History 4

National Humanities Center Resource Toolbox Making the Revolution: America, 1763-1791 “To divide, and thus to destroy” LETTERS from a FARMER in PENNSYLVANIA To the INHABITANTS of the BRITISH COLONIES John Dickinson _____________________________________________ * LETTERS O NE & T WO , Dec. 2 & 7, 1767 Pennsylvania Chronicle and Universal Advertiser In twelve essays widely read in colonial newspapers and soon printed as a pamphlet, John Dickinson urged firmer Amer ican resistance to Britain’s increased restrictions and bemoaned the complacency exhibited by Americans after the repeal of the Stamp Act in 1766. Perhaps the hated stamp tax was history, but Parliament had passed new laws and begun to enforce existing laws that would become as reviled as the St amp Act. First, in the Declaratory Act of 1766, Parlia- ment affirmed its authority to legislate fo r the colonies and “bind the colonies and people of America . . . in all cases whatsoever.” A clear statem ent of who’s boss. Then, with the Townshend Acts of 1767, Parl ia- ment placed “direct” taxes on specific Br itish goods, a first in the commercial relationship between Britain and the American colonies. Finally, when the New York assembly failed to fully co mply with Quartering Act of 1765, which required colonial authorities to house British troops in unoccupied buildings and furnish them with food and supplies, Parliament suspended the power of the assembly until it complied in full. (The Quartering Act is t he prime reason for the Third Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 1) Historical Society of Pennsylvania John Dickinson, 1770 oil portrait by Charles Willson Peale The son of a prominent Quaker family, John Dickinson (1732-1808) was born on his fam ily’s tobacco plantation in Maryland. A lawyer and colonial legislator, he served in the First and Second Continental Congresses but refused to sign the Declaration of Independence because he believed the colonies were not ready to se ver themselves from Great Britain. Nonetheless, he fought against the British as an officer in the P ennsylvania Militia and after the Revolution played a significant role in the life of the nation. „ LETTER O NE , Dec. 2, 1767, Pennsylvania Chronicle and Universal Advertiser Many Americans saw the demand to feed and house British soldie rs as a tax upon the colonists, no less pernicious than the tax imposed by the Stamp Act. When the New York Assembly refused to comply fully with the Quartering Act (partly due to a budget shortfall), Parliament in effect dissolved the assembly until it would capitulate. In his first letter, Dickinson spells out the implications of the punishment Parliament visited upon New York. “If they [th e people of New York] may be legally deprived . . . of the privilege of legislation, why may they not, with equal reason, be deprived of every other privilege?” Parliam ent, Dickinson argues, is attempting to compel the people of New York to submit to its will. He s ees no difference between such legislative compulsion and the use of oops. Making his case with careful logic, he continually points out that what affects one colony affects all of them. tr My dear C OUNTRYMEN, am a Farmer , settled, after a variety of fortunes, near the banks of the river Delaware in the province [colony] of Pennsylvania . I received a liberal education, and have been engaged in the busy scenes of life, but am now convinced that a man may be as happ y without bustle as with it. My farm is small; my servants are few and good; I have a little money at inte rest; I wish for no more; my employment in my own affairs is easy; and with a contented, grateful mi nd, undisturbed by worldly hopes or fears relating to myself, I am completing the number of days allotted to me by divine goodness. I B EING generally master of my time, I spend a good deal of it in a library, which I think the most valuable part of my small esta te; and being acquainted with two or three gentlemen of abilities and learning who honor me with their friendship, I have acquired, I believe, a greater knowledge in history * National Humanities Center, 2010: nationalhum anitiescenter.org/pds/. As published in pamphlet form; Early American Imprints, Doc. 10875, courtesy of the American Antiquarian Society with ReadEx/NewsBank. Some spelling and punctuation modernized by NHC for clarity. Numbered footnotes added by NHC. Complete image credits at nationalhumanitiescenter.org/pds/makingrev/imagecredits.htm.

1 No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a m anner to be prescribed by law. [U.S. Constitution, Third Amendment] and the laws and constitution of my country than is generally attained by men of my class, many of them not being so fortunate as I have been in the opportunities of getting information. F ROM my infancy I was taught to love humanity and liberty . Enquiry and experience have since confirmed my reverence for the lessons then given me , by convincing me more fully of their truth and excellence. Benevolence toward mankind excites wishes for their welfare, and such wishes endear the means of fulfilling them. These can be found in liberty only, and therefore her sacred cause ought to be espoused by every man, on every occasion, to the utmost of his power. As a charitable but poor person does not withhold his mite 2 because he cannot relieve all the distresses of the miserable, so should not any honest man suppress his sentiments concerning freedom, however small their influence is likely to be.

Perhaps he “may touch some wheel” 3 that will have an effect greater than he could reasonably expect. T HESE being my sentiments, I am encouraged to offer to you, my countrymen, my thoughts on some late [recent] transactions that appear to me to be of the utmost importance to you. Conscious of my defects, I have waited some time, in expectation of seeing the subject treated by persons much better qualified for the task; but being therein disappointed, and apprehensive that longer delays will be injurious, I venture at length to request the atte ntion of the public, praying that these lines may be read with the same zeal for the happiness of British America with which they were wrote. W ITH a good deal of surprise I have observed that little notice has been taken of an act of Parliament as injurious in its principle to the liberties of these colonies as the Stamp Act was: I mean the act for suspending the legislation of New York. T HE assembly of that government complied with a former act of Parliament requiring certain provisions to be made for the troops in America in every particular, I think, except the articles of salt, pepper and vinegar. In my opinion they acted imprudently, considering all circumstances, in not complying so far as would have given satisfaction, as several colonies did.

But my dislike of their conduct in that instance has not blinded me so much that I cannot plainly perceive that they have been punished in a manner pernicious to American freedom and justly alarming to all the colonies. With a good deal of surprise I have observed that little notice has been taken of an act o f Parliament as injurious in its principle to the liberties of these colonies as the Stamp A ct was: I mean the act for suspending the legislation of New York. I F the British Parliament has a legal authority to issue an order that we shall furnish a single article for the troops here, and to compel obedience to that order, they have the same right to issue an order for us supply those troops with arms, clothes, and every necessary, and to compel obedience to that order also; in short, to lay any burdens they please upon us. What is this but taxing us at a certain sum and leaving us only the manner of raising it? How is this mode more tolerable than the Stamp Act? Would that act have appeared more pleasing to Americans if, being ordered thereby to raise the sum total of the taxes, the mighty privilege had been left to them of saying how much should be paid for an instrument of writing on paper, and how much for another on parchment? A N act of Parliament commanding us to do a certain thing, if it has any validity, is a tax upon us for the expense that accrues in complying with it, and for this reason, I believe, every colony on the continent that chose to give a mark of their respect for Great Britain, in complying with the act relating to the troops, cautiously avoided the mention of that act, lest their co nduct should be attributed to its supposed obligation. T HE matter being thus stated, the assembly of New York either had or had not a right to refuse submission to that act. If they had, and I imagine no American will say they had not, then the Parliament had no right to compel them to execute it. If they had not this right, they had no right to punish them for not executing it, and therefore no right to suspend their legislation, which is a punishment. In fact, if the people of New York cannot be legally taxed but by their ow n representatives, they cannot be legally deprived of the privilege of legislation, only for insisting on that exclusive privilege of taxation. If they 2 English coin of low monetary value, i.e., his small charitable contribution. 3 Alexander Pope (British poet), Essay on Man, 1732-1734, 1738, “So man, who here seems principal alone, / Perhaps acts second to some sphere unknown, / Touches some wheel, or verges to some goal; / ’Tis but a part we see, and not a whole.” may be legally deprived in such a case of the privilege of legislation, why may they not, with equal reason, be deprived of every other privilege? Or why may not every colony be treated in the same manner, when any of them shall dare to deny thei r assent to any impositions that shall be directed? Or what signifies the repeal of the Stamp Act if these colonies are to lose their other privileges by not tamely surrendering that of taxation? T HERE is one consideration arising from this suspen sion, which is not generally attended to, but shows its importance very clearly. It was not necessary that this suspension should be caused by an act of Parliament. The Crown might have restrained the governor of New York even from calling the assembly together, by its prerogative in the royal governments. This step, I suppose, would have been taken if the conduct of the assembly of New York had been regarded as an act of disobedience to the Crown alone; but it is regarded as an act of “disobedience to the authority of the B RITISH LEGISLATURE .” This gives the suspension a consequence vastly more affecting. It is a parliamentary assertion of the supreme authority of the British legislature over these colonies in the point of taxation, and is intended to COMPEL New York into a submission to that authority. It seems therefor e to me as much a violation of the liberties of the people of that province, and consequently of all these colonies, as if the Parliament had sent a number of regiments to be quartered upon them, till they should comply. For it is evident that the suspension meant as a compulsion, and the method of compelling is totally indifferent. It is indeed probable that the sight of red coats and the hearing of drums would have been most alarming, because people are generally more influenced by their eyes and ears than by their reason. But whoever seriously considers the matter must perceive that a dreadful stroke is aimed at the liber ty of these colonies. I say, of these colonies, for the cause of one is the cause of all. If the Parliament may lawfully deprive New York of any of her rights, it may deprive any or all the other colonies of their rights; and nothing can possibly so much encourag e such attempts as a mutual inattention to the interests of each other. To divide, and thus to destroy, is the first political maxim in attacking those who are powerful by their union. He certainly is not a wise man who folds his arms and reposes himself at home, viewing with unconcern the flames that have invaded his ne ighbor’s house, without using any endeavors to extinguish them. When Mr. Hampden’s ship-money case for Three Shillings and Four-pence was tried, all the people of England , with anxious expectation, interested themselves in the important decision; and when the slightest point touching the freedom of one colony is agitated, I earnestly wish that all the rest may with equal ardor support their sister. Very much may be said on this subject, but I hope more at present is unnecessary. W ITH concern I have observed that two assemblies of this province have sat and adjourned without taking any notice of this act.

It may perhaps be asked: what would have been proper for them to do? I am by no means fond of inflammatory measures; I detest them.

I should be sorry that anything should be done which might justly displease our sovereign or our mother country: But a firm, modest exertion of a free spirit should never be wanting [lacking] on public occasions. It appears to me that it would have been sufficient for the assembly to have ordered our agents to represent to the King’s ministers their sense of the suspending act and to pray [petition] for its repeal. Thus we should have borne our testimony against it, and might therefore reasonabl y expect that, on a like occasion, we might receive the same assistance from the other colonies. If the Parliament may lawfully deprive New York of any of her rights, it may deprive any or all the other colonies of their rights; and nothing can possibly so much encourage such attempts as a mutual inattention to the interests of each other. To divide, and thus to destroy, is the first political maxim in attacking those who are powerful by their union. Concordia res parvae crescent.

Small things grow great by concord. A FARMER „ LETTER T WO , Dec. 7, 1767, Pennsylvania Chronicle and Universal Advertiser In twelve essays widely read in colonial newspapers in 1767 and 1768 and soon printed as a pamphlet, John Dickinson makes a case for American resistance to Britain’s attempt to increase its control over the colonies. In his second letter, Dickinson acknowledges that the colonies are part of the British Empire and that Great Britain has authority over them. Every law passed by Parliament relating to the colonies, incl uding the imposition of taxes, has been based upon its authority to regulate trade—eve ry law, that is, except the Stamp Act, which was passed simply to raise revenue. For Dickinson, this distinction is critical: Parliament can legitimately tax the colonies to regulate trade but not to raise revenue. The import taxes (duties) imposed by the Townshend Ac t would be legitimate, he maintains, if they were meant to regul ate trade. But because Parliament requires the colonists to buy t he taxed goods—paper, paint, glass, and tea—from Britain alone, there is no competition, no trade, to regulate. Thus the duties ar e designed solely to raise revenues and are th erefore unjust. Can the colonists evade them by switching to domestic substitutes? No, because America makes very little glass and pape r. Moreover, since Britain can prohibit manufacturing in America—she has alread y outlawed the production of iron and steel—she might simply prohibit more and more manufacturing, forcing the colonists to rely more and more on imported British goods, which she will tax mo re and more. America is “a city besieged,” he concludes, and Americans are threatened with slavery. My dear C HERE is another late [recent] act of Parliament which appears to me to be unconstitutional and as destructive to the liberty of th ese colonies as that mentioned in my last letter; that is, the act OUNTRYMEN, 4 for granting the duties [import taxes] on paper, glass, &c. [etc.] T HE Parliament unquestionably possesses a legal authority to regulate the trade of Great Britain and all her colonies. Such an authority is essential to th e relation between a mother country and her colonies, and necessary for the common good of all. He who c onsiders these provinces as states distinct from the British Empire has very slender notions of justice or of their interests. We are but parts of a whole, and therefore there must exist a power somewhere to pres ide and preserve the connection in due order. This power is lodged in the Parliament, and we are as much dependent on Great Britain as a perfectly free people can be on another. T I HAVE looked over every statute relating to these colonies, from their first settlement to this time, and I find every one of them founded on this principle, till the Stamp Act administration. 5 All before are calculated to regulate trade and preserve or promote a mutually beneficial intercourse between the several constituent parts of the empire; and though many of them imposed duties on trade, yet those duties were always imposed with design to restrain the commerce of one part that was injurious to another, and thus to promote the general welfare. The raising of a revenue thereby was never intended. Thus the King, by his judges in his courts of justice, imposes fines, which all together amount to a very considerable sum and contribute to the support of government: But this is me rely a consequence arising from restrictions that only meant to keep peace and prevent confusion; and surely a man would argue very loosely who should conclude from hence that the King has a right to le vy money in general upon his subjects. Never did the British Parliament, till the period above mentioned, think of imposing duties in America FOR THE PURPOSE OF RAISING A REVENUE . . . . A FEW months after came the Stamp Act, which reciting this, proceeds in the same strange mode of expression, thus — “And whereas it is just and necessary that provision be made for RAISING A FURTHER RE VENUE WITHIN YOUR MAJESTY’S DOMINIONS IN AMERICA , towards defraying the said expenses, we your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the COMMONS OF GREAT BRITAIN, &c. GIVE and GRANT ,” &c . as before. Never did the British Parliament, till the period above mentioned, think of imposing duties in A merica FOR THE PURPOSE OF RAISING A REVENUE. . . . T HE last act, granting duties upon paper, &c. carefully pursues these modern precedents. The preamble is “Whereas it is expedient THAT A REVENUE SHOULD BE RAISED IN YOUR MAJESTY’S DOMINIONS IN AMERICA , for making a more certain and adequate provision for defraying the charge of 4 Revenue Act of 1767. 5 Dickinson provides an extensive list (not included here) of the “f ormer acts of Parliament relating to these colonies” in order to emphasize “their great different in expression and intention” to the Revenue Act. the administration of justice, and the support of civil government in such provinces where it shall be found necessary, and towards the further defrayi ng the expenses of defending, protecting and securing the said dominions, we your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the COMMONS OF GREAT BRITAIN, &c. GIVE and GRANT ,” &c . as before.

H ERE we may observe an authority expressly claimed and exerted to impose duties on these colonies, not for the regulation of trade, not for the preservati on or promotion of a mutually beneficial intercourse between the several constituent part s of the empire, heretofore the sole objects of parliamentary institutions, but for the single purpose of levying money upon us. T HIS I call an innovation, * and a most dangerous innovation. It may perhaps be objected that Great Britain has a right to lay what duties she pleases upon her exports, † and it makes no difference to us whether they are paid here or there. T O this I answer. These colonies require many things for their use, which the laws of Great Britain prohibit them from getting anywhere but from her. Such are paper and glass.

T HAT we may legally be bound to pay any general duties on these commodities, relative to the regulation of trade, is granted; but we being obliged by her laws to take them from Great Britain, any special duties imposed on their exportation to us only, with intention to raise a revenue from us only, are as much taxes upon us, as those imposed by the Stamp Act. . . . S OME persons perhaps may say that this act lays us under no necessity to pay the duties imposed because we may ourselves manufacture the articl es on which they are laid, whereas by the Stamp Act no instrument of writing coul d be good unless made on British paper, and that too stamped.

S UCH an objection amounts to no more than this, that the injury resulting to these colonies from the total disuse of British paper and glass will not be so afflicting as that which would have resulted from the total disuse of writing among them; for by that means even the Stamp Act might have been eluded. Why then was it universally detested by them as slaver y itself? Because it presented to these devoted provinces nothing but a choice of calamities * embittered by indignities, each of which it was unworthy of free men to bear. But is no injury a violation of right but the greatest injury? If the eluding the payment of the taxes imposed by the Stamp Act would have subjected us to a more dreadful inconvenience than the eluding of the payment of those imposed by the late act , does it therefore follow that the last is no violation of our rights, tho’ it is calculated for the same purpose the other was, that is, to raise money upon us, WITHOUT OUR CONSENT ?

T HIS would be making right to consist, not in an exemption from injury, but from a certain degree of injury. B UT the objectors may further say that we shall suffer no injury at all by the disuse of British paper and glass. We might not, if we could make as much as we want. But can any man, acquainted with America, believe this possible? I am told there are but two or three Glass-Houses on this continent and but very few Paper-Mills; and suppose more should be erected, a long course of years must elapse before they can be brought to perfection. This continent is a country of planters, farmers, and fishermen, not of manufacturers. The difficulty of establishing particular manufactures in such a country is almost insuperable. For one manufacture is connected with ot hers in such a manner that it may be said to be impossible to establish one or two without establishi ng several others. The experience of many nations may convince us of this truth.

I NEXPRESSIBLE therefore must be our distresses in evading the late acts by the disuse of British paper and glass. Nor will this be the extent of our mi sfortune, if we admit the legality of that act.

GREAT BRITAIN has prohibited the manufacturing iron and steel in these colonies, without any objection being made to her right of doing it. The like right she must have to prohibit any other * “It is [a] worthy observation how quietly subsidies, granted in forms usual and accustomable (though heavy) are borne; such a power hath use and custom. On the other side, what di scontentments and disturbances subsidies framed in a new mold do raise ( SUCH AN INBRED HATRED NOVELTY DOTH HATCH ) is evident by examples of former times.” Lord Coke’s 2d Institute, p. 33. [Dickinson footnote] † Some people think that Great Britain has the same right to impose duties on the ex ports to these colonies, as on the exports to Spain and Portugal, etc. Such persons attend so much to the idea of exportation, that they entirely drop that of the connection between the mother country and her colonies. If Great Britain had always claimed, and exercised an authority to compel Spain and Portugal to import manufactures from her only, the cases would be parallel: But as she never pretended to such a right, they are at liberty to get them where they please; and if they choose to take them from her, rather than from ot her nations, they voluntarily consent to pay the duties imposed on them. [Dickinson footnote] * Either the disuse of writing or the payment of taxes imposed by others without our consent. [Dickinson footnote] manufacture among us. Thus she is possessed of an undisputed precedent on that point. This authority, she will say, is founded on the original intention of settling these colonies, that is, that she should manufacture for them, and that they should supply her with materials. The equity of this policy, she will also say, has been universally acknowledged by the colonies, who never have made the least objection to statutes for that purpose, and will further appear by the mutual benefits flowing from this usage, ever since the settlement of these colonies.

O UR great advocate, Mr. Pitt, 6 in his speeches on the debate concerning the repeal of the Stamp Act, acknowledged that Great Britain could restrain our manufactures. His words are these — “This kingdom, as the supreme governing and legislative power, has ALWAYS bound the colonies by her regulations and RESTRICTIONS in trade, in navigation, in MANUFACTURES — in everything except that of taking their money out of their pockets WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT .” Again he says, “We may bind their trade, CONFINE THEIR MANUFACTURES , and exercise every power whatever, except that of taking their money out of their pockets WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT .” H ERE then, my dear countrymen, ROUSE yourselves, and behold the ruin hanging over your heads. If you O N C E admit that Great Britain may lay duties upon her exportations to us, for the purpose of levying money on us only, she then will have nothing to do but to lay those duties on the articles which she prohibits us to manufacture — and the tragedy of American liberty is finished.

We have been prohibited from procuri ng manufactures, in all cases, anywhere but from Great Britain (excepting linens, which we are permitted to import directly from Ireland). We have been prohibited, in some cases, from manufacturing for ourselves, and may be prohibited in others. We are therefore exactly in the situation of a city besieged, which is surrounded by the works of the besiegers in every part but one. If that is closed up, no step can be taken but to surrender at discretion. If Great Britain can order us to come to her for necessaries we want, and can order us to pay what taxes she pleases before we take them away, or when we land them here, we are as abject slaves as France and Poland can show in wooden shoes and with uncombed hair. * HERE then, my dear countrymen, ROUSE yourselves, and behold the ruin hanging over your heads. P ERHAPS the nature of the necessities of dependent states, caused by the policy of a governing one for her own benefit, may be elucidated by a fact mentioned in history. When the Carthaginians were possessed of the island of Sardinia, they made a decree that the Sardinians should not raise corn, nor get it any other way than from the Carthaginians. Then, by imposing any duties they would upon it, they drained from the miserable Sardinians any sums they pleased; and whenever that oppressed people made the least movement to assert their liberty, their tyrant s starved them to death or submission. This may be called the most perfect kind of political necessity.

F ROM what has been said, I think this uncontrove rtible conclusion may be deduced, that when a ruling state obliges a dependent state to take certain commodities from her alone, it is implied in the nature of that obligation, is essentially requisite to gi ve it the least degree of justice, and is inseparably united with it, in order to preserve any sh are of freedom to the dependent state; that those commodities should never be loaded with duties, FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF LEVYING MONEY ON THE DEPENDENT STATE. U PON the whole, the single question is whether the Parliament can legally impose duties to be paid by the people of these colonies only, FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF RAISING A REVENUE , on commodities which she obliges us to take from her alone, or, in other words, whether the Parliament can legally take money out of our pockets without our consent. If they can, our boasted liberty is but Vox et praeterea nihil.

A sound and nothing else. A FARMER National Humanities Center „ John Dickinson, Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania , Letters I & II, December 1767 6 6 William Pitt the Elder (1708–1778), prime minister of Britain dur ing the French and Indian War, supported the repeal of the Stamp Act.

* The peasants of France wear wooden shoes, and the vassals of Poland are remarkable for matted hair, which never can be combed. [Dickinson footnote]