logo
A year before declaring independence, colonists offered 'Olive Branch' petition to King George III

A year before declaring independence, colonists offered 'Olive Branch' petition to King George III

Independent04-07-2025
Alarmed by the policies of President Donald Trump, millions turned out last month for protests around the United States and overseas. Mindful of next year's 250th anniversary of American independence, organizers called the movement 'No Kings.'
Had the same kind of rallies been called for in the summer of 1775, the response likely would have been more cautious.
'It ('No Kings') was probably a minority opinion in July 1775,' says H.W. Brands, a prize-winning scholar and chair of the history department at the University of Texas at Austin.
'There was a lot of passion for revolution in New England, but that was different from the rest of the country,' says Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Joseph Ellis. 'There were still people who don't want to drawn into what they feared was an unnecessary war.'
This month marks the 250th anniversary — the semiquincentennial — of a document enacted almost exactly a year before the Declaration of Independence: 'The Olive Branch Petition,' ratified July 5, 1775 by the Continental Congress. Its primary author was John Dickinson, a Pennsylvanian whose writing skills led some to call him the 'Penman of the Revolution,' and would stand as a final, desperate plea to reconcile with Britain.
They put forth a pre-revolutionary argument
The notion of 'No Kings' is a foundation of democracy. But over the first half of 1775 Dickinson and others still hoped that King George III could be reasoned with and would undo the tax hikes and other alleged abuses they blamed on the British Parliament and other officials. Ellis calls it the 'Awkward Interval,' when Americans had fought the British in Lexington and Concord and around Bunker Hill, while holding off from a full separation.
'Public opinion is changing during this time, but it still would have been premature to issue a declaration of independence,' says Ellis, whose books include 'Founding Brothers,' 'The Cause' and the upcoming 'The Great Contradiction."
The Continental Congress projected unity in its official statements. But privately, like the colonies overall, members differed. Jack Rakove, a professor of history at Stanford University and author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning 'Original Meanings,' noted that delegates to Congress ranged from 'radicals' such as Samuel Adams who were avid for independence to such 'moderates' as Dickinson and New York 's John Jay.
The Olive Branch resolution balanced references to 'the delusive pretences, fruitless terrors, and unavailing severities' administered by British officials with dutiful tributes to shared ties and to the king's 'royal magnanimity and benevolence.'
'(N)otwithstanding the sufferings of your loyal Colonists during the course of this present controversy, our Breasts retain too tender a regard for the Kingdom from which we derive our Origin to request such a Reconciliation as might in any manner be inconsistent with her Dignity or her welfare,' the sometimes obsequious petition reads in part.
The American Revolution didn't arise at a single moment but through years of anguished steps away from the 'mother' country — a kind of weaning that at times suggested a coming of age, a young person's final departure from home. In letters and diaries written in the months before July 1775, American leaders often referred to themselves as children, the British as parents and the conflict a family argument.
Edmund Pendleton, a Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, urged 'a reconciliation with Our mother Country.' Jay, who would later help negotiate the treaty formally ending the Revolutionary War, proposed informing King George that 'your majesty's American subjects' are 'bound to your majesty by the strongest ties of allegiance and affection and attached to their parent country by every bond that can unite societies.'
In the Olive Branch paper, Dickinson would offer tribute to 'the union between our Mother country and these colonies.'
An early example of 'peace through strength'
The Congress, which had been formed the year before, relied in the first half of 1775 on a dual strategy that now might be called 'peace through strength,' a blend of resolve and compromise. John Adams defined it as 'to hold the sword in one hand, the olive branch in the other.' Dickinson's petition was a gesture of peace. A companion document, 'The Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms," was a statement of resolve.
The 1775 declaration was drafted by Thomas Jefferson, who a year later would be the principal writer of the Declaration of Independence, revised by Dickinson and approved by the Congress on July 6. The language anticipated the Declaration of Independence with its condemnation of the British for 'their intemperate Rage for unlimited Domination' and its vows to 'make known the Justice of our Cause.'
But while the Declaration of Independence ends with the 13 colonies 'absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown,' the authors in 1775 assured a nervous public 'that we mean not to dissolve that Union which has so long and so happily subsisted between us, and which we sincerely wish to see restored.'
'Necessity has not yet driven us into that desperate Measure, or induced us to excite any other Nation to war against them,' they wrote.
John Adams and Benjamin Franklin were among the peers of Dickinson who thought him naive about the British, and were unfazed when the king refused even to look at the Olive Branch petition and ruled that the colonies were in a state of rebellion. Around the same time Dickinson was working on his draft, the Continental Congress readied for further conflict. It appointed a commander of the newly-formed Continental Army, a renowned Virginian whom Adams praised as 'modest and virtuous ... amiable, generous and brave."
His name: George Washington. His ascension, Adams wrote, "will have a great effect, in cementing and securing the Union of these Colonies.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump shares First Lady Melania's letter to Putin as he rages over coverage of Alaska summit
Trump shares First Lady Melania's letter to Putin as he rages over coverage of Alaska summit

The Independent

time5 hours ago

  • The Independent

Trump shares First Lady Melania's letter to Putin as he rages over coverage of Alaska summit

President Trump has posted the full text of a letter from First Lady Melania Trump that he delivered to Russia's Vladimir Putin as part of the pair's Friday summit in Alaska. In the letter, which Putin reportedly read 'immediately' in front of delegates at the summit, the First Lady urged the Russian leader to remember the innocence of the children caught in the middle of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. 'In protecting the innocence of these children, you will do more than serve Russia alone — you serve humanity itself,' the letter reads. 'Such a bold idea transcends all human division, and you, Mr. Putin, are fit to implement this vision with the stroke of the pen today. It is is time.' The president revealed the letter on Truth Social, after making multiple posts criticizing media coverage of the Alaska summit, which did not result in any lasting deal to end the Ukraine war. "It's incredible how the Fake News violently distorts the TRUTH when it comes to me," Trump wrote in an earlier post. "There is NOTHING I can say or do that would lead them to write or report honestly about me." "If I got Russia to give up Moscow as part of the Deal, the Fake News, and their PARTNER, the Radical Left Democrats, would say I made a terrible mistake and a very bad deal,' he said in another.

Confederate statue dedicated to ‘faithful slaves' targeted in class-action lawsuit
Confederate statue dedicated to ‘faithful slaves' targeted in class-action lawsuit

The Independent

time5 hours ago

  • The Independent

Confederate statue dedicated to ‘faithful slaves' targeted in class-action lawsuit

A federal lawsuit filed in Columbia, North Carolina is targeting a Confederate monument outside a courthouse that bears an inscription with the line "IN APPRECIATION OF OUR FAITHFUL SLAVES." The lawsuit is calling for that portion of the inscription to be removed or covered up. 'I just remember thinking that slaves had to be so-called faithful or they would be punished or even worse,' Sherryreed Robinson, one of the members of the lawsuit, told the New York Times. 'As an adult, the words sitting on the grounds of a courthouse made me question whether Blacks could really receive justice there.' Earlier this year, a federal judge ruled that a portion of the lawsuit could move forward. Tyrrell County officials have been resistant to taking action themselves, citing state monument protection laws that, they say, bars them from making any changes to the monument. The challenge to the statue — which sits on the lawn of the Tyrrell County Courthouse — comes at a time when President Donald Trump and his administration are restoring Confederate names and monuments after many were demolished and destroyed during or in response to racial justice protests in 2020. In June, Trump demanded that the military restore Confederate names that had been previously removed from military bases. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered that a Confederate sculpture removed from Arlington National Cemetery be re-installed. The lawsuit in North Carolina was launched last year — before Trump returned to office — by the Concerned Citizens of Tyrrell County, which is made up primarily of older Black residents. The filing argues that the "faithful slave" portion of its inscription constitutes racial discrimination in government speech, which the litigants argue is a violation of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. It calls for the county to remove or cover the message. Tyrrell County officials moved to have the lawsuit dismissed in 2024, arguing that county officials cannot change the monument based on a state law limiting how an "object of remembrance" on state property can be changed or moved. 'The North Carolina Court of Appeals has ruled that county commissioners are bound by this statute, and that commissioners who are bound by this statute are not motivated by a discriminatory intent,' the motion reads. 'Tyrrell County should not be subject to liability based on its decision to follow state law.' The statue was one of many Confederate monuments erected during the Jim Crow era in the wake of the U.S. Civil War. The Tyrell Monument Association, founded by former Confederate Army lieutenant colonel William Fessenden Beasley, gifted the monument to the county. It has stood on the courthouse lawn since 1902. It depicts a Confederate soldier standing on a base that includes a bust of General Robert E Lee. There are inscriptions on each of the base's four sides, one of which includes the reference to "faithful slaves." Mark Snell Brickhouse, whose great-great-grandfather's name is one of many Confederates' etched on the monument, said he visits the monument and the family cemetery because it honors his family, but he told the Times he agrees that the "faithful slave" portion should be covered. 'I love the statue because it honors my family members,' Brickhouse, 72, told the paper. 'But I can see how the words are offensive to some people. I think the statue should stay because it reflects our history, but those words should be covered.' The Concerned Citizens of Tyrell County tried in the 1990's to have the statue removed completely, but have since changed their course, only asking for the reference to slaves to be removed or covered. Ian Mance, a lawyer with Emancipate North Carolina, a racial justice and advocacy group, told the Times that the statue outside the Tyrrell County Courthouse is the only known Confederate monument that directly endorses or shows an appreciation for, slavery. 'This is the only monument of its kind at a courthouse with that language of appreciation, or an endorsement, of slavery on it,' he said. 'You are talking about families who have been here since before the Civil War. For them, there is this feeling that this monument is offering commentary about their families.' According to Mance, the lawsuit is not seeking damages.

Marco Rubio 'humiliates' CBS host in clash over Putin
Marco Rubio 'humiliates' CBS host in clash over Putin

Daily Mail​

time5 hours ago

  • Daily Mail​

Marco Rubio 'humiliates' CBS host in clash over Putin

Secretary of State Marco Rubio took on the mainstream media Sunday during a slew of appearances following President Trump's bilateral meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Rubio sparred with CBS host Margaret Brennan as she pushed him to divulge details about Trump's meeting with Putin, which took place in Alaska on Friday, as well as the forthcoming White House meeting between Trump and Zelenskyy. 'This is such a stupid media narrative that [European leaders] are coming here tomorrow because Trump is going to bully Zelensky into a bad deal. We've been working with these people for weeks... We invited them to come,' Rubio told Brennan. 'To have a deal ... to reach the end of this conflict, both sides are going to have to make concessions,' Rubio said of the agreement America is working to broker between Russia and Ukraine. Brennan pushed Rubio on whether he, and by extension the rest of the Trump administration's leadership, were 'demanding withdrawal' of Russian troops from land that Putin 'has already seized land by force.' 'This is about what Ukraine can accept. And what Russia can accept. They both have to accept it, otherwise, there won't be a peace deal,' Rubio told Brennan. 'If there aren't concessions, if one side gets everything they want, that's called surrender. That's called the end of the war through surrender. And that's not what we're close to doing, because neither side here is on the verge of surrender or anything close to it,' the Secretary of State continued. X users piled on the praise for Rubio's CBS performance, and a similar takedown he offered on ABC Sunday as well. 'Can you name any concessions that Vladimir Putin made during this meeting?' ABC host Martha Raddatz asked Rubio on Sunday. 'I wouldn't name them on your program,' Rubio fired back. 'Why would I do that?' Conservative commentator and Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk wrote 'bravo to Sec. Marco Rubio this morning for embarrassing CBS and ABC News. Impressive he didn't just walk out of those interviews.' 'Imagine hating President Trump so much that you actively root for peace talks to fail. What vile, ghoulish creatures,' Kirk added, doubling down on his disapproval of Brennan and ABC host Martha Raddatz. 'I don't care if you're Republican or Democrat—anyone should be able to see how blatantly the mainstream media twists the narrative in this interview alone,' wrote an X user posting under the handle @jaimewildshark. Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich chimed in that the 'news media and the 'expert' analysts and commentators are making fools of themselves over the Trump-Putin meeting.' 'Secretary of State Marco Rubio had it just right when he said the press literally had no idea what was said in the meetings. President Trump is a great negotiator and Alaska was just the opening act in a multi act play. Patience and calm would be a wise approach for the time being,' Gingrich added in his analysis. X user @VigilantFox noted that Marco Rubio absolutely 'humiliated CBS' Margaret Brennan after she melted down over Trump not achieving a ceasefire or slapping new sanctions.' Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is scheduled to meet with Trump at the White House on Monday, and leaders of other European nations, including Britain, France, and Germany are expected to be in attendance.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store