Mason’s resolutions then were presented, explained and adopted. The observations on the rights of Americans contained little that had not been expounded previously by Mason, but they now were phrased with deliberate simplicity. Vigorous language was followed by the firm declaration “that it is our greatest wish and inclination, as well as interest, forever to continue our connection with and dependence upon the British government; but, though we are its subjects, we will use every means which Heaven hath given us to prevent our becoming its slaves.”
Washington was so firmly convinced that when he returned home and explained to Fairfax why he had not read that friend’s letter to the meeting in Alexandria, he powdered no phrases: “. . . Shall we, after this, whine and cry for relief when we have already tried it in vain? Or shall we supinely sit and see one province after another fall a prey to despotism? . . . [I] should much distrust my own judgment upon the occasion, if my nature did not recoil at the thought of submitting to measures which I think subversive of everything that I ought to hold dear and valuable, and did I not find, at the same time, that the voice of mankind is with me.” All else failing, there remained the “one appeal” from the Sovereign that Mason had now incorporated into the Fairfax County resolutions. That was to be the same “last resource” of which Washington had set the very steel in his soul on full, if patient resistance. Neither fear nor argument could shake him. In all earlier discussion he had assumed that somehow, sometime, differences with Britain would be adjusted. Independence had not been a part of his political creed. Now his view was changing. Valuable as were the ties of trade, of defence and of inheritance, a deliberate attempt to deny Colonials their fundamental rights would justify complete separation. The Boston Port Act and the related measures of repression did more than all previous controversy to turn Washington from faith in reconciliation to a belief that a struggle for independence might be the only recourse of a people determined to preserve their liberties.
He had a direct duty to perform now. Among the resolutions adopted at the meeting in Alexandria was one that named him and Broadwater to attend the Convention the Burgesses had recommended. Washington rode into Williamsburg August 1. Others arrived hourly until the Convention had more members present than Washington had ever seen at any session of the House of Burgesses. Nearly all the old leaders were in attendance; so were the younger spokesmen of a vigorous policy, with the regretted exception of Jefferson. He had fallen sick on the way and had sent on the text of an uncorrected paper, “A Summary View of the Rights of British America, Set Forth in some Resolutions Intended for the Inspection of the Present Delegates of the People of Virginia, now in Convention.” This was laid on the table and was so often read and discussed that it was published immediately. Washington was one of the first purchasers.
Daily deliberations were searching and detailed. By August 5 the Convention reached its decisions. There was agreement among the Delegates to accept Philadelphia as the place and September 5 as the time for the meeting of the General Congress. On the sixth, the participants unanimously approved their declaratory resolutions and instructions to the seven men who were to represent Virginia. The opening statement was an uninspired paper that contained few new ideas and did not express the accepted views with the ring of high determination. Instructions to the Delegates were written with stubborn repetition of familiar arguments, to which was added sharp denunciation of arbitrary orders issued not long previously by Gen. Thomas Gage in Boston. Pains were taken to make clear the reasons why Virginia did not favor the immediate prohibition of exports. Washington, himself an unimaginative man, may have been altogether content with these resolutions, which reflected his opinions almost to the letter; but there must have been some Delegates who wished that the proposal for united resistance through a General Congress had been proclaimed by Patrick Henry in the full sweep of his eloquence.
For Delegates to the Congress Peyton Randolph, Moderator of the Convention, was deferentially the first choice; next was Richard Henry Lee, whose effort had in large part been responsible for the Convention; Washington came next, then Henry, Richard Bland, Benjamin Harrison and Edmund Pendleton. In the absence of Jefferson, the length of whose disability was uncertain, and the preoccupation of Robert Carter Nicholas with his duties as Treasurer, these seven were the most distinguished members of the House.
Now Washington had to ride back to Mount Vernon and arrange his affairs in the knowledge that Henry would join him on the thirtieth and go with him to Philadelphia. The principal incidents of the days that preceded the start for the Quaker City concerned the sons of that good friend William Fairfax who gave him the news that led him to tender his services in 1753 for what proved to be his first great adventure—the journey to Fort Le Boeuf. George William Fairfax was gone, gone permanently; the contents of Belvoir were for sale; Washington had to assume some of the direction of this sad vendue. It was grim business to have men and women of every station peering and poking through the handsome chambers of that beloved house, but it was consoling to know that some of the furnishings most delightfully associated with Belvoir would adorn Mount Vernon.
The other experience was an attempted renewal by Bryan Fairfax of the argument which the committeemen had declined at Alexandria. He disavowed any desire to create a party, but he held to his views and wrote Washington a disquisition of some 2500 words on the rights of Parliament and of Colonials. Washington realized that where opinions were as far apart as his and Fairfax’s it was useless to argue. His answer was modest and at the same time convinced: “. . . I am sure I have no new lights to throw upon the subject, or any other argument to offer in support of my own doctrine, than what you have seen; and could only in general add that an innate spirit of freedom first told me that the measures which administration hath for some time been, and now are most violently pursuing, are repugnant to every principle of natural justice; whilst much abler heads than my own hath fully convinced me that it is not only repugnant to natural right, but subversive of the law and constitution of Great Britain itself. . . .”
Punctually Henry arrived at Mount Vernon. With him was Pendleton. Mason came also, spent the night, and the next day discoursed no doubt on the rights of free peoples and the blindness of rulers. Henry listened and shared—”the first man upon this continent,” in the opinion of Mason. The counsel of Pendleton was, as always, conservative but penetrating. Washington probably said little and that not argumentative. His mind was made up. All through the morning they reasoned and planned. Then, after dinner, the three delegates bade Mason good-bye and started for the ferry.
When Washington, Henry and Pendleton reached Philadelphia September 4, they found Delegates assembling from all the Colonies except Georgia. The next morning, Washington went to the City Tavern where they were to meet. At the tavern it was explained that the Pennsylvania Assembly had voted the Congress the use of the State House and that the carpenters of the city had offered their handsome hall for the meeting. Although Washington may have been unaware of it, politics were involved: The carpenters were adherents of the cause of the Colonies; the State House was the stronghold of a conservative element, under the leadership of Joseph Galloway. Delegates decided to view both places, but when they examined Carpenters’ Hall, they liked it so much that a member asked whether they need look further. The hall was accepted; the Congress proceeded to organize; Randolph was unanimously named Speaker.
Argument began almost immediately over a motion to name a committee to draw up “regulations” for the Congress. This motion was construed to involve determination of the fundamental question, whether each Colony should have one vote or a number proportionate to the population. The decision was to allow each Colony a single and equal vote. The morning of the sixth brought rumors that Boston had been bombarded by the British garrison that occupied the town, but expresses who arrived on the eighth reported that the rumors had no better basis than the seizure of the Colony’s powder at Charlestown. Congress briskly decided th
at two committees be named—one “to state the rights of the Colonies in general, the several instances in which these rights are violated or infringed, and the means most proper to be pursued for obtaining a restoration of them,” the second “to examine and report the several statutes which affect the trade and manufactures of the Colonies.”
As Washington was not appointed to either of these committees, he had no official duties from September 8 to 17 when the Congress merely adjourned from day to day or, at most, received a new Delegate and approved his credentials. This time was not wasted. Washington dined almost daily at the home of some conspicuous and hospitable Pennsylvanian, where talk ranged far. It was the largest, longest opportunity Washington ever had enjoyed of conversing with men of station from all the Colonies. He was advantaged in making the most of their educational discourse, both because he was a good listener and because he was treated with deference and courtesy. His reputation as a soldier was known; his wealth was exaggerated. Washington did not rely altogether on this method of extending his knowledge of the issues before the Congress. Philadelphia had a press quick to print pamphlets and it now had both supply and demand. In political papers, Washington invested more than seventeen shillings and he doubtless read from his purchases during the rare evenings he spent alone at his lodgings.
Most of the Delegates were impressed by the magnitude and intricacy of the task assigned them. The humble-minded were disturbed by their lack of familiarity with the problems of neighbors whose cause was now theirs. Some members who were esteemed eminent in their own Colony felt they must vindicate their reputation by eloquence and profundity. The cautious fencing and the deliberate finesse, the suspicious aloofness and the formal delivery of Ciceronian speeches, took a realistic turn with the first major event of the session, the submission to Congress on September 17 of resolutions adopted on the sixth by citizens of Suffolk County, Massachusetts. If those “Suffolk Resolves” in most respects were merely a restatement of the Colonial defence of liberties, they had an undertone of defiance and this bold endorsement of reprisal: In event any of the leaders of the popular cause were arrested, the people should “seize and keep in safe custody every servant of the present tyrannical and unconstitutional government throughout the County and Province, until the persons so apprehended be liberated from the hands of our adversaries and restored safe and uninjured to their respective friends and families.”
Boston, in a word, was expressing the full argument of the Colonial cause and was serving notice sternly that reprisal would be the answer to arrest, that scuffs would be returned as blows, and, if need be, that war would be met with war. The principle in all this was one that Washington long previously had decided for himself. To his way of thinking, Massachusetts’ determined stand did not justify hesitation or warrant discussion. The position was right, and, being right, must be defended. Congress’ answer was equally decisive and in the same spirit, and was given that very day.
This answer delighted the members from Massachusetts at the same time that it afforded an opportunity of testing the sentiment of Congress as a whole. Thereafter more confidence was shown in preparing committee reports and in urging resolutions on the floor of the Congress, though there still was caution and a lack of planning and of leadership. Convinced and impatient Delegates were willing to go slowly if all the Colonies would move together. Unity was worth the time spent in assuring it. By the twenty-second, Delegates were agreed that the entire continent should enter into a non-importation pact, a traitor-proof “association.”
In the fifth week of the Congress came a letter, October 6, from the Boston Committee of Correspondence which described the strict military rule there and asked the advice of the Congress on the course the people should follow. Congress came to the sternest resolution the Delegates had thus far adopted—”that this Congress approve of the opposition by the inhabitants of the Massachusetts-bay to the execution of the late acts of Parliament; and if the same shall be attempted to be carried into execution by force, in such case, all America ought to support them in their opposition.” In another day’s deliberations, October 10, the people of Boston were advised not to leave their town unless compelled to do so; but they were told that if the Colony’s Council should consider removal of the population necessary, Congress would recommend that all America contribute towards making good the loss citizens would sustain. Further, the people were counselled to dispense, where practicable, with the administration of justice, if it could not be procured “in a legal and peaceable manner” under the charter and the laws of the Colony. Finally, Congress was mindful of the enemy within the gates. It resolved that all persons who accepted office or served in any way under the parliamentary act changing the government of Massachusetts “ought to be held in detestation and abhorrence by all good men, and considered as the wicked tools of that despotism which is preparing to destroy those rights which God, nature and compact have given to America.”
There followed a three-day debate on the rights of the Colonies. As the debate progressed the report was made an omnium gatherum of affirmations, reiterations of action already taken and resolutions on contingencies. When the whole was adopted, October 14, even its authors would have had difficulty in saying what the document made final and what it left the Congress to elaborate. In the absence of any plan or leadership, men who had been successful lawmakers in their own Colonies found it difficult to put together an orderly plan of action, even after their differences had been reconciled. Members were aware of this and were becoming restive.
Consciousness of this feeling, exhaustion of argument, desire to get home, completion of reports over which committees had spent uncounted hours—some or all of these circumstances were responsible for a less leisured tempo of discussion after October 17. On the eighteenth, the Terms of Association were adopted for transcription and signature. The completed paper reviewed the “ruinous system of colonial administration” and the specific acts of which America had complained. “To obtain redress of these grievances, which threaten destruction of the lives, liberty and property of his Majesty’s subjects in North America”—so ran the last paragraph of the preamble—”we are of opinion that a non-importation, non-consumption and non-exportation agreement, faithfully adhered to, will prove the most speedy, effectual and peaceable measure. . . .” Delegates committed themselves and the people of their Colonies to a broad agreement against the importation of British and Irish goods and of all slaves after December 1, 1774. Non-consumption of tea and other taxed goods was pledged; non-exportation was set at September 10, 1775. Local committees were recommended to see that the Association was enforced. All these matters were put together in a long document, so long, in fact, that after it was signed by the members present October 20 and delivered to the printer, it had to be issued as a pamphlet.
The Congress was in a mood of decision. October 21 it took into account repeated rumors that some of the members were to be arrested and transported to England for trial there and resolved “that the seizing, or attempting to seize, any person in America, in order to transport such person beyond the sea, for trial of offences committed within the body of a County in America, being against law, will justify and ought to meet with resistance and reprisal.” The next day the Congress dismissed Galloway’s plan for a Grand Council of all the Colonies and recommended that the Colonies choose Delegates to a new Congress that would assemble in Philadelphia May 10, 1775.
Was there anything more a Congress could do? Most of the Virginians did not think the remaining deliberations of particular importance and, on October 23 or 24, all of them except Washington and Lee started homeward. Bland, Harrison, Randolph and probably Pendleton left in Washington’s hands a power of attorney to sign their names “to any of the proceedings of the Congress.” Delegates still had to consider the final form of their address to the King and the text of an appeal to the people of Quebec. On the twenty-fifth the address was approved, and on the twenty-sixth the remaining papers on th
e calendar were completed and approved; fair copies of the address were signed. Lee subscribed for himself and for Henry, whereupon Washington attached his signature and those of Pendleton, Bland and Harrison. Then, at long last, the Congress was dissolved.
So lacking in plan had been the deliberations and so meandering the stream of debate that when members undertook to say what the Congress had done they might have had difficulty in stating in one-two order the resolves and recommendations. There had been so much of hesitation and confusion that many must have been disappointed. In detail, the rights of the Colonials had been asserted, and the nature of their grievances had been set forth. More important than all the Colonies had pledged in their Congress was the fact that all had pledged it. “A determined and unanimous resolution animates this continent,” said John Dickinson, “firmly and faithfully to support the common cause of the utmost extremity in this great struggle for the blessing of liberty—a blessing that can alone render life worth holding. . . .”
In contributing to this, Washington had displayed no deftness of pen or skill of exhortation. In a list of Convention celebrities compiled by the observant John Adams he was not mentioned. Among the Virginia Delegates, Lee and Henry had displayed more of parliamentary leadership and had outshone him completely. Unpraised, he had not been unobserved. Members esteemed him for his military reputation and found that the soundness of his judgment compensated for the awkwardness of his public utterance. They respected him more, rather than less, for his lack of desire to parade his opinions on the floor. He impressed his colleagues as a resolute man of integrity. Washington, moreover, had widened his horizon to the north and to the south. His view was increasingly continental.
Washington Page 37