250 Years Ago, Part 2: The First Continental Congress and the Suffolk Resolves

Colonial America’s trek to freedom was paved with disagreements, but, at the end, the Laws of Nature prevailed on the road to the Revolutionary War.

A portrait of Dr. Joseph Warren from the Boston Monthly Magazine, 1826. He was the author of the Suffolk Resolves. Public Domain

As discussed in Part 1 of this series, harrowing stories from Boston of mass destruction and casualties inflicted by British artillery units continued pouring into Philadelphia. Capturing the tension in Carpenters’ Hall, Silas Dean wrote to his wife, “An express from N. York confirming the acct. of a rupture at Boston. All is in confusion. I cannot say that all faces gather paleness, but they all gather indignation, and every tongue pronounces revenge.”

On Monday, Sept. 5, efforts to open the First Continental Congress with a Christian prayer faltered due to the doctrinal disputes that existed since the Reformation. By late Tuesday, however, news of the British assault on a sister colony united the delegates, prompting them to set aside their petty differences. They agreed to have Rev. Jacob Duché, the Anglican minister of Philadelphia’s Christ Church, deliver the opening prayer on Wednesday morning.

Duché began his sermon with a reading from Psalm 35: “Plead my cause, O Lord, with them that strive against me. Fight against them that fight against me.” The sermon left a profound impression, leading to Duché’s appointment as the official Chaplain to the Continental Congress.

The truth eventually surfaced that reports of widespread death and destruction were false. Nevertheless, this revelation did little to calm delegates’ fears. They warned that the conditions underlying the Powder Alarm—Gen. Thomas Gage’s authoritarian rule, suppression of rights, confiscation of arms, quartering of soldiers, and the military blockade of Boston—remained unchanged.

As a result, moderate delegates began aligning with radical hardliners, tipping the balance of power toward a more confrontational stance. This shift troubled Joseph Galloway and his conservative allies, who wished to avoid a permanent rupture with Britain because of Massachusetts Bay’s defiance.

Keep Your Enemies Closer

While the delegates agreed that their rights had been violated, conservative members sought to avoid a hostile confrontation with Parliament. Their participation in Congress was to resolve the crisis through conciliatory measures, relying on reason and persuasion, and to prevent the passage of radical measures that could further deteriorate relations with Britain. Delegate James Duane articulated their stance, “A firm union between the Parent State and her colonies ought to be the great object of this Congress.”

To promote reconciliation, conservatives believed that affirming obedience to the Crown could persuade Parliament to repeal the Intolerable Acts. They also hoped that a direct appeal to King George III would win his sympathies and prompt him to intercede on their behalf.

This is a photograph of an embossed copy of the "1774 Address to the King," currently on display in the Franklin Collection at the United States Library of Congress. Public Domain

Most Americans were convinced that King George had been misled by his advisors and was unaware of their struggles. Unfortunately, they were oblivious to his active involvement in and full support for the Intolerable Acts. Credit for this deception belonged to the king’s ministers, who shielded him by crafting the false narrative of a benevolent monarch uninvolved in colonial affairs.

Colonial Self-Governance and Parliamentary Supremacy

The American colonies functioned as self-governed entities, each with its own government, culture, and, often, an established church. With no representation in Parliament, legal authority rested with their colonial assemblies, where participation and consent were central. As Founding Father Roger Sherman remarked, “There is no other Legislation over the Colonies but their respective Assemblies.” Similar sentiments from groups like the Sons of Liberty reminded London that laws imposed without input and consent would simply be ignored.

Parliament, however, asserted its supremacy over colonial assemblies, claiming authority over all subjects across the empire. This led to a series of contentious measures, including the Stamp Act, Townshend Acts, and Tea Act. Instead of compliance, the colonies responded with protests, smuggling, boycotts—followed by threats, riots, and the destruction of taxed goods.

Printed copy of the Stamp Act of 1765. Public Domain

What made the Intolerable Acts distinct was its enforcement by Britain’s military. Coupled with Parliament’s continued claim of supremacy, many of the delegates realized that purely legal arguments would be futile. They turned instead to the broader principles of the “Laws of Nature,” asserting that rights are both inalienable and innate, God-given, and precede government.

The Laws of Nature

Advocates of the Laws of Nature argued that early European settlers in North America, living in a primitive state, had relied on natural law to govern property and self-defense. In the absence of government, they formed charters and agreements like the Mayflower Compact. Rhode Island delegate Samuel Ward proclaimed that rights derived from “the laws of Nature, the principles of the English constitution, and charters and compacts.” Similarly, Richard Henry Lee of Virginia cited “immemorial usage,” adding, “Our ancestors found here no government.”

Conservatives, however, rejected this rationale. Edward Rutledge argued, “Our claims, I think, are well founded on the British Constitution, and not on the law of nature.” Galloway concurred, “I have looked for our Rights in the Laws of Nature but could not find them in a State of Nature, but always in a State of political Society. I have looked for them in the Constitution of the English government, and there found them. We may draw from this Sourse securely.”

Despite their philosophical differences, the delegates engaged in thoughtful debate, discussing topics like common law, constitutional rights, and the roles Parliament and colonial legislatures had in governing. Their collaborative effort culminated in the “Declaration of Rights,” aimed at restoring constitutional liberties.

What made such cooperation possible was their shared esteem for the great influential thinkers of Western Civilization. According to Joe Wolverton’s “The Founders Recipe,” these classically educated delegates invoked John Locke, Edward Coke, Algernon Sidney, Montesquieu, and many others on subjects such as good government, natural rights, individual liberties, and power derived from the consent of the governed.

Four American contemporaries also had a great influence on these delegates. Unfortunately, one of them, Rev. Jonathan Mayhew, had recently died, and another, James Otis Jr, had become incapacitated due a brutal attack against him by customs commissioners in Boston. But other two influencers—John Dickinson and Dr. Joseph Warren—were still active and were poised to make a profound impact on the Congress.

John Dickinson and Dr. Joseph Warren

John Dickinson, a political adversary of Joseph Galloway, rose to fame for his “Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania,” a series of essays opposing the Townshend Acts. Before Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense,” Dickinson’s writings had the greatest influence on colonial resistance.

Ironically, he was not a delegate to the Continental Congress during its opening weeks. As speaker of Pennsylvania’s House, Galloway restricted the colony’s congressional delegation to assembly members only. Because Dickinson was not an assemblyman at the time, he was ruled ineligible for participation. However, his election to the assembly in early October qualified him to join the delegation, much to Galloway’s disappointment.

Title page from John Dickinson's "Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania." Public Domain

Prior to Dickinson’s election, Paul Revere arrived in Philadelphia on Sept. 16 with Dr. Joseph Warren’s “Suffolk Resolves.” Written in response to the Powder Alarm, the Suffolk Resolves outlined a strategy of resistance that included non-compliance to British authority, creation of a competing provincial congress, a boycott of all British goods, a reorganization of militias, and the withholding of tax payments “untill the Civil Government of the Province is placed upon a constitutional Foundation, or untill it shall otherwise be ordered by the proposed Provincial Congress.”

Although conservatives viewed the Resolves as tantamount to a declaration of war, Congress endorsed them on Sept. 17. Ironically, the first resolve reaffirmed loyalty to the king, stating that they “cheerfully acknowledge the said George the Third to be our rightful sovereign, and that said covenant is the tenure and claim on which are founded our allegiance and submission.”

Galloway countered with his own proposal, “A Plan of a Proposed Union Between Great Britain and the Colonies.” Drawing from the “Albany Plan” of 1754, which his mentor Benjamin Franklin had devised, Galloway’s plan called for a president-general appointed by the king and a Grand Council elected by colonial legislatures. It sought to unite Britain and the colonies while respecting their distinct interests.

Duane, Rutledge, and John Jay supported the proposal, but Richard Henry Lee objected to colonial assemblies surrendering their authority to a central American government “that may be bribed by the Nation which avows in the Face of the World, that Bribery is a Part of her System of Government.”

Despite Galloway’s insistence on the necessity of a supreme legislature, and that an “American legislature should be set up, or else that We should give the Power to Parliament or King,” his resolution was narrowly defeated by a 5–6 vote. This outcome was due in part to Rhode Island’s evenly split delegation. After the resolution’s defeat, it had become clear that the radicals would dominate the agenda moving forward, deepening the anxiety for Galloway and Duane.

Parliament and Congress on a Collision Course

As each congressional committee wrapped up its work before the adjournment on Oct. 26, the majority’s growing defiance toward London became evident. Meanwhile, British authorities were bracing for hostilities. Additional regiments of British soldiers and Marines arrived in Boston, and Parliament pursued further punitive measures, including gun control, to arrest the colonial disobedience spreading like wildfire across the continent.

In the months that followed, both sides stiffened their resolve in response to the other’s actions, further escalating tensions and inching closer to war.

The First Continental Congress was held at Carpenter's Hall in Philadelphia in 1774. This is the inside of Carpenter's Hall today. Courtesy of Alan Wakim

What arts and culture topics would you like us to cover? Please email ideas or feedback to [email protected]