Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 1

Joseph Galloway's Statement on His Plan of Union

[September 28, 1774] The Congress met at Philadelphia in September, 1774.(1) They brought with them their appointments and instructions. The latter plainly discover the dispositions of the assemblies, and of the people who gave them, and demonstrate their aversion to every thing which might tend to a seditious or illegal opposition to Government. They strictly enjoined their delegates to "pursue proper, prudent, and lawful measures, and to adopt a plan for obtaining a redress of American grievances, ascertaining American rights upon the most solid and constitutional principles, and for establishing that union and harmony between Great Britain and the Colonies, which is indispensably necessary to the welfare and happiness of both." Under these instructions, it was the general expectation that decent petitions would be presented to Parliament, explicitly pointing out the measures by which its authority over the Colonies might be rendered more constitutional, and the grievances complained of might be redressed; because this was nothing more than the reasonable duty of subjects, and it was the sincere wish of the people.
Upon the meeting of Congress, two parties were immediately formed, with different views, and determined to act upon different principles. One intended candidly and clearly to define American rights, and explicitly and dutifully to petition for the remedy which would redress the grievances justly complained of--to form a more solid and constitutional union between the two countries, and to avoid every measure which tended to sedition, or acts of violent opposition. The other consisted of persons, whose design, from the beginning of their opposition to the Stamp Act, was to throw off all subordination and connexion with Great-Britain; who meant by every fiction, false hood and fraud, to delude the people from their due allegiance, to throw the subsisting Governments into anarchy, to incite the ignorant and vulgar to arms, and with those arms to establish American Inde- pendence. The one were men of loyal principles, and possessed the greatest fortunes in America; the other were congregational and pres- byterian republicans, or men of bankrupt fortunes, overwhelmed in debt to the British merchants. The first suspected the designs of the last, and were therefore cautious; but as they meant to do nothing but what was reasonable and just, they were open and ingenuous. The second, fearing the opposition of the first, were secret and hypo critical, and left no art, no falsehood, no fraud unessayed to conceal their intentions. The loyalists rested, for the most part, on the defensive, and opposed, with success, every measure which tended to violent opposition. Motions were made, debated and rejected, and nothing was carried by either.
While the two parties in Congress remained thus during three weeks on an equal balance, the republicans were calling to their as- sistance the aid of their factions without. Continual expresses were employed between Philadelphia and Boston. These were under the management of Samuel Adams--a man, who though by no means remarkable for brilliant abilities, yet is equal to most men in popular intrigue, and the management of a faction. He eats little, drinks little, sleeps little, thinks much, and is most decisive and indefatigable in the pursuit of his objects. It was this man, who by his superior application managed at once the faction in Congress at Philadelphia, and the factions in New England. Whatever these patriots in Congress wished to have done by their colleagues without, to induce General Gage, then at the head of his Majesty's army at Boston, to give them a pretext for violent opposition, or to promote their measures in Congress, Mr. Adams advised and directed to be done; and when done, it was dispatched by express to Congress. By one of these expresses came the inflammatory resolves of the county of Suffolk, which contained a complete declaration of war against Great-Britain. By these resolves it is declared, "that no obedience is due to acts of Parliament affecting Boston:"
That "the justices of the superior courts of judicature, court of assize, &c. are unconstitutional officers, and that no regard ought to be paid to them by the people:"
That "the county will support and bear harmless all sheriffs and their deputies, constables, jurors and other officers, who shall refuse to carry into execution the orders of the said courts:"
That "the collectors of taxes, constables and other officers, retain in their hands all public monies, and not make any payment thereof to the provincial county treasurer:"
And that "the persons who had accepted seats at the council board, by virtue of a mandamus from the King, should be considered as obstinate and incorrigible enemies to their country."
They advise the people "to elect the officers of militia, and to use their utmost diligence to acquaint themselves with the art of war as soon as possible, and for that purpose to appear under arms once in every week:"
And to carry these and other measures into execution; among many other things equally treasonable, they recommend it to the several towns to "chuse a Provincial Congress."
Upon these resolves being read, a motion was made that the Congress should give them their sanction. Long and warm debates en sued between the parties. At this time the republican faction in Con- gress had provided a mob, ready to execute their secret orders. The cruel practice of tarring and feathering had been long since introduced. This lessened the firmness of some of the loyalists; the vote was put and carried. Two of the dissenting members presumed to offer their protest against it in writing, which was negatived. They next insisted that the tender of their protest and its negative should be entered on the minutes; this was also rejected.
By this treasonable vote the foundation of military resistance throughout America was effectually laid. The example was now set by the people of Suffolk, and the measure was approved of by those who called themselves the representatives of all America. The loyal
party, although they knew a great majority of the colonists were averse to the measure, perceived the improbability of stemming the torrent. They had no authority, no means in their own power to resist it; they saw those who held the powers of Government inactive spec- tators, and either shrinking from their duty, or uniting in the measures of sedition; they saw the flame of rebellion spreading with more rapidity in a province under the eye of his Majesty's army than in any other; and that no effectual measures were taking by Government in Britain to suppress it; and yet, as a petition to his Majesty had been ordered to be brought in, they resolved to continue their exertions. They hoped to prevail in stating the rights of America on just and constitutional principles; in proposing a plan for uniting the two countries on those principles, and in a clear, definitive and decent prayer, to ask for what a majority of the colonies wished to obtain; and as they had no reason to doubt the success of this measure in a British Parliament, they further hoped, that it would stop the effusion of blood and the ruin of their country.
With this view, as well as to probe the ultimate design of the republicans, and to know with certainty whether any proposal, short of the absolute independence of the Colonies, would satisfy them, a plan of union was drawn by a member of the loyal party,(2) and approved by the rest. It was so formed as to leave no room for any reasonable objection on the part of the republicans, if they meant to be united to Great Britain on any grounds whatever. It included a resto- ration of all their rights, and a redress of all their grievances, on con stitutional principles; and it accorded with all the instructions given to them as members of Congress.
Introductory to his motion which led to this plan, the author of it made, in substance, the following speech, which is taken from his short notes: "He told Congress that he came with instructions to pro pose some mode, by which the harmony between Great Britain and the Colonies might be restored on constitutional principles: that this appeared to be the genuine sense of all the instructions brought into Congress by the Delegates of the several Colonies. He had long wait ed with great patience under an expectation of hearing some proposition which should tend to that salutary and important purpose; but, to his great mortification and distress, a month had been spent in fruitless debates on equivocal and indecisive propositions, which tended to inflame rather than reconcile--to produce war instead of peace between the two countries. In this disagreeable situation of things he thought it his incumbent duty to speak plainly, and to give his sentiments without the least reserve.
"There are," says he, "two propositions before the Congress, for restoring the wished-for harmony: one, that Parliament should be requested to place the Colonies in the state they were in in the year 1763; the other, that a non-exporation and non-imporation agreement should be adopted. I will consider these propositions, and venture to reject them both; the first, as indecisive, tending to mislead both countries, and to lay a foundation for further discontent a quarrel; the other, as illegal, and ruinous to America.
"The first proposition is indecisive, because it points out no ground of complaint--asks for a restoration of no right, settles no principle, and proposes no plan for accommodating the dispute
There is no statute which has been passed to tax or bind the Colonies since the year 1763, which was not founded on precedents and stat- utes of a similar nature before that period; and therefore the proposi- tion, while it expressly denies the right of Parliament, confesses it by the strongest implication. In short, it is nugatory, and without meaning; and however it may serve, when rejected by Parliament, as it certainly will be, to form a charge of injustice upon, and to deceive and inflame the minds of the people hereafter, it cannot possibly answer any other purpose.
"The second proposition is undutiful and illegal: it is an insult on the supreme authority of the State; it cannot fail to draw on the Colonies the united resentment of the Mother Country. If we will not trade with Great Britain, she will not suffer us to trade at all. Our ports will be blocked up by British men of war, and troops will be sent to reduce us to reason and obedience. A total and sudden stag nation of commerce is what no country can bear: it must bring ruin on the Colonies; the produce of labour must perish on their hands, and not only the progress of industry be stopped, but industry and labour will cease, and the country itself be thrown into anarchy and tumult. I must therefore reject both the propositions; the first as indecisive and the other as inadmissible upon any principle of prudence or policy, If we sincerely mean to accommodate the difference between the two countries and to establish their union on more firm and constitutional principles, we must take into consideration a number of facts which led the Parliament to pass the acts complained of, since the year 1763, and the real state of the Colonies. A clear and perfect knowledge of these matters only can lead us to the ground of substan- tial redress and permanent harmony. I will therefore call your recol- lection to the dangerous situation of the Colonies from the intrigues of France, and the incursions of the Canadians and their Indian allies at the commencement of the last war. None of us can be ignorant of the just sense they then entertained of that danger, and of their incapacity to defend themselves against it, nor of the supplications made to the Parent State for its assistance, nor of the cheerfulness with which Great Britain sent over her fleets and armies for their protection, of the millions she expended in that protection, and of the happy consequences which attended it.
In this state of the Colonies, it was not unreasonable to expect that Parliament would have levied a tax on them proportionate to their wealth, and the sums raised in Great Britain. Her ancient right, so often exercised, and never controverted, enabled her, and the occasion invited her, to do it. And yet, not knowing their wealth, a generous tenderness arising from the fear of doing them injustice, induced Parliament to forbear to levy aids upon them--It left the Colonies to do justice to themselves and to the nation. And moreover, in order to allure them to a discharge of their duty, it offered to reimburse those Colonies which should generously grant the aids that were necessary to their own safety. But what was the conduct of the Colonies on this occasion, in which their own existence was immediately concerned? However painful it may be for me to repeat, or you to hear, l must remind you of it. You all know there were Colonies which at some times granted liberal aids, and at others nothing; other Colonies gave nothing during the war; none gave equitably in proportion to their wealth, and all that did give were actuated by partial and self-interested motives, and gave only in proportion to the approach or remoteness of the danger. These delinquencies were occasioned by the want of the exercise of some supreme power to ascertain, with equity, their proportions of aids, and to over-rule the particular passions, prejudices, and interests, of the several Colonies.
"To remedy these mischiefs, Parliament was naturally led to exercise the power which had been, by its predecessors, so often exer- cised over the Colonies, and to pass the Stamp Act. Against this act the Colonies petitioned Parliament, and denied its authority. Instead of proposing some remedy, by which that authority should be rendered more equitable and more constitutional over the Colonies, the petitions rested in a declaration that the Colonies could not be represented in that body. This justly alarmed the British Senate.(3)It was thought and called by the ablest men and Britain, a clear and explicit declaration of American Independence, and compelled the Parliament to pass the Declaratory Act, in order to save its ancient and in controvertible right of supremacy over all the parts of the empire. By this injudicious step the cause of our complaints became fixed, and instead of obtaining a constitutional reformation of the authority of Parliament over the Colonies, it brought on an explicit declaration of a right in Parliament to exercise absolute and unparticipated power over them. Nothing now can be wanting to convince us, that the Assemblies have pursued measures which have produced no relief, and answered no purpose but a bad one. I therefore hope that the collect ed wisdom of Congress will perceive and avoid former mistakes; that they will candidly and thoroughly examine the real merits of Our dispute with the Mother Country, and take such ground as shall firmly unite us under one system of polity, and make us one people.
"In order to establish those principles, upon which alone American relief ought, in reason and policy, to be founded, I will take a brief view of the arguments on both sides of the great question be tween the two countries--a question in its magnitude and importance exceeded by none that has been ever agitated in the councils of any nation. The advocates for the supremacy of Parliament over the Colonies contend, that there must be one supreme legislative head in every civil society, whose authority must extend to the regulation and final decision of every matter susceptible of human direction; and that every member of the society, whether political, official, or individual, must be subordinate to its supreme will, signified in its laws: that this supremacy and subordination are essential in the constitution of all States, whatever may be their forms; that no society ever did, or could exist, without it; and that these truths are solidly established in the practice of all Governments, and confirmed by the concurrent authority of all writers on the subject of civil society.
"These advocates also assert, what we cannot deny--That the discovery of the Colonies was made under a commission granted by the supreme authority of the British State, that they have been settled under that authority, and therefore are truly the property of that State. Parliamentary jurisdiction has been constantly exercised over them from their first settlement; its executive authority has ever run through all their inferior political systems: the Colonists have ever sworn allegiance to the British State, and have been considered, both by the State and by themselves, as subjects of the British Government. Protection and allegiance are reciprocal duties; the one cannot exist without the other. The Colonies cannot claim the protection of Britain upon any principle of reason or law, while they deny its supreme authority. Upon this ground the authority of Parliament stands too firm to be shaken by any arguments whatever; and therefore to deny that authority, and at the same time to declare their incapacity to be represented, amounts to a full and explicit declaration of independence.
"In regard to the political state of the Colonies, you must know that they are so many inferior societies, disunited and unconnected in polity. That while they deny the authority of Parliament, they are, in respect to each other, in a perfect state of nature, destitute of any supreme direction or decision whatever, and incompetent to the grant of national aids, or any other general measure whatever, even to the settlement of differences among themselves. This they have repeatedly acknowledged, and particularly by their delegates in Congress in the beginning of the last war; and the aids granted by them since that period, for their own protection, are a proof of the truth of that acknowledgment.
"You also know that the seeds of discord are plentifully sowed in the constitution of the Colonies; that they are already grown to maturity, and have more than once broke out into open hostilities. They are at this moment only suppressed by the authority of the Parent State; and should that authority be weakened or annulled, many subjects of unsettled disputes, and which, in that case, can only be settled by an appeal to the sword, must involve us in all the horrors of civil war. You will now consider whether you wish to be destitute of the protection of Great Britain, or to see a renewal of the claims of France upon America; or to remain in our present disunited state, the weak exposed to the force of the strong. I am sure no honest man can entertain wishes so ruinous to his country.
"Having thus briefly stated the arguments in favour of parlimentary authority, and considered the state of the Colonies, I am free to confess that the exercise of that authority is not perfectly constitutional in respect to the Colonies. We know that the whole landed interest of Britain is represented in that body, while neither the land nor the people of America hold the least participation in the legislative authority of the State. Representation, or a participation in the supreme councils of the State, is the great principle upon which the freedom of the British Government is established and secured. I also acknowledge, that that territory whose people have no enjoyment of this privilege, are subject to an authority unrestrained and absolute; and if the liberty of the subject were not essentially concerned in it, I should reject a distinction so odious between members of the same state, so long as it shall be continued. I wish to see it exploded, and the right to participate in the supreme councils of the State extended, in some form, not only to America, but to all the British dominions; otherwise I fear that profound and excellent fabrick of civil polity will, ere long, crumble to pieces.
"The case of the Colonies is not a new one. It was formerly the very situation of Wales, Durham, and Chester.
"As to the tax, it is neither unjust nor oppressive, it being rather a relief than a burthen; but it is want of constitutional principle in the authority that passed it, which is the ground for complaint. This, and this only, is the source of American grievances. Here, and here only, is the defect; and if this defect were removed, a foundation would be laid for the relief of every American complaint; the obnoxious statutes would of course be repealed, and others would be made, with the assent of the Colonies, to answer the same and better purposes; the mischiefs arising from the disunion of the Colonies would be removed; their freedom would be established, and their subordination fixed on solid constitutional principles.
"Desirous as I am to promote the freedom of the Colonies, and to prevent the mischiefs which will attend a military contest with Great Britain, I must intreat you to desert the measures which have been so injudiciously and ineffectually pursued by antecedent Assemblies.(4) Let us thoroughly investigate the subject matter in dispute, and endeavour to find from that investigation the means of perfect and permanent redress. In whatever we do, let us be particular and explicit, and not wander in general allegations. These will lead 115 to no point, nor can produce any relief; they are besides dishonourable and insidious. I would therefore acknowledge the necessity of the supreme authority of Parliament over the Colonies, because it is a proposition which we cannot deny without manifest contradiction, while we Confess that we are subjects of the British Government; and if we do not approve of a representation in Parliament, let 115 ask for a participation in the freedom and power of the English constitution in some other mode of incorporation; for I am convinced, by long attention to the subject, that let us deliberate, and try what other expedients we may, we shall find none that can give to the Colonies substantial freedom, but some such incorporation. I therefore beseech you, by the respect you are bound to pay to the instructions of your constituents, by the regard you have for the honour and safety of your country, and as you wish to avoid a war with Great Britain, which must terminate, at all events, in the ruin of America, not to rely on a denial of the authority of Parliament, a refusal to be represented, and non-importation agreement; because whatever protestations, in that case, may be made to the contrary, it will prove to the world, that we intend to throw off our allegiance to the State, and to involve the two countries in all the horrors of a civil war.
"With a view to promote the measure I have so earnestly recommended, I have prepared the draught of a plan for uniting America more intimately, in constitutional polity, with Great Britain. It contains the great outlines or principles only, and will require many additions in case those should be approved. I am certain, when dispas- sionately considered, it will be found to be the most perfect union in power and liberty with the Parent State, next to a representation in Parliament, and I trust it will be approved of by both countries. In forming it, I have been particularly attentive to the rights of both; and I am confident that no American, who wishes to continue a subject of the British State which is what we all uniformly profess, can offer any reasonable objection against it.
"I shall not enter into a further explanation of its principles, but shall reserve my sentiments until the second reading, with which I hope it will be favoured."
The introductory motion being seconded, the Plan was presented and read. Warm and long debates immediately ensued on the question, Whether it should be entered in the proceedings of Congress, or be referred to further consideration. All the men of property, and most of the ablest speakers, supported the motion, while the republican party strenuously opposed it.
The question was at length carried by a majority of one Colony.

Reprinted from Joseph Galloway, Historical and Political Reflections on the Rise and Progress of the American Rebellion (London: G. Wilkie, 1780), pp. 65-81.
1 Although Galloway wrote this account several years after the events described, a fact to be carefully considered when evaluating his remarks, the passage reprinted here has been dated September 28 to focus on the speech he made in behalf of his plan of union. This reconstruction of that speech, he explained, "is taken from his short notes." Historical and Political Reflections, p. 70. For further background on Galloway's submission of his plan, plus a discussion of comparisons between this version and John Adams' Notes of Debates, this date, see Julian P. Boyd, Anglo-American Union: Joseph Galloway's Plans to Preserve the British Empire, 1774-1788 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1941), pp. 32-38.
2 That is, by Joseph Galloway.
3 Cf. John Adams' Notes of Debates, this date, where Galloway is reported to have said, "America with the greatest Reason and Justice complained of the Stamp Act."
4 John Adams wrote that Galloway claimed: "I am as much a friend of Liberty [as] exists--and No Man shall go further, in Point of Fortune, or in Point of Blood, than the Man who now addresses you." Ibid.