The Second Continental Congress: The Lead-Up

Another excerpt from Paul Johnson’s A History of the American People. This is one of my favorite parts of the whole story of 1774-76. I wish I could have been there. I remember watching on television the demostrations in Tienamen Square, years ago, and taking note of the countless signs reading “Give me liberty or give me death.” It brought me to tears. An American revolutionary’s words held up by a Chinese college student.

Excerpt describing the lead-in to the Second Constitutional Congress:

Next to religion, the concept of the rule of law was the biggest single force in creating the political civilization of the colonies. This was something they shared with all Englishmen. The law was not just necessary – essential to any civil society – it was noble. What happened in courts and assemblies on weekdays was the secular equivalent of what happened in church on Sundays. The rule of law in England, as Americans were taught in their schools, went back even beyond Magna Carta, to Anglo-Saxon times, to the laws of King Alfred and the Witanmagots, the ancient precursor of Massachusetts’ Assembly and Virginia’s House of Burgesses.

William the Conqueror had attempted to impose what Lord Chief Justice Coke, the great early 17th century authority of the law, had called ‘The Norman Yoke’. But he had been frustrated. So, in time, had Charles I been frustrated, when he tried to re-impose it, by the Long Parliament. Now, in its arrogance and complacency, the English parliament, forgetting the lessons of the past, was trying to impose the Norman Yoke on free-born Americans, to take away their cherished rule of law and undermine the rights they enjoyed under it with as much justice as any Englishman! Lord North would have been astonished to learn he was doing any such thing, but no matter: that is what many, most, Americans believed. So America now had to do what parliamentarians had to do in 1640. ‘What we did,’ said Jefferson later, ‘was with the help of Rushworth, whom we rummaged over for revolutionary precedents of those days.’ So, in a sense, the United States was the posthumous child of the Long Parliament.

But Americans’ fears that their liberties were being taken away, and the rule of law subverted, had to be dramatized – just as those old parliamentarians had dramatized their struggle by the Grand Remonstrance against Charles I and the famous ‘Flight of the Five Members’. Who would play John Hampden, who said he would rather die than pay Ship Money to King Charles?

Up sprang Jefferson’s friend and idol, Patrick Henry.

As a preliminary move towards setting up a united resistance of the mainland colonies to British parliamentary pretensions, a congress of colonial leaders met in Philadelphia, at Carpenters Hall, between September 5 and October 26, 1774. Only Georgia, dissuaded from participating by its popular governor, did not send delegates. Some fifty representatives from twelve colonies passed a series of resolutions, calling for defiance of the Coercive Acts, the arming of a militia, tax-resistance. The key vote came on October 14 when delegates passed the Declaration and Resolves, which roundly condemned British interference in America’s internal affairs and asserted the rights of colonial assemblies to enact legislation and impose taxes as they pleased.

A common American political consciousness was taking shape, and delegates began to speak with a distinctive national voice. At the end of it, Patrick Henry marked this change in his customary dramatic manner: ‘The distinctions between Virginians and New Englanders are no more. I am not a Virginian but an American.’ Not everyone agreed with him, as yet, and the Continental Congress, as it called itself, voted by colonies rather than as individual Americans. But this body, essentially based on Franklin’s earlier proposals, perpetuated its existence by agreeing to meet again in May 1775. Before that could happen, on February 5, 1775, parliament in London declared Massachusetts, identified as the most unruly and contumacious of the colonies, to be in a state of rebellion, thus authorizing the lawful authorities to use what force they thought fit. The fighting had begun. Hence when the Virginia burgesses met in convention to instruct their delegates to the Second Continental Congress, Henry saw his chance to bring home to all the revolutionary drama of the moment.

Henry was a born ham actor, in a great age of acting – the Age of Garrick. The British parliament was full of actors, notably [William] Pitt himself (‘He acted even when he was dying’) and the young [Edmund] Burke, who was not above drawing a dagger, and hurling it on the ground to make a point. But Henry excelled them all. He proposed to the burgesses that Virginia should raise a militia and be ready to do battle. What was Virginia waiting for? Massachusetts was fighting. ‘Our brethren are already in the field. Why stand we her idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have?’

Then Henry got to his knees, in the posture of a manacled slave, intoning in a low but rising voice: ‘Is life so dear, our peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!’ He then bent to the earth with his hands still crossed, for a few seconds, and suddenly sprang to his feet, shouting, ‘Give me liberty!’ and flung wide his arms, paused, lowered his arms, clenched his right hand as if holding a dagger at his breast, and said in sepulchral tones: ‘Or give me death!’ He then beat his breast, with his hand holding the imaginary dagger.

There was silence, broken by a man listening at the open window, who shouted: “Let me be buried on this spot!’

Henry had made his point.

This entry was posted in Founding Fathers and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to The Second Continental Congress: The Lead-Up

  1. CW says:

    1. Smart, beautiful redheads, who know what the Second Continental Congress is, are the stuff that dreams are made of.

    2. More interesting to me than the Continental Congress are the Federalist papers and the political wrangling that led to the 1789 Constitutional Convention. The discussions were hilarious (the Netherlands as model for the United States), inspiring (still based on the basic notion of individual sovereignty that inspired the Continental Congress), and brilliant to the point of being divinely inspired.

    3. I am at a loss to understand the previous comment (describing is not knowing ???).

    4. Also interesting to me is the role that generational archetypes played in the founding of our country. The leaders of the revolution (George Washington, Patrick Henry) were not of the same generation as Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, and Jay. Washington’s generation were rebels and outcasts (like generation X), while Jefferson’s generation were organizers and team-builders, like the WWII “greatest” generation.

  2. red says:

    CW –

    Well, first off, thanks for the compliment. I’m a bit obsessed with the Federalist papers as well. I should take a class in it all though. All of my knowledge comes from my own reading and from my dad, who is a freak about that era in our nation’s history. It would be good to have a bit more context.

    Patrick Henry is one of my idols. I think of him as a lovable firebrand.

    Oh, and the previous comment?

    scroll over the screenname, and all will become clear.

    best – and happy new year.

  3. CW says:

    If you think Patrick Henry is cool, read up on Sam Adams. Now Sam was THE man. He really made beer. And he was the brains and the inspiration behind Patrick Henry, John Hancock, and many of the founding fathers – even (then Col) Washington always wanted to know what old Sam thought about what was going on. Happy New Year!

Comments are closed.