The First Continental Congress met in Philadelphia from September 5 to October 26, 1774. It passed three important resolutions: endorsing the Sueeolk Resolves (1774), approving an economic boycott against Great Britain, and adopting a petition to the king detailing colonial rights and grievances. As an extra-legal body, Congress depended upon obtaining and maintaining the support of colonial assemblies and the public. Thus delegates placed a premium on cooperation and compromise among the colonies. Congress set the tone for future resistance to British rule and for the practice of politics in the United States.
Massachusetts called this meeting to formulate a response to the Coercive Acts (1774) then being imposed upon the colony. Massachusetts’s Whig leaders sought advice and direction from the other colonies about how far they should go in resisting the Massachusetts Government Act, the Boston Port Act, and the new royal governor, Thomas Gage. Of the original 13 colonies, only Georgia did not send a delegation to Philadelphia.
Among the 56 delegates were men destined to lead the Revolution and the new nation. Cousins John Adams and Samuel Adams represented Massachusetts, and Roger Sherman served for Connecticut. Virginia sent Richard Henry Lee and George Washington. Future chief justice of the Supreme Court John Jay represented New York, and John Dickinson and Joseph Galloway of Pennsylvania attended. Not all delegates favored radical solutions. Men like Galloway searched for a moderate resolution to the crisis. Radical delegates did not dominate the proceedings, but Congress succeeded because delegates were able forge a consensus that would help sustain unity among the colonies.
In its first public act on September 17, Congress unanimously endorsed the Suffolk Resolves. These resolutions declared the Coercive Acts unconstitutional and recommended economic sanctions against Great Britain as the best course of action. Thus Congress accepted resistance, but strove to avoid direct confrontation with the British troops stationed in Massachusetts. It issued a warning to Great Britain that other colonies supported Massachusetts’s actions. In addition, Congress provided direction for Massachusetts’s resistance. Yet, by only approving defensive measures and rejecting proposals for more forceful action, Congress cautioned Massachusetts that not every deed would meet with unanimous approval. For the time being, resistance would remain within guidelines proposed by the Suffolk Resolves. This first resolution established two important precedents: First, by accepting congressional direction, Massachusetts allowed Congress to assert similar authority over all colonies. Second, by seeking unanimity, delegates made consensus more important than radical resistance.
Congress’s second accomplishment was to approve an economic boycott of Great Britain, Ireland, and the West Indies. On September 22, Congress unanimously passed a resolution requesting the suspension of imports from Great Britain until the sense of Congress was known. Just five days later, on September 27, delegates unanimously agreed to a resolution to stop importation of British and Irish goods after December 1. They further resolved to stop exports to Britain, Ireland, and the West Indies after September 10, 1775.
Title of a pamphlet summarizing the proceedings of the First Continental Congress (Library of Congress)
Sis. No one seriously questioned this path except Galloway. For the most part, the key issue was more a question of the scope of the boycott than whether to impose one at all. For example, Virginia delegates had been instructed to approve a boycott but not one beginning before August 1775, and South Carolina wanted its staple crops—rice and indigo— exempted. Finally, on October 20, Congress formed the Continental Association to execute the “non-importation, non-consumption, and non-exportation agreement.” Congress instructed that new local committees of safety be elected to oversee implementation and enforcement. It sanctioned extra-legal committees (see also committees Of correspondence) and sought to direct and regulate their activities while allowing for local initiative and flexibility to fit each community’s needs. Similar to earlier such agreements, there was also a moral dimension to the Association born out of the ideology of republicanism. The Association encouraged “frugality, economy, and industry,” promoted “agriculture, arts and the manufactures of this country,” and discouraged “every species of extravagance and dissipation, especially all horse-racing, and all kinds of gaming, cock-fighting, exhibitions of shews, plays, and other expensive diversions and entertainments.” So great was the concern with asserting virtue and simplicity that the Association even dictated what to do to commemorate “the death of any relation or friend,” by declaring “none of us, or any of our families, will go into any further mourning-dress, than a black crape or ribbon on the arm or hat, for gentlemen, and a black ribbon and necklace for ladies, and we will discontinue the giving of gloves and scarves at funerals.”
Third, Congress debated and approved a declaration of rights and grievances. During these debates, delegates considered the North American colonies’ position within the British Empire and the proper interpretation of the unwritten British constitution. Galloway, who would become a Loyalist, proposed a new imperial constitution. His plan of union would have created an intercolonial legislature responsible for “regulating and administering all the general police and affairs of the colonies” and during war to grant “aid to the crown.” While the British Parliament would still have the power to enact laws for the colonies, all laws would have to be approved by both Parliament and the intercolonial assembly. Galloway’s plan represented the most conciliatory proposal considered by Congress. Delegates effectively rejected it on September 28 on a procedural motion. New York delegates James Duane and Jay proved more effective advocates of a moderate approach to the crisis than Galloway. Duane and Jay had the support of moderates from the middle colonies of New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland.
Eight of the 10 resolutions considered for the declaration of rights passed unanimously, but not without debate. The debate focused on whether the colonies should base their grievances upon the law of nature or the British constitution. Delegates favored the latter over the former justification. The other main issue was how much authority and power colonies should concede to Parliament. The delegates rejected the resolution that defiantly asserted that colonial assemblies had the exclusive power of legislation in cases of taxation and internal policy subject only to approval by the Crown. More conciliatory and ambiguous language replaced it. Congress agreed that colonial assemblies should assent to bona fide acts of Parliament concerning the regulation of external commerce for the general good of the British Empire. Taxation for the purpose of raising revenue was only acceptable if the colonial assemblies consented. The declaration of rights broke no new ground and was consistent with the constitutional arguments that had been made in the colonies for the past decade. In one conciliatory act, Congress decided against including complaints about parliamentary acts before 1763 among its grievances.
The actions of the First Continental Congress further exacerbated rather than ameliorated relations between Great Britain and its colonies. It endorsed the autonomy of colonial legislatures and a very limited legislative role for Parliament over the colonies. It firmly accepted the proposition that conciliation had to be initiated by Great Britain. Most importantly, Congress made future intercolonial cooperation and unified resistance possible.
Further reading: Merrill Jensen, The Articles of Confederation; an Interpretation of the Social-Constitutional History of the American Revolution, 1774—1781 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1940); Jack N. Rakove, The Beginnings of National Politics: An Interpretative History of the Continental Congress (New York: Knopf, 1979).
—Terri Halperin
World History
