Introduction
To penalize Massachusetts and the thirteen colonies for their opposition to taxation and the Boston Tea Party, the British Parliament passed the Coercive Acts, commonly called the Intolerable Acts, in June 1774 (Kjelle, 2019). As a response to these punitive measures. The First Continental Congress was convened to deliberate on boycotting British goods and making preparations for rebellion. This essay explores the reasoning behind Britain’s Coercive Acts. It examines the reactions of two South Carolina commentators, William Henry Drayton and the anonymous loyalist, “Back Settler,” to the First Continental Congress. Furthermore, it will analyze their perspectives on independence and the concept of liberty, along with the evidence they employ to support their positions.
Reasoning behind Britain’s Coercive Acts
The primary impetus behind enacting the Coercive Acts stemmed from a concerted effort by the British government to secure supremacy over its colonies and quell growing unrest. Amongst its manifold objectives, these acts sought retribution against Massachusetts for perpetrating the Boston Tea Party – an egregious act that inflicted damage on British property and openly flouted British authority. By closing the Boston Harbor and placing the colony under martial law, the British intended to demonstrate the consequences of colonial resistance to their authority. Additionally, the Acts aimed to assert the power of Parliament by restricting colonial self-governance, dissolving the Massachusetts colonial assembly, and establishing the Massachusetts Government Act, which centralized political control in the hands of the British-appointed governor.
Reactions of William Henry Drayton and “Back Settler”
Both Drayton and “Back Settler” offer contrasting perspectives on the First Continental Congress and the issue of independence. Supportive of the Congress’s endeavors, Drayton, once a loyalist but now aligned with patriots, perceives their actions as an imperative response to British tyranny. In his essay, he accentuates the necessity for unity among all colonies and argues that colonial rights are protected through peaceful resistance facilitated by Congress. Conversely, “Back Settler,” an anonymous loyalist, vehemently opposes Congress and criticizes its actions as a step towards rebellion. He portrays the delegates as misguided individuals threatening the stability of the British Empire and warns of the dire consequences of pursuing independence.
Support or condemnation of independence
In his essay, Drayton expresses his belief in the potential advantages of independence. He acknowledges that fully separating from Britain may be a point of contention. Still, he puts forth the argument that the colonies are capable of governing themselves efficiently. Drayton supports the idea of independence to protect the colonists’ inherent rights, such as their freedom to engage in trade. Maintain control over their laws. And participate in decision-making processes.
In contrast, “Back Settler” fiercely condemns the prospect of independence. He warns that it would lead to chaos and ruin, jeopardizing the colonies’ economic stability, security, and overall well-being. “Back Settler” argues for loyalty to Britain and emphasizes the importance of preserving the existing colonial structure under British governance.
Evidence supporting their positions
Drayton supports his arguments by referencing the colonists’ grievances outlined in the Declaration of Rights and Grievances, which the First Continental Congress adopted, according to Drayton. The colonists expressed opposition to British policies, specifically regarding taxation without representation. He presents this as evidence of their valid concerns, in addition. Drayton reinforces his argument by referring to historical events like the Glorious Revolution and the Magna Carta. These examples serve to establish the colonists’ rightful entitlement to self-governance. On the other hand, “Back Settler” relies on assertions of the benefits of British rule and the stability it brings. He highlights the economic advantages of remaining part of the British Empire and warns of the potential consequences of severing ties, including increased vulnerability to foreign powers.
Understanding “liberty”:
Drayton firmly believes in the importance of liberty and its various dimensions. Liberty represents the fundamental rights of the colonists to govern themselves. Liberate themselves from oppressive British rule. And engage in decision-making processes that directly impact their lives. Additionally, he confidently asserts that it is crucial to safeguard and defend these liberties from any encroachments made by the British authorities. Conversely, “Back Settler” views liberty as maintaining order and stability under British governance. He contends that British rule safeguards the colonists’ liberties by providing them with protection and a structured society, arguing that independence would result in chaos and the loss of their valued liberties.
Conclusion
The Coercive Acts enacted by the British Parliament were intended to punish Massachusetts and the thirteen colonies for resisting British authority. William Henry Drayton and the loyalist “Back Settler” responded to the First Continental Congress with differing perspectives on independence and liberty. Drayton supported Congress and argued for independence, emphasizing the colonists’ ability to govern themselves and protect their rights. In contrast, “Back Settler” condemned the Congress and warned of the consequences of independence, highlighting the benefits of remaining under British rule. Through their respective essays, both authors presented compelling arguments that reflected the prevalent debates and divisions within the colonies during this critical period of American history.
References
“An Ex-Loyalist & A Loyalist Address the First Continental Congress,” in “There is No Idea of Submission, here in any Bodies head”: Colonists Respond to the Coercive Acts & the Continental Congress (National Humanities Center, 2013), 9-10.
Kjelle, M. M. (2019). The First Continental Congress. Mitchell Lane.
write