Celebrating 17 years

The American Revolution in Massachusetts

1763-1775

« Continued from page 1

Resisting the Stamp Acts

The colonists faced now the task of resisting the next step of the English imperial policy which was mainly based on collecting revenue taxes from the colonies. Before the colonists started reacting against English taxes, they had already laid down arguments for their resistance. The Stamp Act was the first phase which was undergone by the colonial resistance during the revolutionary period. Samuel Adams believed that Parliament decided to tax the colonies because the English Prime Ministers relied on “Virtual Representation” which held that M. Ps. represented all English subjects living in the Empire.51 According to him, those taxes were against the English Common- Law, which asserted that the English could not be taxed without their own consent, however; this right had been violated when the colonists were asked to pay taxes against their will.52

Although Virginia issued the “Virginia Resolves”, which supported the colonists’ right to refuse “Taxation without Representation”, Boston underwent violent protests against the Stamp Act.53 The Sons of Liberty was an organization of protests which was set up in Boston in early 1765 during the Stamp Act Crisis. It was composed of Boston merchants and artisans who called themselves the “Loyal Nine”, and began preparing for fierce resistance against the Stamp Act. Within a very short time, about two thousands of the group had been organized under the leadership of Ebenezer McIntosh, a South Boston shoemaker. It was the first step towards political organization in the colony.54

Since the most important objective of the Sons of Liberty was to force stamp distributors to resign, they seized stamps and destroyed stamp offices. By the end of that year, the Sons of Liberty existed in every colony. On August 14, 1765, the new Stamp Commissioner, Andrew Oliver, was hung in effigy of an old elm tree, later became the Liberty Tree. His home was broken; his office and the stamps were burnt. He resigned accordingly.

The mobs also attacked other homes of the customs inspectors, and on August 26, 1765, these people moved to the house of Lt- Gov. Thomas Hutchinson (1711-1780) where they destroyed records and books, and he was forced with his family to leave Boston and to seek refuge at Fort William. 55

The success of these movements in undermining the Stamp Act cannot be attributed only to violence. Their most effective work was performed in newsprint. Many members of the Sons of Liberty were printers and publishers, among them were; Benjamin Edes, a printer, and John Gill of the “Boston Gazette”. These two members succeeded to generate much of public opinion against the act; for they were sympathetic to the cause. It was they who would pay most of the duties. Nearly every newspaper in Massachusetts, and the rest of the colonies, carried daily reports of the Sons’ activities. Accounts of the most dramatic escapades spread throughout the colonies, and people realized that a political resistance to English taxes had emerged, and was carried out by the Sons.56

After these violent riots had taken place, the Massachusetts Assembly sent circular letters to the rest of the colonies which asked for an intercolonial meeting to plan and organize resistance if new taxes were issued. Thus, in response to Massachusetts’ appeal, nine colonies sent twenty- seven delegates to attend the Stamp Act Congress which was held on October 7, 1765 in New York to discuss the Stamp Act crisis. They stated in the resolution their refusal to be taxed without their consent, and accused Parliament and King George III of “subverting the rights and liberties of the colonies”. They too declared their loyalty to the Crown and hoped to see colonial relations with the mother country improved.57

Consequently, Parliament summoned to debate the future of the Stamp Act in 1766. William Pitt, the King’s second Prime Minister, believed that the act would ruin English trade, and worsen its colonial relations if it were kept in practice.

Colonial resistance in Massachusetts took another measure, and the most successful one. It was the Non-Importation Agreements which were other forms of protests held chiefly by the colonial merchants against the different commercial and financial restrictions. However, these measures fell into the hands of radical members who were much concerned with human rights and liberties. They intervened and attempted to seize the opportunity not to give economic prominence to the resistance, but a constitutional grievance which considered the English acts as “No Taxation without Representation”, and asked Parliament to reconsider its plans about the colonies. As those agreements appeared in the beginning of 1766, they affected English merchants who used to trade with the colonies.58

The Boston Massacre

Colonial resistance to English taxes was carried on when the Townshend Acts were passed. Consequently, Samuel Adams, leader of the Sons of Liberty, sent the Circular Letter to the other colonies in which he called for the boycott of the British goods until the acts were repealed. 59

The Boston Town Meeting acted likewise when it authorized colonial merchants to boycott the British goods. Again, the Non-Importation Agreements were the only means of resistance used by the Boston Town Meeting in 1768. Thus, colonial merchants and citizens acted positively, and boycotted English goods. As a result, England’s trade fell down from 25 % to 50 %. 60

Resistance to the British policies in Massachusetts developed and led to violence where English soldiers faced colonial people in Boston, and bloodshed occurred because of the growing tensions between the people of Boston and British troops.61

In Boston, where the anti- English feeling was higher, the Sons of Liberty decided to attack the customs men who seized John Hancock’s ship, “Liberty”.62 Accordingly, Gov. Francis Bernard called for military help to keep peace in the city, and maintain an effective administration against riots and assaults on customs officials. Thus, in response to his appeal, the English Government sent four regiments of the British army to Boston.63

However, the arrival of the troops in Boston increased Bernard’s troubles. People in Boston believed in the fact that the presence of these troops in a peaceful town would stiffen resistance.64 What affected the attitudes of Bostonians was not the troops’ physical threat; but it was rather the bearing of their arrival. The mere possible arrival of the troops had evoked the old apprehensions; "The raising or keeping of a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against the law", the Boston Town Meeting had resolved.65

After the troops had arrived, Bostonians resented the military occupation of their city. They doubted that these troops constituted a standing army, and that its purpose was to terrify the populace. The troops’ presence in Boston angered the colonists, and led to the Boston Massacre.66 This event had its roots in the Quartering Act of 1765 which imposed a law in the colonies to provide living quarters for British troops in places where no regular barracks were found. This Act was met with much resistance in Boston. The colonists wandered about the troops’ presence in the cities far from the remote region to protect the North American frontier. 67

The British troops were harassed by angry citizens who often cursed them, and pelted them with rocks. Resentment of their presence was strong in Boston, and people grew bolder and tense.68 In 1769, when the townspeople refused to provide the troops with lodging, the soldiers simply pitched tents on the Boston Common. In retaliation for their treatment, they often played drums and bugles loudly late into the night. Such action on the part of the troops only added to the growing tension that marked Boston at the time.69

Moreover, the soldiers were insulted when they used to walk through the city. Though the soldiers were thrown with rocks and snowballs, but they did not respond; for they had been ordered to avoid all sorts of trouble with the population. However, a violent event took place and helped to inspire the American Revolution. On March 5, 1770, Parliament repealed the Townshend Acts because of the colonial boycott; meanwhile, a riot occurred in Boston, it was the Boston Massacre.70

It started when a group of local men and boys exchanged words with the soldiers patrolling in the streets. The event took place shortly after nine o’clock when this group of Bostonians- about on hundred- altogether converged on the English sentry of the Customs House. A soldier was hit by a young man, and called out for additional help from the soldiers in the guard; for he feared that the mob was going to kill him when they shouted: “Kill the soldier! Kill the coward!”.71 Now a large mob of about four hundred gathered and pelted the soldiers with snowballs. Capt. Preston, commander of the guard, and eight of the soldiers came to join his men.72

When Capt. Preston arrived, he asked the mob to disperse. However; the mob refused and continued to outrage the soldiers. As they carried on their action, Capt. Preston ordered to prime and load. The mob now started shouting: “You cowards! Let’s see you fire! You dare not fire! ... Bloody backs!”. 73

Some of the soldiers fired, and consequently five of the mob fell down; one dead and six other men were wounded. 74 The situation was to lead to bloodshed when the Sons of Liberty outnumbered the Redcoats.169

However; Lt- Gov. Thomas Hutchinson succeeded to calm the mob, and promised them to arrest the errant soldiers and charge them for murder.

The Boston Massacre assuredly was used by political propagandists in Boston to promote the American revolt. Paul Revere (1735-1818), a Boston silversmith and patriot, engraved the event in a newspaper with the following title: “Fruits of Arbitrary Power: The Bloody Massacre Perpetuated at King Street”.75 Paul Revere’s purpose was to awaken the anti- English feeling among the colonists in Boston and the twelve colonies. The engraving also aimed at creating an image about the British tyranny.76

Other illustrators also rushed to put a visual on the event. Samuel Adams described it as a murder, and distributed hundreds of woodcut prints showing aggressive soldiers shooting innocent people. Some newspapers reported the event framing the story with a black border so as to represent the mourning. Their drawings intended to inform the colonial public as well as to propagandize the movement toward the war. The Boston Massacre was another opportunity for the propagandists to rely on their political arguments so as to react against the British Authority.77

Following the event, Samuel Adams conducted a town meeting in 1772 which formed the Committee of Correspondence to communicate the “rights of colonists... with the infringements and violations thereof”. James Otis was its chairman, and Samuel Adams and Dr. Joseph Warren became active members. They devoted their efforts to promote communication among other groups of patriots in Massachusetts and throughout the twelve colonies. Moreover, the Boston Massacre paved the way for these patriots to organize their resistance. 78

Resisting the Tea Act

After the Boston Massacre, the British troops withdrew from Boston. Parliament acted likewise and repealed the Townshend Duties because they could not be collected by the customs officers, in addition to colonial boycott which hurt the British trade. The boycott ended in the spring of 1770, except for the English Tea. Accordingly, Bostonians carried on their resistance against the British Tea Act, and another violent event took place in Boston which had serious consequences on both the colonists and English Authority, and led to the American Revolution. 79

Although English colonial relations improved following the Boston Massacre, the turning point was the enactment of the Tea Act. The new Act meant for the colonists that the English Parliament did not give up taxation! a determination of Parliament’s right to tax the colonies. The colonists refused to buy English Tea, and this affected the company which was losing business. This colonial boycott decreased the company’s sales in the colonies to £ 520.000. 80

Although the company had large debts, and huge stocks of warehouses, it could not sell its tea because some particular smugglers, such as John Hancock, were importing tea cheaply from Holland without paying duties. The Tea Act which was passed by Parliament permitted the company to sell its tea directly in the colonies at a low price to undercut the prices of colonial merchants and smugglers. Thus, the colonists would get tea at a cheaper price. 81

However, if the colonists paid the tax on tea, they would acknowledge Parliament's right to tax them. Boston merchants believed that the act was passed only to give the company the right to export its merchandise directly to the colonies without paying regular taxes. Thus, the company would monopolize colonial tea trade in colonial America. 82

They were angered furiously and stood to resist because of the following reasons: firstly, these influential colonial merchants feared being bankrupted and replaced by a powerful monopoly of the British East India Company, since they were excluded from this lucrative trade. Secondly, and more importantly, the act revived colonial passions about “No Taxation without Representation”. The act gave the colonists another opportunity to protest.83

Subsequently, colonial merchants boycotted the tea trade. Unlike earlier protests, this boycott mobilized large segments of people. Colonial women now became the leaders of the boycott. They decided to drink coffee instead of English tea. Though these women were not interested in politics, their participation in the boycott shows that they were too affected by the British measures that they decided to take part in the boycott.84 The tea boycott also helped to link the colonies together in a common experience of mass popular protest. It aimed at making Parliament repeal the Tea Act, as it worked well with the Stamp Act.85

The next move came from the Boston Committee of Correspondence which drove the revolt against the act through the following strategy: “Good Americans in every port should go down to the wharves and prevent the East India Company’s tea from being landed.” 86 Since the colonists were angered by the Tea Act, it seems that they were waiting for such a spark like to respond positively. Now, the flame had come from Boston, the centre of the crisis, and consequently, the colonists were too mobilized to react.87 Political propagandists seized the opportunity of this economic problem, and intervened to promote their political slogans among the common people. They believed that they were 88 forced by those circumstances to rely on propaganda so as to achieve a united front in their opposition to the English policy.89

After these fruitless negotiations, Samuel Adams and his group decided to react more vigorously when he said: “I do not see what more Bostonians could do to save their country” 90. The mobs agreed on the following movement: “Boston Harbour a teapot tonight! Hurrah for Griffin’s Wharf!”91 Accordingly, they wrapped themselves in blankets and daubed red paint and soot their faces to disguise as Mohawk Indians. After they had marched down to Griffin’s Wharf, they bordered the three ships of the “Dartmouth”, “Eleanor”, and the “Beaver”.

As they got into the ships, they threw off about 342 chests of “Ceylon” and “Darjeeling tea” overboard, nearly worth £ 10.000.92

Admiral Montagne, British Commander of the East India ships in Boston, saw all that happened; for he was spending the night in a house at the head of Griffin’s Wharf. He watched the party and the mobs were marching back toward the centre of the town. He opened his window and called: “Well, boys. You had a fine pleasant evening, haven’t you? But mind, you’ll have to pay the fiddler yet.” One of the young men answered him when he shouted: “We’ll settle the bill, squire. Come down here and we’ll settle it in two minutes.”93

This famous event became to be known as the Boston Tea Party, which led to the American Revolution. It was reported to the rest of the colonies by the Boston Committee of Correspondence.94

When the Boston Tea Party’s news reached London a month later, King George III, Parliament, and English Government were too angered, and decided to take serious measures. Accordingly, Parliament passed the “Coercive Acts” which were designed to punish Boston for the Tea Party. The purpose of these acts was explained by Lord North, King’s Prime Minister, who stated: “I propose this bill to take the executive power from the democratic part of the Government”. He also expressed his attitude to impose English sovereignty over the colonies when he said: “We must control them or submit to them.”95

The “Coercive Acts” consisted of five punitive laws which were designed to punish Massachusetts for the Boston Tea Party, and these were: “The Boston Port Act”, “The Massachusetts’ Government Act”, the “Quartering Act”, “The Administration Act of Justice”, and The Quebec Act.

When the “Coercive Acts” were put into practice, they could not be supported by the colonists who called them the “Intolerable Acts”. Accordingly, Massachusetts became cut off from the rest of the colonies. People in Boston never expected that severe punishment. As Boston port was closed, the city faced starvation. Since Samuel Adams intended to persuade the citizens to defy the British measures, he sent letters to the other colonies requesting helps against the so- called British tyranny. Immediately, food and supplies arrived to the blockaded city. 96

The Massachusetts Provincial Congress

During this critical situation, the Committees of Correspondence worked hard to raise the anti- British feeling in the colonies. The Boston Town Meeting drew up a resolution which called both towns and provinces of Massachusetts for “the Solemn League” to boycott the British goods and to stop commerce with England; they responded positively. This unity which emerged from the Massachusetts’ towns and provinces facilitated the creation of the Provincial Congress later. This institution would be in charge of some important responsibilities. 97

Massachusetts took the first step towards the creation of the Provincial Congress when the Boston Town Meeting called upon several towns and provinces to send representatives to Suffolk county- near Boston, to meet in September, 1774.98 They reacted against the Intolerable Acts which they regarded as follows: “... the Coercive Acts should be rejected as the attempts of a wicked administration to enslave America.” They believed that these acts were issued to make the colonists, Bostonians in particular, to serve British interests. So, they had the right to refuse these laws.99

The Suffolk Resolves, written by Dr. Joseph Warren under Samuel Adams’ direction, claimed that King George III had lost his subjects’ loyalty in the colonies, and called for an embargo on British goods. They also set up an independent Massachusetts Assembly, and the taxes would be paid to the treasury of the new assembly. They also called the colonists to organize their own militias for their defense and “to learn the arts of war”. The Suffolk Resolves were approved by the First Continental Congress.100

Thus, Massachusetts towns’ delegates met in October, 1774, at Concord’s First Parish Church for their Provincial Congress, defying Gen. Thomas Gage. John Hancock (1737-1793) presided over the Congress which adjourned from October 21 to 26. After the debate, the representatives drew up three important resolves which were as follows:

The first one created the Committee of Safety to consider what was necessary for the safety of the province. It consisted of three delegates from Boston and six from the rest of the province.101 The Committee was appointed to continue in office until further order, and its duty was to keep careful watch of any person attempting the destruction, invasion, or detriment of the province. Furthermore, it was authorized to call out militiamen, and to keep them in service as long as it would be necessary.102

The second resolution set up the Committee of Supplies to make provisions to receive and support the militia troops, and to purchase cannon, small arms and ammunition without delay. The third resolution appointed general officers to take command of the forces. These officers were recommended to choose and to enlist the Minutemen ready to march at the first call of the Committee of Safety. Moreover, the inhabitants were urged to perfect themselves in military discipline and to provide arms and powder.103

Through these military proposals, the Provincial Congress foresaw that war was possible, and was determined to meet it well prepared. It was left with the Committee of Safety to take the decisive step of calling the troops into the field, and of transforming the struggle from political resistance to armed resistance. The Provincial Congress’ resolves were printed, and copies were sent to every town as an appeal to act on the decisions, and were welcomed by the towns and provinces. After the Committee of Safety had taken command of the military organization, the Provincial Congress urged the Committee to start training activities, and encourage military preparations of the militia. These notes were emphasized in the following letter sent by the Congress to all the towns in December, 1774.104

Thus, Massachusetts’ colonists began to prepare for war. They had already formed their militia and collected arms and ammunition to fight the British Redcoats. What would take place in Massachusetts’ areas of Lexington and Concord was the revolutionary outbreak, or the beginning of the American Revolution in which the British Army engaged with Massachusetts’ militia. The battles of Lexington Common Green and Concord North Bridge Fight which were fought during this revolutionary outbreak would have great impacts on the colonists.

Conclusion

The vast range of views about the origins of the American Revolution reflects the great divergences between the British and the American colonists in political and economic problems. However, the central conflict was over principles of government between Great Britain and its American colonies; the question of sovereignty over North America. This divergence was mainly manifested in practical politics in conflicts over taxation and representation, revenue and regulation, freedom and subordination. This belief was stated by Francis Bernard, Massachusetts Royal Governor from 1760 to 1769, when he wrote the following statement:

“The question [is] whether America shall or shall not be subject to the legislature of Great Britain ... . All the political evils in America rise from the want of ascertaining the relation between Great Britain and America so very ... contradictory to each other.” 105

All these conflicts about principles took place plainly in Massachusetts, in particular, and the rest of the colonies. After the history of the American Revolution in Massachusetts (1763-1775) has been studied in this research paper, it is obvious to draw up a common belief that the history of Massachusetts can be summarized into one main idea; Massachusetts, from a British Colony to an American State. This transition from an older status into another one is reflected in the period from 1763 to 1775 during which the revolutionary era took place.

Among the reasons and the factors which made Massachusetts lead the revolutionary movement is that it was the third oldest colony which had been established in North America, after Jamestown was set up in 1607 and Plymouth in 1620, and accordingly, the Puritans were able to develop an independent spirit; being self- reliant, and succeeded to set up their own system of government upon which they used to depend.

This principle of self- government reflected the political freedom which existed in the colony from the beginning years of its establishment. Furthermore, this principle was put into practise through the establishment of colonial governments and legislatures for the management of colonial affairs freely without British interference.

However, when the revolutionary era began, Massachusetts’ colonists believed that they were obliged to resist and oppose the British Government; for they would lose their inherited political tradition of self- government.

Their struggle emphasizes Massachusetts’ people denial of submission to the English Crown, Government, and Parliament which relied on taxes to raise money and revenue because of the French and Indian War’s expenses.

All the different events that characterized the American Revolution in Massachusetts took place in Boston, the centre of radical behaviour against the British Authority because it suffered from the British economic policies which were put into practise after 1763; for it was a flourishing commercial city. Particularly, from Boston emerged a group of radicals that led resistance against Great Britain. Men like Samuel Adams, John Hancock, and John Adams, succeeded to promote revolutionary ideas among the colonists so as to make them join their opposition to the English policies.

Moreover, these revolutionary leaders were shrewd men who had achieved a great success in organizing the revolt against the British authority through the following steps:

- The first step in the revolution was the appearance of sporadic and unconnected rioting in resistance. The best example is shown in the reaction to the Stamp Act of 1765. It produced a strong colonial opposition and fierce riots occurred in Boston, in particular. This resistance which was led by the “Sons of Liberty” compelled stamp collectors to resign or flee, and even threatened the life of colonial governors like Thomas Hutchinson.

- The second step was the institution of economic boycotts by the Boston merchants. These measures were supported by the Boston Town Meeting. They emerged as a result of the Townshend Acts of 1767, and was adopted first in Boston in March 1768, and spread throughout the rest of the colonies. The main reason which made Bostonians use these boycotts was to make the British Parliament repeal the Townshend Acts, and other acts concerning taxes rose from the colonies.

- The third step was the formation of some local and intercolonial Committees of Correspondence so as to communicate with the other towns and the colonies. Since it was first set up in Boston by Samuel Adams, its main object was to organize and plan resistance to English colonial taxes with the rest of the colonies. One writer describes the role and the importance of the Committee of Correspondence during the revolutionary period as follows:

“This was the source of the rebellion. I saw the small seed when it was planted. It was as a grain of mustard. I have watched the plant until it has become as a great tree”. 106

- The fourth step undergone in revolutionary Massachusetts was the creation of the Provincial Congress, or Revolutionary Legislature, as it was called. This newly created institution emerged as a result of the Intolerable Acts which were put into practise in 1774. It was responsible for the revolutionary outbreak in Lexington and Concord through the enactment of the following resolutions which:

  1. called militia troops and Minutemen companies to drill and get ready at any minute’s warning.
  2. set up the Committee of Safety to control and direct the Minutemen in case of war.
  3. established the Committee of Supplies for equipping the Minutemen with the necessary arms to fight with.

The revolution which was inspired in Massachusetts was not spontaneous, it was, however; better planned and this made the revolutionary leaders, or the patriots of the revolution, generate colonial people in the common cause. Moreover, Massachusetts succeeded to unite the rest of the colonies against the British enemy. This unity was best symbolized in creating the Continental Congress and the Continental Army which directed the Revolutionary War. Furthermore, Massachusetts played another important role in issuing and drafting the Declaration of Independence.

 

References

1- Adams, James Truslow, Revolutionary New England, 1691- 1775, Atlantic Monthly Press, Boston, 1923. p. 268.

2- Alice Dickinson, The Colony of Massachusetts, Franklin Watts, New York, 1975.

3- Fischer, Syndey George, The Struggle for American Revolution, Vol. I, Books for Libraries Press, Free Port, New York, 1971.

4- Jacobson, Mark J., The Development of the American Thought, Appleton- Century Co., New York, 1932.

5- King, David C.; Marvin, Mariah; Weitzman, David; Dwiggins, Toni, United States History, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Inc, USA, 1986.

6- Labaree, Benjamin Woods, The Boston Tea Party, Oxford University Press, New York, 1964.

7- Laslett, Peter, Locke’s Two Treaties of Civil Government, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1975.

8- Latham, Earl, The Declaration of Independence, D. C. Heath & Company, Boston. 1956.

9- Maier, Pauline, Colonial Radicals and the Development of American Opposition to Britain, 1765- 1776, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1972.

10- Miller, John C., Origins of The American Revolution, Little, Brown and Co., Boston, 1943.

11- Morgan, Edmund S.; Morgan, Helen M., The Stamp Act Crisis: Prologue to the Revolution, 1764- 1766, North Carolina University Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 1959.

12- Morin, J.- M., Précis de Sociologie, Editions Nathan, Paris, 1966.

13- Schwartz, Seymour I., The French and Indian War, 1754- 1763: The Imperial Struggle for North America, Castle Books, Edison, New Jersey, 2000.

14- Smith, Robert, The Infamous Boston Massacre, Crowell- Collier Press, New York, 1969.

15- Sosin, Jack M., British Colonial Policy and the Origins of the American Revolution, 1763-1775, Lincoln, Nebraska, 1965.

16- Stout, Neil R., The Royal Navy in America, 1760-1775: A Study of the Enforcement of the British Colonial Policy in the Era of the American Revolution, Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, Maryland, 1973.

17- Tourtellot, Arthur B., Lexington and Concord, The Beginning of The War of The American Revolution, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, 2000.

18- Trevelyan, G. M., A shortened History of England, Penguin Books, London, 1987.

19- Ubbelohde, Carl, The American Colonies and the British Empire,1607-1763, Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York, 1968.

20- Ubbelohde, Carl, The Vice- Admiralty Courts and the American Revolution, North Carolina University Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 1960.

21- Bliven, Bruce, The American Revolution, Random House, New York, 1958. p. 25.

22- Countryman, Edward, The American Revolution, Penguin Books, London, 1985. pp. 53-4.

23- Becker, Carl; Milford, Humphrey, The Eve of the American Revolution: A Chronicle of the Breach with England, Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut, 1918, p. 335.

24- Fischer, Syndey George, The Struggle for American Revolution, Vol. I, Books for Libraries Press, Free Port, New York, 1971. p. 96.

25- Edward Countryman. op. cit. p. 105.

26- Curti, Merle, The Growth of the American Thought, Harper and Row Publishers, New York, 3 Edition, rd 1964. p. 150.

27- Hart, Albert Bushnell, Commonwealth History of Massachusetts; Colony, Province, and State, The State History, New York, 1927. p. 11.

28- Ellis, George E. , The Puritan Age and Rule in the Colony of the Massachusetts Bay, 1629-1685, Houghton Mifflin Company, New York, 1888. p. 26.

29- Ibid., p. 30.

30- Alice Dickinson. op. cit. pp. 39- 40.

31- George E. Ellis. op. cit. p. 36.

32-Bernard Bailyn. Bernard Bailyn, Political Experience and Enlightenment Ideas in Eighteenth Century America, American Historical Review, 67 (Jan. 1992). p.350.

33- Alice Dickinson. op. cit. p. 42.

34- Ibid., p. 43.

35- Trevelyan, G. M., A Shortened History of England, Penguin Books, London, 1987. p. 145.

36- George Mc. Michael, Crews, F., Levenson J.C., Marx L., & Smith, D.E., A Concise Anthology of American Literature, Mc Millan Publishing Company, New York. Inc, 1985. p. 169.

37- Cranston, Maurice, John Lock, A Biography, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1985. p. 26.

38- Bailyn, Bernard, The Origins of Independence, Alfred A. Knopf, New York. 1968. p. 339.

39- Ferguson, Robert A., The American Enlightenment 1750- 1820, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1957. p. 142.

40- David C. King, Mariah Marvin, David Weitzman, & Toni Dwiggins, op. cit. p. 57.

41- Bernard Bailyn. op. cit. p. 342.

42- Bernard Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of The American Revolution, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1967. p. 130.

43- Bonwick, Colin, English Radicals and the American Revolution, North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 1977, p. 3.

44- Bernard Bailyn. op. cit. p. 347.

45- Alice Dickinson. op. cit. p. 52.

46- Syndey George Fischer. op. cit. p. 49.

47- Edward Countryman. op. cit. p. 69.

48- Alice Dickinson. op. cit. p. 52.

49- Bernard Bailyn. op. cit. p. 155.

50- Joseph L. Andrews, Jr. op. cit. p. 6.

51- Adams, Charles F., ed, The Works of John Adams, Little, Brown and Co., Boston, 1851. p. 521.

52- Alice Dickinson. op. cit. p. 53.

53- Edward Countryman. op. cit. p. 71.

54- Barrow, Thomas C., Trade and Empire, The British Customs Service in Colonial America, 1660-1775, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1967. p. 153.

55- Edmund S. Morgan & Helen M. Morgan, The Stamp Act Crisis: Prologue to the Revolution, 1764- 1766, North Carolina University Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 1959. p. 17.

56- Richard B. Morris, The New World, Time- Life Books, New York, 1963. p. 150.

57- Pauline Maier, Colonial Radicals and the Development of American Opposition to Britain, 1765- 1776, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1972. p. 129.

58- John Bullion, British Ministers and the American Resistance to the Stamp Act, October – December 1765, William and Mary Quarterly, 3 Ser., 49 rd (Jan. 1992). p. 88.

59- Edmund S. Morgan & Helen M. Morgan. op. cit. p. 26.

60- Joseph L. Andrews, Jr. op. cit. p. 8.

61- John Bullion, Truly Loyal Subjects: British Politicians and the Failure to foresee American Resistance to Parliament Taxation, 1762-1765, Connecticut Review, 11 (Summer 1989). P. 32.

62- Andrews, Charles M., The Colonial Period of the American History, Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut, 1938. p.428.

63- Colin, Joseph R., The American Past, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers, New York, 1984. p. 119.

64- Ibid. p. 20.

65- Bernard Bailyn. op. cit. p. 177.

66- Howard, George Elliot, Preliminaries of the Revolution, 1763-1775, AMS, New York, 1905. p. 203.

67- Ibid.

68- Barrow, Thomas C., Trade and Empire, The British Customs Service in Colonial America, 1660-1775, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1967. p. 96.

69- Allan Nevis & Henry Steele Commager. op. cit. pp. 68-9.

70- Robert Smith, The Infamous Boston Massacre, Crowell- Collier Press, New York, 1969, p. 78.

71- Edward Countryman. op. cit. p. 90.

72- Jr. Bruce Bliven. op. cit. p. 21.

73- Joseph L. Andrews, Jr. op. cit. p. 9.

74- Joseph R. Colin. op. cit. 120.

75- Jr. Bruce Bliven. op. cit. p. 22.

76- Joseph L. Andrews, Jr. op. cit. pp. 9-10.

77- Joseph R. Colin. op. cit. 122.

78- Joseph L. Andrews, Jr. op. cit. p. 10.

79- Robert Young, The Real Patriots of the American Revolution, Parsippany, Dillon, New Jersey, 1996, p. 114.

80- David C. King, Mariah Marvin, David Weitzman, & Tonni Dwiggins, op. cit. p. 86.

81- James Truslow Adams, The Epic of America, Little, Brown and Co., Boston, 1931. p. 82.

82- Alan Axelrod, “ Invitation to a Tea Party”, “ Complete Idiot’s Guide to American History”, Simon & Schusterr McMillan Company, New York, 1998, p. 73.

83- Donald Barr Chidsey, The Great Separation: The Story of the Boston Tea Party and the Beginning of the American Revolution, Crown Publishers. Inc, New York, 1965, p. 145.

84- James Truslow Adams. op. cit. p. 84.

85- Syndey George Fischer. op. cit. p. 160.

86- Pauline Maier. op. cit. p. 153.

87- Benjamin Woods Labaree, The Boston Tea Party, Oxford University Press, New York, 1964. p. 7.

88- Allan Axelrod. op. cit. p. 160.

89- James Truslow Adams. op. cit. p. 86.

90- Ibid.

91- Syndey George Fischer. op. cit. p. 162.

92- Bernhard Knollenberg, Did Samuel Adams Provoke The Boston Tea Party and the Clash in Lexington? American Antiquarian Society Proceedings. New Ser., 70 (Oct. 1960). p. 493.

93- Joseph L. Andrews, Jr. op. cit. p. 11.

94- Syndey George Fischer. op. cit. p. 164.

95- Jr. Bruce Bliven. op. cit. p. 28.

96- Ibid. p. 29.

97- Allan Nevis & Henry Steele Commager, A Pocket History of the United States of America, Random House, Inc. New York., 1945.p. 75.

98- Richard B. Morris. op. cit. p. 154.

99- Syndey George Fischer. op. cit. p. 182.

100- John R. Galvin, The Minute Men, The First Fight: Myths and Realities of the American Revolution, Brassey’s. Inc. Dulles, Virginia, 1996. p. 13.

101- Alice Dickinson. op. cit. p. 75.

102- William H. Hallahan, The Day of the American Revolution Begun, 19 April 1775, Harper Collins Publishers, Inc., New York, 2001. p. 135.

103- Richard B. Morris. op. cit. p. 155.

104- John R. Galvin. op. cit. p. 57.

105- Peter J. Stanlis, “British Views of the American Revolution: A Conflict Over Right and Sovereignty”, Early American Literature, Vol. 11. Issue 2, 1976. p. 191.

106- Allan Nevis & Henry Steele Commager, . p. 72.