banishment from their native countries, on civil and religious accounts. These ancestors have handed down their principles to posterity, in consequence of which, nine tenths, at least, of the whole Continent, are Whigs in the most expressive sense, and impatient of course, where they imagine their freedom is at stake.

One of the major questions of the Stamp Act debate came down to whether or not the Americans were virtually represented in Parliament. That is, even though no one from America had elected a representative on their behalf, did Parliament still represent American rights. And, if Parliament virtually represents America, does it also virtually represent the entire empire? To answer this, the author gets snarky. Why, he (or she) asks, had no one ever heard of such a thing as virtual representation until the most recent debate? Shouldn’t this have been foundational to the very history of the empire itself? Perhaps men before Lord Granville—such as Walpole or Pitt—had not been gifted with the knowledge of virtual representation. 

Even more damning, why had nobody actually virtually represented America?

Notwithstanding the Colonies have this winter found a great number of virtual representatives, yet when the Stamp Bill was in agitation, not a single soul would present a petition from the poor Americans; though several of the provinces, in the humblest terms, begged leave to set forth both the iniquity and the impracticability of ever carrying such a law into execution.—So far from being attended to by the minister, their agents were dismissed.

As such, the idea of virtual representation is nothing short of a lie. 

Additionally, the anonymous author continues, it is materially imprudent to harass America. Afterall, through its own “blood and treasure” it has created immeasurable prosperity. Even its population, doubling every twenty-five years, is something vital to consider in relation tothe health of the overall empire. Perhaps the British do not realize it, or perhaps their pride gets the best of them, but hurting the colonies hurts the mother country. “In reality, if the case be fully examined, the Mother Country has been as much injured on this occasion, as the Colonies.” After all, the writer explains, “Her constitution, which positively declares, that no Englishman shall be taxed, without the common consent of Parliament, has been violated, to oppress three millions of her most useful and affectionate children.” Again, the author stresses more than the rights of Englishmen–the “natural right of men.”

Further, this self harm bodes ill for the future. For, if the present Parliament can oppress a part of the empire, why could not future Parliaments do the same? “In a few years, should it be now allowed, that Great Britain is obliged in defence of her authority, to support every act of a weak or wicked administration; whoever is at the helm, may, at any time, embroil the whole British empire.” Catastrophe could come to all.

In the end, the author concludes, the British empire must recognize the advantage it gains from having a happy and prosperous colonial policy, one based on commerce and trade rather than on oppression and taxation. Afterall, the author continues, “they have an unalterable claim, as Englishmen, to raise their own taxes, and to make laws for themselves.”

In grand and disturbing contrast, William Allen’s pamphlet, The American Crisis: A Letter Addressed by Permission to The Earl Gower, Lord President of the Council, On the Present Alarming Disturbances in the Colonies, appeared nearly a decade later, in 1774. By that time, of course, the division between the colonies and the Mother Country had gotten completely out of hand. Not merely the Stamp Act Crisis of the previous decade, but the struggle over the Townsend Duties, the Boston Massacre, the burning of the British ship, the Gaspee, and the Boston Tea Party had soured relations. Further, 1774 would see the passage of the Intolerable Acts, the Quebec Act, the meeting of the First Continental Congress, as well as the publication of Thomas Jefferson’s powerful “Summary View of the Rights of British America.” King George the Third privately wrote Lord North on November 18, 1774, ‘The new England Governments are in a state of rebellion’ and ‘blows must decide whether they are to be subject to this country or independent.’” Then, on November 30, 1774, the king opened Parliament with the declaration that Massachusetts [was in a state of] rebellion. The following February would find Parliament officially in agreement with the king, proclaiming New England not alone in rebellion, but in combination with other colonies as well. The Colonies would not find out this news for a while, but the first shots—“heard around the world”—would take place at Lexington, Massachusetts, early morning, April 19th, 1775, and the Second Continental Congress would meet on May 10, 1775. Then, of course, it would only be a matter of time —fourteen months, to be exact—until the colonies declared their own independence.

Such was the atmosphere in which William Allen’s pamphlet was written. Bizarrely, Allen claims he will present “an idea. . . towards a complete Plan for restoring the Dependence of America upon Great Britain to a State of Perfection.” His plan, though, promising a “permanent Foundation” is nothing but the demanding of simple submission on the part of the American colonies to the Mother Country. “That in proportion as America arrives at her natural perfection, built upon her first constitutional principles, will be the mutual prosperity of both countries.” This plan, he notes, is written without bias or prejudice, based on no singular interest or party desire.

From the beginning of the pamphlet, Allen harangues the Americans, claiming that they have been disobedient children and are in dire need of correction by the parent, bringing them back to “Duty, Gratitude, and Obedience.” To Allen’s mind, the Mother Country had already given too much to the Americans and had, as through the Stamp Act Crisis, withdrawn its parental instruction when most needed.

Further, Allen argues, the Mother Country had protected, through force of arms, the American colonies innumerable times.

 “Any disinterested Person, who has paid the least Attention to Colony Affairs, since the Time we have driven, at a prodigious Expence of Blood and Treasure, the dangerous Enemy from their back Settlements on the Mississippi, must have easily formed a just Character of the American Race, which by strong Degrees, that have marked their characteristic Features, show them to be ungrateful, disobedient, and factious; with ardent Desires to shake off their Allegiance to this Kingdom.” 

Here, Allen anticipates King George, who would declare on October 26, 1775, that the Americans hoped to create an independent empire. Further, historian Trevor Colbourn has written, “Jefferson was deeply disturbed by George III’s address to Parliament in October 1775, a speech in which the King claimed for Britain complete credit for the establishment and survival of the American colonies.” 

Additionally, Allen asserts, without the aid of Great Britain, the American colonies would be torn apart by various world powers. Britain, through its kindness and unfailing support, has emptied itself for its children.

Parliament, Allen claims, is the best judge of what is necessary for the British empire, and through its very soul has created the greatest and freest people on the earth. For this, the Americans should be grateful and should rejoice in their “happy Dependence.” They should see Great Britain—especially through Parliament—as a “wife, the opulent, and tender Parent, not like a partial unfeeling Step-Mother, but like a provident and skillful Guardian, with paternal Affection provides for its younger Branch.” After all, submission to parental authority makes a people happy and prosperous. When, however, a child disobeys the parent, the parent has a duty to correct the child as swiftly and as forcibly as necessary.

Leading the disobedient in America, Allen believes are two factions, the slave owners and the so-called “Patriots,” the “obstinate Sons of America,” who cannot be reclaimed for Britain and with whom there can be no reconciliation.

As to the former, “no people ever so cruelly enslaved their Fellow-Creatures as the Americans; and even the Savages use not their captive enemies with more Barbarity.” American slave owners “who deal in Men, Women, and Children,” buy them as one would buy a horse and condemn them “for Life, to a Drudgery irksome past Description. Beneath burning Suns, and a Bondage unbearable to Reflection; he is drove by the Iron Heart devoid of Feeling, and goaded by the Nerve lacerating Lash of Cruelty.”

As to the latter, the Patriots rouse the people through town meetings (a “most turbulent State of Faction”), around Liberty-Trees (“Idleness, Curiosity, and Faction, soon draw together a Concourse of People, forming a Multitude of nose-led Creatures, who announce their Approach by the Sound of discordant Horns, deeply groaning to the grating Sharpes of squeeking Whistles”; and “Orgies of Faction”), and through Committees (“who over-awe the Magistrate—intimidate the Peaceable—settle Matters of Government illegally—throw Ship-loads of Tea into the Ocean, though private Property—Tar and Feather any Object of their Dislike untried”). 

Through their various disobedient behaviors, the Americans have obviated all the charters and original agreements with the Mother Country, Allen believes. And, now, in 1774, Britain has the duty of treating the American colonies as the Romans treated Carthage, bringing the full destruction of the empire upon them. “Therefore, than Britain should fall, it is better that the supreme Authority be established; and that only can be completely done, but by a proper Annihilation of inadequate Charters now forfeited by a Spirit of Rebellion; and in their Stead a Reform, near as may be, to that of the British Constitution.” Nothing Allen asserts, should be done by halves.

Never does Allen actually offer a plan except to assert that the British Empire must bring its full force upon the colonies.

In conclusion, one can readily see that these two pamphlets offer radically different visions of the imperial crises of the 1760s and 1770s. Our anonymous author believes in liberty, peace, and commerce, while Allen believes in authority, revenge, and repression.