Dickinson, John

views updated

John Dickinson

Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania to the Inhabitants of the British Colonies

First published in 1767–68; excerpted from reprint edition, 1903

"Benevolence towards mankind excites wishes for their welfare, and such wishes endear the means of fulfilling them. Those can be found in liberty alone, and therefore her sacred cause ought to be espoused by every man, on every occasion, to the utmost of his power…. "

John Dickinson, from Letters from a Farmer …

Mob violence had greeted Parliament's attempts to raise money in the colonies. Apart from the violence, though, many stirring words were written and spoken in response to Parliament's actions. Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania to the Inhabitants of the British Colonies, written by John Dickinson (1732–1808), were among the most eloquent early objections to British policies. Dickinson was a lawyer and a retired farmer. He studied law in both Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and London, England. Because of his legal training, he was one of the first to understand that measures like the Townshend Acts posed a danger to colonial liberty. He believed that it was wrong and illegal to impose taxes on people without their consent, given personally or through their representatives.

The Townshend Acts of 1767 appeared just as the colonists were recovering from their joy over the 1766 repeal of the Stamp Act of 1765 (taxes on printed matter, legal documents, dice, and playing cards). The Townshend Acts included (1) a Quartering Act, which ordered the colonies to provide living quarters and supplies such as candles and straw

for mattresses to British troops;(2) an act suspending the New York Assembly (its lawmaking body) for failing to obey earlier Quartering Acts; and (3) a Revenue Act, which called for taxes on lead, glass, paint, tea, and other items. (A revenue is money collected to pay for the expenses of government.)

The Townshend Acts prompted various reactions in the colonies. In the north, the acts were greeted with violence and fierce opposition. In the middle and southern colonies, there was a large group of people who did not like the Townshend Acts but were still loyal to King George III (1738–1820). These were the people whose opinions Dickinson was trying to change in his letters, which he addressed to "My Dear Countrymen."

For twelve weeks beginning on December 2, 1767, the Pennsylvania Chronicle and Universal Advertiser printed Dickinson's letters at the rate of one a week. Dickinson's letters explained the meaning and consequences of different aspects of the Townshend Acts. For example, letters five and six explained how to tell the difference between proper laws and improper laws. If Parliament's laws were designed to raise revenue, then the laws were not acceptable. If Parliament meant to regulate trade, such laws were acceptable.

Dickinson's first letter, which follows, began by describing some of his personal qualities. He said he was a retired farmer and an educated gentleman. He said he was interested in promoting the cause of liberty, and he believed that all men had to work to defeat threats to their liberty— threats like the Townshend Acts.

Things to remember while reading an excerpt from the first of the Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania to the Inhabitants of the British Colonies:

Dickinson had spent four years studying law in England, and he knew well what the rights of English citizens were. In the following letter and in his eleven other letters, Dickinson pointed out that with the Townshend Acts, Parliament was trampling upon the rights of English citizens in the colonies.
In his first letter, Dickinson referred several times to the Assembly of New York, the colony's lawmaking body. Dickinson was responding to the Townshend Act that punished New York because that colony had failed to obey the Quartering Acts of 1764 and 1766. The Quartering Acts required colonial authorities to provide living quarters and supplies to British soldiers in America. New Yorkers had complained that the burden of the Quartering Acts fell most heavily on them, because British general Thomas Gage (1721–1787) had his headquarters—and a large number of soldiers—in New York City. When Gage asked the New York Assembly to pay for supplies for his soldiers, the assembly refused. The assembly was punished by having its power to make laws suspended. Dickinson argued that if the other colonies did nothing in response to the suspension of the assembly's power, members of Parliament might pass other awful measures when it suited them.

Excerpt from the first of the Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania to the Inhabitants of the British Colonies

I am a Farmer, settled after a variety of fortunes, near the banks, of the river Delaware, in the province of Pennsylvania. I received a liberal education, and have been engaged in the busy scenes of life: But am now convinced, that a man may be as happy without bustle, aswith it. My farm is small, my servants are few, and good; I have a little money at [earning] interest; I wish for no more: my employment in my own affairs is easy; and with a contented grateful mind, I am compleating the number of days allotted to me by divine goodness.

Being master of my time, I spend a good deal of it in a library, which I think the most valuable part of my small estate; and being acquainted with two or three gentlemen of abilities and learning, who honour me with their friendship, I believe I have acquired a greater share of knowledge in history, and the laws and constitution of my country, than is generally attained by men of my class, many of them not being so fortunate as I have been in the opportunities of getting information.

From infancy I was taught to love humanity and liberty. Inquiry and experience have since confirmed my reverence for the lessons then given me, by convincing me more fully of their truth and excellence. Benevolence towards mankind excites wishes for their welfare, and such wishes endear the means of fulfilling them. Those can be found in liberty alone, and therefore her sacred cause ought to be espoused by every man, on every occasion, to the utmost of his power: as a charitable but poor person does not withhold his mite, because he cannot relieve all the distresses of the miserable, so let not any honest man suppress his sentiments concerning freedom, however small their influence is likely to be. Perhaps he may "touch some wheel" that may have an effect greater than he expects.

These being my sentiments, I am encouraged to offer to you, my countrymen, my thoughts on some late transactions, that in my opinion are of the utmost importance to you. Conscious of my defects, I have waited some time, in expectation of feeling the subject treated by persons much better qualified for the task; but being therein disappointed, and apprehensive that longer delays will be injurious, I venture at length to request the attention of the public, praying only for one thing,—that is that these lines may be read with the same zeal for the happiness of British America, with which they were wrote.

With a good deal of surprise I have observed, that little notice has been taken of an act of parliament, as injurious in its principle to the liberties of these colonies, as the STAMP-ACT was: I mean the act for suspending the legislation of New-York.

The assembly of that government complied with a former act of parliament, requiring certain provisions to be made for the troops in America, in every particular, I think, except the articles of salt, pepper,and vinegar. In my opinion they acted imprudently, considering all circumstances, in not complying so far, as would have given satisfaction, as several colonies did: but my dislike of their conduct in that instance, has not blinded me so much, that I cannot plainly perceive, that they have been punished in a manner pernicious to American freedom, and justly alarming to all the colonies.

If the BRITISH PARLIAMENT has a legal authority to order, that we shall furnish a single article for the troops here, and to compel obedience to that order; they have the same right to order us to supply those troops with arms, cloaths, and every necessary, and to compel obedience to that order also; in short, to lay any burdens they please upon us. What is this but taxing us at a certain sum, and leaving to us only the manner of raising it? How is this mode more tolerable than the STAMP ACT? Would that act have appeared more pleasing to AMERICANS, if being ordered thereby to raise the sum total of the taxes, the mighty privilege had been left to them, of saying how much should be paid for an instrument of writing on paper, and how much for another on parchment ?

[Next came a complicated paragraph, which stated that an act of Parliament commanding the colonies to house, clothe, and feed British soldiers was really a tax. Some colonies complied with the act simply to show their respect for Great Britain; but by complying, they were not saying it was legal to tax them.]

The matter being thus stated, the assembly of New-York either had, or had not a right to refuse submission to that act. If they had, and I imagine no AMERICAN will say, they had not, then the parliament had no right to compel them to execute it.—If they had not that right, they had no right to punish them for not executing it; and therefore had no right to suspend their legislation, which is a punishment. In fact, if the people of New-York cannot be legally taxed but by their own representatives, they cannot be legally deprived of the privileges of making laws, only for insisting on that exclusive privilege of taxation. If they may be legally deprived in such a case of the privilege of making laws, why may they not, with equal reason, be deprived of every other privilege? Or why may not every colony be treated in the same manner, when any of them shall dare to deny their assent to any impositions that shall be directed? Or what signifies the repeal of the STAMP-ACT, if these colonies are to lose their other privileges, by not tamely surrendering that of taxation?

There is one consideration arising from this suspicion, which is not generally attended to, but shews its importance very clearly. It wasnot necessary that this suspension should be caused by an act of parliament. The crown might have refrained from calling the assembly together, by its prerogative in the royal governments. This step, I suppose, would have been taken, if the conduct of the assembly of New-York, had been regarded as an act of disobedience to the crown alone: but it is regarded as an act of "disobedience to 'the authority of the BRITISH LEGISLATURE.'" This gives the suspension a consequence vastly more affecting. It is a parliamentary assertion of the supreme authority of the British legislature over these colonies in the part of taxation; and is intended to COMPEL New-York into a submission to that authority. It seems therefore to me as much a violation of the liberty of the people of that province, and consequently of all these colonies, as if the parliament had sent a number of regiments to be quartered upon them till they should comply. For it is evident, that the suspension is meant as a compulsion: and the method of compelling is totally indifferent. It is indeed probable, that the sight of red coats, and the beating of drums would have been most alarming, because people are generally more influenced by their eyes and ears than by their reason: But whoever seriously considers the matter, must perceive, that a dreadful stroke is aimed at the liberty of these colonies: For the cause of one is the cause of all. If the parliament may lawfully deprive New-York of any of its rights, it may deprive any, or all the other colonies of their rights; and nothing can possibly so much encourage such attempts, as a mutual inattention to the interest of each other. To divide, and thus to destroy, is the first political maxim in attacking those who are powerful by their union. He certainly is not a wise man, who folds his arms and reposeth himself at home, seeing with unconcern the flames that have invaded his neighbour's house, without any endeavours to extinguish them. When Mr. Hampden's ship-money cause, for three shillings and four-pence, was tried, all the people of England, with anxious expectation, interested themselves in the important decision; and when the slightest point touching the freedom of a single colony is agitated, I earnestly wish, that all the rest may with equal ardour support their sister. Very much may be said on this subject, but I hope, more at present is unnecessary.

With concern I have observed that two assemblies of this province have sat and adjourned, without taking any notice of this act. It may perhaps be asked, what would have been proper for them to do? I am by no means fond of inflammatory measures. I detest them.—I should be sorry that any thing should be done which might justly dis-please our sovereign or our mother-country. But a firm, modest exertion of a free spirit, should never be wanting on public occasions. Itappears to me, that it would have been sufficient for the assembly, to have ordered our agents to represent to the King's ministers, their sense of the suspending act, and to pray for its repeal. Thus we should have borne our testimony against it; and might therefore reasonably expect that on a like occasion, we might receive the same assistance from the other colonies.

"Concordia res parvae crescunt. " Small things grow great by concord. —

A FARMER. (Dickinson, Letters, pp. 5–12)

What happened next …

Dickinson's letters were so popular in Pennsylvania that nearly every other colonial newspaper reprinted them. At town and assembly meetings everywhere, resolutions were passed thanking Dickinson for expressing so well the British threat to liberty. The letters were then printed in book form. American politician Benjamin Franklin (1706–1790) liked them so well that he wrote a preface to the London edition of the book and then arranged to have it translated into French for publication in Europe.

The letters helped unite Americans in resistance, and they had international influence, too. In London, members of Parliament angrily discussed them. Ordinary citizens, who up until then had heard little of the situation in America, now grew alarmed that their own liberties might be taken from them as well. Letters from citizens began to be published in English newspapers, and Dickinson's name became well known throughout the kingdom as the leader of political thought in the American colonies.

Did you know …

John Dickinson was a Quaker, a member of the Society of Friends, who oppose violence. Dickinson strongly objected to British attempts to tax the colonies, but he meant to plead his case like a lawyer, in the hopes that Great Britain and America could reach an understanding.
Dickinson's letters were published in London Magazine in 1768. The magazine expressed the opinion that Dickinson's reasoning was sound and that "nine persons in ten, even in this country, are friends to the Americans, and convinced that they have right on their side." The magazine's editors did not speak for King George or his friends in Parliament, however. The king and Parliament continued to assert Parliament's right to tax the colonies.
Dickinson had earlier gained some fame when he wrote a pamphlet opposing the Stamp Act of 1765. In it, he pointed out that if the colonists spent all their money paying taxes to Great Britain, there would be none left to buy British goods. He warned that if the British continued to tax the Americans, the colonists would have to manufacture their own goods and would become completely independent from Great Britain. It would not be long before his prediction came true.
Dickinson believed strongly in education. In 1773, he founded Dickinson College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, because he thought western Pennsylvania needed a college. He gave the school fifteen hundred books and two farms totaling five hundred acres.