The Patriot Post® · Well, That's Intolerable!

The British government’s reaction to the Boston Tea Party was swift and punitive. The open defiance of the Bostonians was more alarming than the loss of tea, and Parliament was determined to remind all 13 colonies that they were subject to British authority through the institution of a series of legislative acts known collectively in the colonies as the “Intolerable Acts.” Can you sense the heightened tension?

Since the rebellion had begun in Boston, the first major action — the Boston Port Bill — closed the city’s harbor until restitution was made. But the second act struck at the heart of the freedom-seeking patriots. The Massachusetts Government Act modified the colony’s 1691 charter and replaced the locally elected governing council with one appointed by British authorities, increased General Thomas Gage’s powers, and outlawed “unapproved” town meetings, the very heart of Massachusetts’ history of self-government.

However, Parliament was just getting started; members were determined to quash any additional thoughts of insubordination. The Administration of Justice Act, guidelines debated since the Boston Massacre, passed and required that any British official charged with a crime would not be tried in Massachusetts. Instead, the case would be remanded to another colony or England. The final blow came with the enactment of a new Quartering Act that gave ALL colonial governors the right to demand the use of unoccupied buildings to house British troops, thus eliminating the construction or purchase cost of barracks. The reaction in Boston was startling to the British; the Boston patriots refused workmen access to the vacant buildings General Gage had chosen, forcing troops to camp on the Boston Common. Lines were being drawn.

A final blow was struck against the descendants of the Pilgrims and Puritans with the Quebec Act that bestowed all the territory between the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers to the province of Quebec for governance. English common law and the Protestant faith for English colonists in these regions were threatened by the enactment of French civil law and the preference for the Roman Catholic religion.

More colonists began to perceive the threat that accompanied the enactment of harsh laws. From a period of somewhat benign neglect to a more studied awareness of the colonies, Parliament and King George III were now actively engaged in suppressing the voices advocating for self-determination or, at a minimum, representation in Parliament. While the new laws impacted the majority of the colonies, Massachusetts was targeted most directly. Would the other colonial governments step forward, or would each attempt to protect its own interests?

The answer came when 56 delegates from 12 colonies met in Philadelphia on September 5, 1774, following the urging of the Committees of Correspondence. Only Georgia did not attend, hampered by its distance from Philadelphia and a less-unified colonial government unable to speak with one voice. Peyton Randolph of Virginia was unanimously elected president of the gathering and was the first to refer to their attendance as a “congress.” Randolph had served with distinction in the Virginia House of Burgesses where Thomas Jefferson observed, “Altho’ not eloquent, his matter was so substantial that no man commanded more attention; which, joined with a sense of his great work gave him a weight in the House of Burgesses which few ever attained.” With his election, supported by the selection of Charles Thomson of Pennsylvania as secretary, the southern and middle colonies moved toward unity with New England.

I have often tried to imagine standing among the assembled delegates as they debated their course of action. To observe, even in my imagination, the deliberations of that First Continental Congress and delegates whose names are so familiar to us today — George Washington, John Adams, John Dickinson, John Jay, Patrick Henry, and Samuel Adams — takes my breath away. That they agreed during these secret meetings to adopt a declaration of personal rights, including life, liberty, property, assembly, and trial by jury, was a huge step toward a united purpose. They denounced the quartering of British army troops in the colonies without consent and restated their opposition to taxation without representation. Could Parliament regulate commerce? Yes, but only if the other rights were respected.

By October, the Continental Congress had petitioned the crown for a redress of grievances and, to affirm the seriousness of their petition, agreed to a general boycott of British goods and non-exportation of American goods, with a minor exception regarding South Carolina’s rice. Before voting for adjournment, the delegates agreed to reconvene on May 10, 1775, to evaluate Britain’s response to its demands.

But before they could return to Philadelphia in May, “the shot fired ‘round the world” rang out at Lexington and Concord.

How would the Second Continental Congress respond?