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

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Toronto Star
an hour ago
- Toronto Star
What if killing Canada's digital tax is just the beginning for Donald Trump?
Prime Minister Mark Carney, left, listens to U.S. President Donald Trump while posing for a photograph during the G7 Summit in Kananaskis, Alta. on June 16, 2025. DARRYL DYCK THE CANADIAN PRESS Flash forward to last week. There was Trump, posting on social media that Canada's incoming Digital Services Tax — a policy that would force American tech giants and other firms, including Canadian ones, to pay up — was nothing short of a 'blatant attack' on the United States. Trump declared he had cut off all negotiations to resolve the trade war that started earlier this year with his wave of tariffs on Canadian goods. In other words, Canada's most important commercial and military partner, the destination for 76 per cent of all exports last year, was willing to ditch talks and dictate terms that could jeopardize thousands of jobs and hundreds of billions of dollars in economic activity. All over a domestic policy the Americans didn't like. Barely 48 hours later, shortly before midnight on a Sunday, the government announced the tax was dead. Not only would Canada not implement the policy as planned, it would repeal the 2024 law that created it. Is this Trump using economic pressure to force Canada's hand? 'It is exactly that,' said Lawrence Herman, a veteran trade lawyer and special counsel with the firm, Cassidy Levy Kent. 'It's an example of, on a particular issue, how much pressure can be brought to bear to force Canada to abandon not only a policy, but a law that has been in force for 18 months.' In Herman's view, the decision looks like a 'significant retreat' by the government, which shows 'how dependent we are on a reasonable relationship' with Canada's largest trading partner. Other policies that Trump has complained about, such as the supply management system for dairy and poultry, could be next, he said. Pete Hoekstra, the U.S. ambassador to Canada, told the CBC this week that he has a 'strong belief' Canada could water down that system by changing a law designed to protect it if that becomes part of a new trade deal. 'It's not a particularly good start to this so-called new economic and security relationship,' Herman said. He was referring to Carney's stated goal of talks that are now continuing under an agreement struck at the Group of 7 summit in the Alberta Rockies last month to strive for a deal to redefine the relationship by July 21. Others have been harsher in their judgment. Lloyd Axworthy, a former Liberal foreign affairs minister, posted online that Carney was acquiescing to Trump in a way that contradicts his 'elbows up' mantra on the campaign trail. 'Forget any dreams of a more sovereign, self-directed Canada. We're doubling down on the corporate cosiness and U.S. dependency that's defined our last half-century,' he wrote on Substack. Axworthy did not respond to an interview request Thursday. For Jean Charest, a former Quebec premier who sits on the government's Canada-U.S. advisory council, the situation illustrates the 'chaos' of dealing with Trump, whose administration is grappling with trade talks and tariffs threats against most countries on the planet. This meant that Carney's government was operating 'in a world of very bad choices,' Charest said. Deciding to scrap the Digital Services Tax, in that context, was 'certainly a legitimate choice,' he said. 'We are not in an ordinary world of negotiations,' Charest added. 'It would be nice to think, 'You give, I give ... we compromise.' It doesn't work that way with Donald Trump, and we're making our way through this by trying to protect essentially what's the most important for us in the short term, and that's a negotiation that has some legs.' Charest noted that there was opposition inside Canada to the Digital Services Tax, which would have applied back to 2022 with a three per cent tax on Canadian revenues from digital services companies with more than $1.1 billion in global earnings and $20 million inside Canada. The U.S. also pushed back against the policy when Joe Biden was in power. David Pierce, vice-president of government relations with the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, said his business lobby group felt the Digital Services Tax should be paused. He also said it would have been wrong to proceed with it after the U.S. dropped a controversial provision from Trump's major budget bill last week: the so-called 'revenge tax' that would have hit the U.S. assets of foreign businesses and individuals. That decision came as the G7 agreed to exempt American firms from a co-ordinated effort to ensure corporations pay a minimum tax, which was 'absolutely a win' for the U.S. Even so, Pierce said Canada likely had no choice but to drop the policy, given Trump's exploitation of Canada's 'weakness' — its major economic reliance on trade with the U.S. 'We just hope that this now paves the way for a good renewed deal,' said Pierce. The ultimate goal of the federal government in that deal, at least publicly, has been to return to the terms of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA), which Trump signed in 2018 during his first term, after disparaging North American free trade as unfair to his country. That would mean lifting the rounds of tariffs Trump has imposed since the winter, with import duties tied to concerns about drugs and migration over the border, and others that Trump slapped on Canadian autos, steel and aluminum in a bid to promote those sectors in the U.S. Canada has responded with countertariffs on its own that the government says hit more than $80 billion worth of American imports to Canada. Canada's lead trade negotiator with the Trump administration, Ambassador Kirsten Hillman, was not available for an interview this week, the embassy in Washington told the Star. Charest, however, said he believes it is possible that Canada could accept some level of tariffs in a July 21 deal, so long as they have no material effect. Such 'zero-effect' tariffs could only kick in at levels of trade that Canada doesn't or likely won't achieve, for example.


Winnipeg Free Press
2 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Pro-Palestinian group seeks to block UK government's decision to ban it under anti-terrorism laws
LONDON (AP) — The pro-Palestinian activist group Palestine Action sought Friday to temporarily block the British government's decision to ban it under anti-terrorism laws after activists broke into a military base last month and vandalized two planes. The ban is set to come into force at midnight after being approved by Parliament earlier this week. It would make membership of the group and support of its actions a criminal offense punishable by up to 14 years in prison. Raza Husain, a lawyer representing the group's co-founder Huda Ammori, said his client had 'never encouraged harm to any person at all.' 'We ask you, in the first instance, to suspend until July 21 what we say is an ill-considered, discriminatory and authoritarian abuse of statutory power which is alien to the basic tradition of the common law and is contrary to the Human Rights Act,' the lawyer quoted his client as saying. Justice Martin Chamberlain is expected to give his decision at the end of Friday's hearing. The proposed ban was triggered after pro-Palestinian activists broke into a Royal Air Force base in Brize Norton, damaging two planes with red paint and crowbars in protest at the British government's ongoing military support for Israel in its war in Gaza. Police said that the incident caused around 7 million pounds ($9.4 million) worth of damage, with four people charged in connection with the incident. The four, aged between 22 and 35, were charged Thursday with conspiracy to commit criminal damage and conspiracy to enter a prohibited place for purposes prejudicial to the interests of the U.K. No pleas were entered at Westminster Magistrates' Court in central London and the four are scheduled to appear July 18 at the Central Criminal Court. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist organization a few days after the break-in, stating that the vandalism of the two planes was 'disgraceful.' She added that the group had a 'long history of unacceptable criminal damage.'


Winnipeg Free Press
2 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Top EU officials head to Moldova for key summit ahead of a pivotal parliamentary election
BUCHAREST, Romania (AP) — The European Union's top officials will travel to Moldova's capital on Friday for a key bilateral summit to strengthen ties months before the EU candidate member holds a pivotal parliamentary election. Moldova's pro-Western President Maia Sandu and Prime Minister Dorin Recean will host the European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Council President António Costa in Chisinau. Talks will focus on EU membership, security and trade. The leaders are expected to issue a joint statement afterward. Brussels agreed to open accession negotiations with Moldova for EU membership last year after granting official candidate status in June 2022, the same day as neighboring Ukraine. Some observers say Hungary's opposition to Ukraine's EU membership could hamper Moldova's progress, since both countries' applications are being processed concurrently. 'Moldova is now at the most advanced stage of European integration in its modern history,' said Daniel Voda, Moldova's government spokesperson. 'The path toward the EU has become clear, irreversible, and politically embraced at the highest level.' Brussels is keen to reaffirm its commitment to Moldova joining the 27-nation bloc with the approach of a parliamentary election Sep. 28. Allegations continue to circulate about Russia conducting a 'hybrid war' against the former Soviet republic by interfering in elections and spreading disinformation. Moldova's pro-Western government led by the Party of Action and Solidarity, or PAS, has been in power since 2021. Moldova watchers have warned the upcoming parliamentary vote is in Moscow's crosshairs. The summit's agenda states EU leaders will reiterate their 'unwavering commitment' to Moldova's sovereignty and security in the face of 'Russia's continued hybrid attacks.' Moscow has denied meddling in Moldova. Radu Magdin, a political analyst at Smartlink Communications, said the joint summit is 'of top symbolic importance' and could bolster support for PAS in the upcoming elections. 'The elections are pivotal, as a PAS government majority or a PAS-led coalition can be more credible for Brussels in terms of genuine intention of reform,' he said. 'The main threats to Moldova's accession process is any EU state opposition to Ukraine's entry.' Moldova's membership in the EU is conditional on the country enacting reforms in policy areas, known as chapters, in areas such as the rule of law, fundamental rights and economic reforms, a process that will likely take years. To support such reforms, Brussels is providing Moldova with up to 1.9 billion euros (about $2.2 billion) between 2025 and 2027. 'EU accession is not just a destination,' said Voda, the government spokesperson. 'It's a profound change for the benefit of the people.' President Sandu was reelected in a heated election last year that saw her beat a Russia-friendly opponent in an election cycle beleaguered by claims of Russian interference and voter fraud. Moldovans last year also voted narrowly in favor of securing the country's EU path. ___ McGrath reported from Sighisoara, Romania.