It would not be difficult to prove that the initiative step in the final
struggle was first taken by the Carolinas and by Virginia and that the
people of Boston and of other cities in New England moved rather in
response to pressure from without than at their own suggestion. The men
who became the leaders in the general movement afterwards were beyond
question both sincere and patriotic from the beginning, but the people
of New England were not, at that time, so near a unit in sentiment as
were those of Virginia and of North and South Carolina.
The history of those times has yet to be written in which due credit
must be given to Virginia. Instead of that Colony appearing simply as a
supporter and abettor of the acts of Massachusetts, the position
hitherto allotted her, she should be accredited, as she deserves, with
the leadership. No one more fully appreciated this fact than Bancroft
who, notwithstanding his changes of opinion on many other points with
each edition of his book, both mentions and accredits nearly every
circumstance. But this is done often with faint praise and with the
context not always fairly placed, while the deeds of the Bostonian are
invariably made most prominent. It is therefore impossible, for the most
part, for any one but an expert to arrive at any other impression than
that suggested by the bias of the author.
A committee was proposed and organized in Boston, November 3rd, 1772, by
Samuel Adams, for the purpose of communicating with the people in the
neighboring towns. In March, 1773, Dabney Carr, a young man of great
promise, offered certain resolutions in the Legislature of Virginia
embodying a plan of Intercolonial Committees of Correspondence, by means
of which all portions of the country could be brought into closer
relation. This organization was perfected by Richard Henry Lee, who soon
became its chief organizer owing to the untimely death of Mr. Carr. The
existence of this organization was of incalculable benefit to the cause
of the Colonies, and it alone, moreover, made possible a favorable
termination to the Revolution. Bancroft, in one portion of his history,
pays full tribute to Dabney Carr and writes, regarding the organization,
that “In this manner, Virginia laid the foundation of our Union;
Massachusetts organized a province, Virginia promoted a confederacy.”
And yet, from other portions of Bancroft’s work the only inference
suggested is, that to Samuel Adams alone is due the credit for this
work; and indeed this is the general impression held, to a great extent
to-day, by those who are familiar with our history, as it is written.
The “broadside” here reproduced was issued by the Boston Committee and
is signed with the autograph signature of the secretary. The mere fact
of this issue, in Boston, of the Virginia Resolutions, urging that the
other Colonies should communicate directly with the Virginia Committee,
proves that the one in Boston had been simply a local affair up to that
date and that the proposed general organization did not originate there.
“THE BOSTON TEA-PARTY”
So soon as the British Government determined upon the shipment of tea to
the American Colonies, it was arranged that these ships should arrive at
each port very nearly on the same date; thus the people in the different
Colonies would be unable to unite together in their resistance. Through
the organization of the Committees of Correspondence, however, the
people had already become fully united in their determination to prevent
the landing of the tea.
[Illustration:
Boston Committee of Correspondence Notice
]
On November 5th, 1773, an alarm was raised in the city of New York to
the effect that a tea-ship had entered the harbor. A large assembly of
the people at once occurred, among whom those in charge of the movement
were disguised as Mohawk Indians. This alarm proved a false one, but at
a meeting then organized a series of resolutions were adopted which were
received by the other Colonies as the initiative step in the plan of
resistence already determined upon throughout the country. Our school
books are chiefly responsible for the almost universal impression that
the destruction of tea, which occurred in Boston Harbor, was an episode
confined to that city; while the fact is, that the tea sent to this
country was either destroyed or sent back to England from every sea-port
in the Colonies. The first tea-ship happened to arrive in Boston and the
tea was first destroyed there; for this circumstance full credit should
be given the Bostonians. But the fact that the actors in this affair
were disguised as Mohawk Indians shows that they were but following the
lead of New York, where that particular disguise had been adopted
forty-one days before, for the same purpose.
Previous to the arrival of the ships in Boston, concerted action had
been agreed upon, as has been already shown, in regard to the
destruction of the tea from Charleston, South Carolina, to Portsmouth,
New Hampshire. The people of Philadelphia had been far more active and
outspoken at the outset than they of Boston, and it was this
decisiveness which caused the people of Boston to act, after they had
freely sought beforehand the advice and moral support of the other
Colonies.
The first tea-ship arrived in Boston on November 28th, 1773, and two
others shortly after, but it was not until the evening of December 16th,
that their contents were thrown overboard at the so-called “Boston
Teaparty.” The “broadside” here presented is one of a number in the
collection of the author, which show fully the feeling of the people of
Philadelphia. The other sheets were issued prior to this one but are
without date; hence this is selected to prove that Philadelphia was
actively engaged in the same purpose, previous to the destruction of tea
in Boston.