by Nathan Allen
No one ever contended that “the consent of the very person he chuses to represent him,” nor that “the consent of the majority of those who are chosen by himself, and others of his fellow subjects to represent them,” should be obtained before a tax can be rightfully levied. The pitiful chicanery here, consists wholly in substituting and for or. If for and, we read or, as the great Mr. J ______ s himself inadvertently reads it a little afterwards, the same proposition will be as strictly true, as any political aphorism or other general maxim whatever, the theorems of Euclid not excepted; namely, “that no Englishman, nor indeed any other freeman, is or can be rightfully taxed, but by his own actual consent in person, or by the majority of those who are chosen by himself or others his fellow subjects to represent the whole people.”
“If let lone,” England will forestall revolution; Otis makes clear that history demands liberty or independence. The colonies should be treated as “apple of your eye,” as the financial and demographic dynamo that they clearly were because “Provinces have not been ever kept in subjection.” No clearer statement of the position he likely spent a year developing had been made: direct representation in Parliament or revolution. The first was demographically impossible, and the second was historically probable. Miraculously, he made this entire argument after repenting in “Sackcloth & ashes” according to the governor, after he was assumed harmless enough to be elected to the Stamp Act Congress by a Court Party controlled House.
Aggressive declarations of “rights” were replaced by a persuasive discussion of demographics, the people’s ability to limit government, and consent, and these discussions formed an astonishingly precise description of America’s future Constitution – a description that perhaps was not so astounding to the radicals of 1765. Otis’s words were later echoed in 1832 when England increased voting rights and generally aligned parliamentary representation with population, so that the newer large cities had more members of Parliament.
In Vindication and Noble Lord, Otis addresses Blackstone’s position of Parliamentary supremacy. In its August 19, 1765 edition, the Gazette asked Otis to explain this passage from Noble Lord:
True it is, that from the nature of the British constitution, and also from the idea and nature of a supreme legislature, the parliament represents the whole community or empire, and have an undoubted power, authority, and jurisdiction, over the whole; and to their final decisions the whole must and ought peaceably to submit.
The Gazette asked, “If the Parliament should decree away the Property, Liberty, and Life of every Member of the Empire that was not a Member of Parliament, ought we in that case peaceably to submit?” The question perfectly made Otis’s point: Parliament is the supreme power, and what can the colonists do when Parliament exercises its power without the their consent and against their will? Otis and Sam Adams would later be accused of being the Gazette’s “managers,” so one must wonder whether Otis was asking this question of himself.
Otis concluded that if Parliament’s will is absolute and unreviewable, and in the final analysis the colonies are under the sole control of Parliament, then the only solution to the problem of structuring the empire is direct colonial representation in Parliament. Otis broached the subject in Vindication and attempted a “Defence” of it. Yet by Noble Lord, he admitted the idea had little support on either side of the Atlantic. Otis observed that Jenyns “has made himself quite merry with the modest proposal some have made, though I find it generally much disliked in the colonies, and thought impracticable, namely – an American representation in parliament.” The “some” who had previously proffered this proposal refers to Otis himself, previously writing anonymously. Otis’s tactic was twofold: first, to illustrate and confirm that the establishment’s position, as expressed via Blackstone, only left “American representation in parliament” as a solution; second, to project a colonial position that was reasonable and ostensibly cooperative. If the only logical solution to the problem, given Blackstone’s position, was “American representation in parliament,” and Parliament rejected that position, then who was being unreasonable? Otis knew that representation in Parliament would be – and had to be, given the colonies’s population explosion – firmly repudiated by Parliament and Whitehall, but publicly entertaining the topic advanced the rebels’s observations from the coffee houses and publishing offices and into the public square. Blackstone’s solution was no solution at all, and it was Parliament and Whitehall, not the colonists, who were unreasonable and uncooperative. This shift – such deft legerdemain that it could be unnoticed – was seismic and structural in effect; now, the colonists could believe that it was the rebels who were reasonable and Parliament who was capricious and contradictory. Now, all the conspiracy theories began to take root.
Otis maintained the tension between assuring the oligarchy that his “Confession” was “sincere” and stoking the fire. He would apologize one day and declare the next that taxation required consent. The atmosphere in Boston was taut with apprehension just as Otis had seemed to convince Bernard that the friends of government had everything under control and “nothing will be done” at the meeting in New York. And just as Otis was publically declaring his sincere “Confession” and debating American representation in parliament, privately, the colonists were preparing a different kind of response to Blackstone. Almost certainly under the direction of “The Loyal Nine” – the high command of the subsequent Sons of Liberty – Ebenezer McIntosh and his well-coordinated mob orchestrated nights of terror in August. James Freeman recorded the events in notebooks written at the time.
Augt 14. The effigies of the distributor of stamps, pendant, behind whom hung a boot newly soled with a Grenville sole, out of wc. [which] proceeded the Devil was exhibited on the great tree in main street. The spectacle continued ye whole day wh .out the least opposition. About evening a no. of reputable persons assembled, cut down the effigies, placed it on a [wagon?] , and covering it with a sheet, they proceeded in a regular solemn manner, amidst the acclamations of the populace thro the town, till they arrived at ye Court House, where after a short pause, they pass'd, & proceeding down King’s Street, soon reached a certain edifice then building for ye reception of stamps wc they quickly leveled with ye ground it stood on & wh the wooden remains there from march’d to Fort Hill, where kindling a fire the [they] burnt the effigies. The gentleman who was to have been the distributor of the stamps had his house near the hill, & by that means it received from the populace some small insults, such as breaking the windows of his kitchen which would have ended there, had not some indiscretions been committed by his friends within, wc so enraged the people, that they were not to be restrained from entering the house; the damages however was not great.
According to a letter Cyrus Baldwin sent to Loammi Baldwin the next day, the mob had written “It’s a glorious sight to See a Stamp-man hanging on a Tree” on the left arm of Andrew Oliver’s effigy. And, as Freeman notes, Oliver’s effigy was paraded through town, decapitated and burnt. The governor ordered drummers to sound a general alarm, but the drummers were too busy destroying Oliver’s house. And, according to Baldwin, “tho the Sheriff with another Officer or two went and askd liberty to take it down but to no purpose.” Baldwin summarized the mob’s attitude on the night of August 14th thus: “I beleve people never was more Univassally pleasd not so much as one could I hear say he was sorry, but a smile sat on almost every ones countinance.” The soirees of August 14 and 26 forced Oliver’s resignation as stamp distributor and rendered his store building and house ghastly heaps of contorted and smashed lumber and glass. William Story, the deputy register of the Vice-Admiralty whose juryless courts were about to assume substantial jurisdiction, watched as a mob demolished his home, ruined his important papers, and marched away with anything of value. Benjamin Hallowell’s impressive home in Roxbury was gutted, and all the wine in his voluminous cellar eagerly guzzled. The mob had put Jemmy’s words into action. It was only natural that sooner or later Thoma
s Hutchinson would feel the wrath of the people who had for so long been educated in Otis’s philosophy.
Firebrand preacher and Colonel of the Black Regiment Jonathan Mayhew couldn’t resist, and on Sunday, August 25, he delivered a sermon on tyranny and slavery, arguing that subjugation of any kind was enslavement. The jeremiad was a Mayhew classic; what it lacked in solid philosophical foundation, it made up for in an archetypal Puritan fire-and-brimstone screed with the government assuming the place of the devil. Mayhew’s church was the congregation of choice for the Sons of Liberty and other men “of the Mob,” and his choice of terms used in his speech – tyranny and slavery – knowingly and precisely echoed Otis’s two pamphlets published a few months earlier. The night after Mayhew’s “tyranny and slavery” jeremiad, August 26, Hutchinson’s house was nearly obliterated, silver and money stolen, and his priceless collection of historical documents and personal papers were dumped in the street and scattered. James Freeman recorded the events:
Augt 28th. Gov’r issues another proclamation, in wc. [which] he says, That on 26th of Augt towards evening a great no. of persons assembled them-selves in Boston armed wh clubs & staves, and first attacked Wm. Story’s house, broke his windows, damaged & destroyed great part of the furniture, & burnt & scattered the books & files of the court of admiralty. After wh they proceeded to Benjan. Hallowell's house / comptroller of the customs / broke down the fence before it, broke his windows, enter’d his house, damaged & destroyed the furniture, drank his liquors, took away his wearing apparel, broke open his desk & trunks, & took all his papers and about £30 in money. The same night they attacked Gov’r Hutchinson’s house, entered it, broke down & destroyed the wainscot & partitions, broke & destroyed every window with all the furniture, destroyed or carried off the wearing apparels jewels, books, & papers of every kind, took away or destroyed all the liquors, & carried off about £900 sterling in money, & all the plate, and cut down the cupola on the top of the house & uncovered great part of the roof.
The same people continued assembled the whole night, committing outrages, threatening the
custom house, & several dwelling houses. Three hundred pounds offered for the discovery of the leaders, and £100 for assistants.
In Peter Oliver’s words:
… the Mob of Otis & his clients plundered Mr. Hutchinsons House of its full Contents, destroyed his Papers, unroofed his House, & sought his & his Children’s Lives, which were saved by Flight. … The Mob, also, on the same Evening, broke into the Office of the Register of the Admiralty, & did considerable Damage there; but were prevented from an utter Destruction of it. They also sought after the Custom House Officers; but they secreted themselves … it was in vain to struggle against the Law of Otis, & the Gospel of his black Regiment … Such was the Frenzy of Anarchy …
Peter Oliver claimed his brother Andrew was forced to resign his office as stamp master under oath “on pain of Death.” Boston was in a state of astonishment at both the mob’s audacity and the possibility of unseating the oligarchy. Jemmy Otis moderated a hastily arranged town meeting on August 27th that passed a resolve declaring the “utter detestation of the extraordinary & violent proceedings of a number of Persons unknown” – given Jemmy’s deft employment of “counterwork” over the past year, nothing short of official condemnation could be expected. More importantly, the meeting put on the record that the perpetrators were “Persons unknown.” The meeting then stated it would assist “in the Suppression of all Disorders of a like nature that may happen when called upon for that purpose.” It is an artfully attenuated bold statement – “that may happen when called upon.” No affirmative action taken or proactive steps employed, no investigation, all “Persons unknown” and “may” and “when.” Josiah Quincy recorded Hutchinson’s appearance and speech in the Superior Court the same day, writing,
The Distress a Man must feel on such an Occasion can only be conceived by those, who, the next Day, saw his Honour the Chief Justice come into Court, with a look big with the greatest Anxiety, cloathed in a Manner which would have excited Compassion from the hardest Heart, his Dress had not be strikingly contrasted by the other Judges and Bar, who in their Robes. – Such a Man, in such a Station, thus habited, with Tears starting from his Eyes, and a Countenance which strongly told the inward of his Soul.
Despite Otis’s quick repudiation of the violence, the members of the oligarchy knew that “Mr Otis, Junr is at the head of the Confederacy.” Peter Oliver ascribed the sacking of Hutchinson’s house to “the Mob of Otis & his clients” and said the affair was “a Joy to Mr. Otis.” Those “clients” were the merchants who Otis repeatedly represented against the customs establishment, and it was no coincidence that offices of the customs and admiralty administrations were targeted. Bernard did not accuse Otis of actually directing of the mob but laid the destruction at his door: “It is very Fair (without penetrating into the Secrets of the Cabinet) to impute that inhuman Treatment of him [Hutchinson] to such professed resentment: especially when the Resentor & the popular Conductor is the same person.” Bernard had already consented to Otis as Stamp Act Congress delegate, so being labeled the “Resentor & the popular Conductor” wasn’t of much concern to Otis now; Bernard could hardly rescind his consent without direct evidence of Otis’s involvement in the mob activity, of which there would never be any. It is noteworthy that in labeling Otis “the Resentor & the popular Conductor,” Bernard claimed that Otis was behind the incendiary paper war – “Resentor” – and the mobs – “popular Conductor.” The clever James Otis would never provide Bernard with the incontrovertible evidence he would need to damn him and publically Otis only professed shock and disgust at the destruction of Hutchinson’s and Oliver’s homes – at least for now.
The oligarchy almost uniformly suspected Otis was the “Conductor” of the attacks; was he? And to what extent were the efforts of the mobs, Sam Adams, Jemmy Otis and Jonathan Mayhew coordinated? There is no evidence that Jemmy Otis actually directed the mobs, and there is no evidence that Otis coordinated the events of the summer of 1765 with Adams and Mayhew, but to suggest that what appeared to be orchestrated was actually all coincidence is to ignore the direct line of communication from Otis to Adams and Mayhew and from Adams and Mayhew to the mobs. Otis and Mayhew knew each other well, and Otis and Adams worked closely together on articles and in the House, and Adams was well-connected to the mobs. While the events of 1765 may not have been entirely planned, it defies logic to suggest that Otis, Adams, Mayhew and the mobs were ignorant of each other’s activities. Otis, perhaps more than others, knew the explosive nature of the situation in Boston; he would later write to his sister that he was holding the town together and that without him, anarchy would erupt. His letter to his sister essentially claimed that he was coordinating everything and walking the fine line between rebellion and anarchy. And, according to his plan in which the less savory aspects were delegated to others, Mayhew and the mobs played their roles perfectly. So that he wouldn’t be targeted, he required accomplices, a role that Mayhew and Adams filled flawlessly. And the Harvard educated lawyer would never get his hands dirty destroying a house; the mobs, too, played their role. The rebellion had to be a decentralized effort; one man could be arrested and jailed and hanged. Regardless, Otis was rightfully labeled the “Conductor.”
The contagion was not limited to Boston and the militia’s control seemed negligible. From James Freeman’s notebooks:
Sep’r 16.
Mr Messervey distributor of Stamps for prov. Of N. Hampsh. resigned his employment in Boston. This occasioned great joy among the people. The morn’g ushered in wh. Ringing of bells. Train of artillery march’d down King street, fired several rounds &c. Towards evening a guard of men armed belonging to the militia were posted near Liberty tree to present disorders from the concourse of people. Bonfires in Charles-town & Cambridge.
By August of 1765, New England society’s foundation had been so destabilized that it did not regain its solidity until aft
er the Revolution. Public displays of government authority almost entirely vanished and government operation proceeded under the Loyal Nine’s invisible guiding hand. The government issued generous bounties for the mob leaders, but no one came forward. Of course, the “Persons unknown” were quite known, and Bernard ordered well-known mob leader Ebenezer McIntosh arrested, but he was released once it became clear that no one would offer evidence against him. Further encouraging Bernard’s cooperation, the sheriff reported that the citizens would decline their duties as armed night watchmen if mob leaders were jailed. The total mob control of Boston is exemplified in its ability to maintain peace and unleash mayhem at will.
Bernard hoped to delay the meeting of the General Court until Whitehall approved moving the Court out of Boston. In an August 18, 1765 letter to Board of Trade Secretary John Pownall marked “private,” Bernard asserted that the Court would “neither be free from Terror on the one hand, nor undue Influence on the Other” if it remained in Boston. He continued, “The mobs are bad but the Politicians are worse.” Whitehall declined; nevertheless, the governor hoped that moderate representatives would supply a calming influence when the fall session of the General Court opened on September 25, 1765 – six weeks after it was originally intended to convene. After all, the Court Party still controlled both houses.