European wars, and could not afford to tie up military and money in these colonies any longer. But the path of disruption and protest had already been tying up British troops, costing Britain money, making the colonies unprofitable—the very reasons that Britain later gave up the war and negotiated peace. Colonies were supposed to earn, not cost. It seems quite possible that British withdrawal could have been achieved by continuing protest and economic sabotage.
The great lesson from the history of revolutions is that a shooting war is not necessary to overthrow the established power but is often deemed necessary to consolidate the revolution itself. By 1775 the revolutionaries may have, as Adams asserted, defeated the British, but they had not united the colonies. By the start of the shooting war, they had not even achieved the moment of enforced silence, because many, even supporters of independence, hoped that it was not too late to stop the war. There was in America, and especially in Philadelphia, which happened to be the seat of the Continental Congress, a vocal antiwar movement. French-born AnthonyBenezet, raised in a French Protestant family but a Quaker convert, stood on street corners passing out pamphlets against going to war and against slavery, both of which evils he insisted stemmed from the same impulse—a lust for wealth and power. He urged people to look within themselves for the causes of war and urged Patriots, as the revolutionaries liked to call themselves, to remember the meaning of Christianity and pray for reconciliation with the British.
In the winter of 1776 in Philadelphia, the majority of the Continental Congress was not prepared to call for independence. Some were still loyalists, and then there were the Quakers. The Quakers were deeply distrustful of people such as Adams, people who called themselves Patriots. They regarded these Patriots as extremely violent. By 1776 the Quakers had been confronting violent patriotism for some time. The nonpatriots noted that there was considerable criticism of British actions in the British Parliament and even expressions of sympathy for the American point of view. Was this not fertile ground for negotiations? The Patriots, including Quaker-born Tom Paine, were frustrated and angered by the Quaker position. John Adams had little patience for this point of view, believing negotiations would yield nothing and the only guarantee of American “liberty” was independence by force of arms. Franklin, a more experienced opponent of the Quakers, was even more impatient, regarding the entire debate a waste of time.
Leading the opposition to the restless Patriots was the Pennsylvania delegation, with its skilled parliamentarian John Dickenson. He was much respected as an early critic of British policy. An affluent London-trained lawyer with a Quaker mother, he lived in great luxury in Philadelphia, having married into an affluent Quaker family. He adopted both their wealth and some of their pacifism, though he held the rank of colonel in a Philadelphia battalion. Although anti-British and pro-independence, his repeated message to the Congress was that their goals could be achieved peacefully. Despite Lexington and Concord, the British retreat to Boston during which 200 British soldiers were killed, and their losing even more men in Boston at the battle erroneously labeled Bunker Hill, which actually took place on Breed's Hill, the British were reasonablemen from similar traditions and surely negotiations would be possible, Dickenson insisted. Adams, however, argued for “powder and artillery.” According to biographer David McCullough, Adams's irate assessment was that Dickenson must have been henpecked by his Quaker wife and mother.
It probably was too late. British troops had been killed and King George seemed determined to respond with his military might. Once this was clear, the Patriots got their moment of silence, an end to the debate about going to war. To
The great lesson from the history of revolutions is that a shooting war is not necessary to overthrow the established power but is often deemed necessary to consolidate the revolution itself. By 1775 the revolutionaries may have, as Adams asserted, defeated the British, but they had not united the colonies. By the start of the shooting war, they had not even achieved the moment of enforced silence, because many, even supporters of independence, hoped that it was not too late to stop the war. There was in America, and especially in Philadelphia, which happened to be the seat of the Continental Congress, a vocal antiwar movement. French-born AnthonyBenezet, raised in a French Protestant family but a Quaker convert, stood on street corners passing out pamphlets against going to war and against slavery, both of which evils he insisted stemmed from the same impulse—a lust for wealth and power. He urged people to look within themselves for the causes of war and urged Patriots, as the revolutionaries liked to call themselves, to remember the meaning of Christianity and pray for reconciliation with the British.
In the winter of 1776 in Philadelphia, the majority of the Continental Congress was not prepared to call for independence. Some were still loyalists, and then there were the Quakers. The Quakers were deeply distrustful of people such as Adams, people who called themselves Patriots. They regarded these Patriots as extremely violent. By 1776 the Quakers had been confronting violent patriotism for some time. The nonpatriots noted that there was considerable criticism of British actions in the British Parliament and even expressions of sympathy for the American point of view. Was this not fertile ground for negotiations? The Patriots, including Quaker-born Tom Paine, were frustrated and angered by the Quaker position. John Adams had little patience for this point of view, believing negotiations would yield nothing and the only guarantee of American “liberty” was independence by force of arms. Franklin, a more experienced opponent of the Quakers, was even more impatient, regarding the entire debate a waste of time.
Leading the opposition to the restless Patriots was the Pennsylvania delegation, with its skilled parliamentarian John Dickenson. He was much respected as an early critic of British policy. An affluent London-trained lawyer with a Quaker mother, he lived in great luxury in Philadelphia, having married into an affluent Quaker family. He adopted both their wealth and some of their pacifism, though he held the rank of colonel in a Philadelphia battalion. Although anti-British and pro-independence, his repeated message to the Congress was that their goals could be achieved peacefully. Despite Lexington and Concord, the British retreat to Boston during which 200 British soldiers were killed, and their losing even more men in Boston at the battle erroneously labeled Bunker Hill, which actually took place on Breed's Hill, the British were reasonablemen from similar traditions and surely negotiations would be possible, Dickenson insisted. Adams, however, argued for “powder and artillery.” According to biographer David McCullough, Adams's irate assessment was that Dickenson must have been henpecked by his Quaker wife and mother.
It probably was too late. British troops had been killed and King George seemed determined to respond with his military might. Once this was clear, the Patriots got their moment of silence, an end to the debate about going to war. To
Similar Books
