More colonists began to perceive the threat that accompanied the enactment of harsh laws via the “Intolerable Acts.”
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?
![](https://i0.wp.com/metropolis.cafe/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/continental-congress-first-copy.jpg?resize=625%2C352&ssl=1)
The first Continental Congress, held in Carpenter’s Hall, Philadelphia, met to define American rights and organize a plan of resistance to the Coercive Acts imposed by the British Parliament as punishment for the Boston Tea Party. MPI/Getty Images
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?
Written by Linda Moss Mines for The Patriot Post ~ February 1, 2023
~ the Author ~
Linda Moss Mines is a historian dedicated to reminding the public of the blessings of Liberty and our commitment to work toward the promises of the American Dream. She is not a political commentator, although reflecting on the history of the Republic requires recounting the stories of political figures and the institutions of our political system. Linda relishes telling the stories of our country’s founding and its journey from the earliest settlers as a “noble experiment in self-government.” She believes that recounting history reminds citizens that decisions and actions have consequences and that we as a people are impacted every day by decisions made during the course of that journey.
“It is important that a nation know and understand the pivotal moments of its history,” she says. “Too often, our images of the past are a composite of classroom memories, popular culture images crafted by media productions and a smattering of editorial musings often grounded only in personal opinion and experience. As a historian, I, of course, offer some interpretation of those moments, but I am far more interested in the role of the public figures and the ‘common people’ and what motivated them than in the role of politics for political gain. Revisiting the past offers us a chance to understand today and shape tomorrow.”
As an educator, Mines notes: “I have been privileged to touch hearts and hopefully inspire my former students to become lifelong lovers of learning. Knowledge coupled with a dedication to service can truly change the world and I’m blessed to be a small part of that change.”