How a Royal Statue Represented the Colonists’ Changing Views

In ‘This Week in History,’ Britain’s Parliamentary acts elevate a Pennsylvania farmer to prominence, resulting in a last attempt to reconcile with the king.

"Pulling Down the Statue of King George III, N.Y.C.," circa 1854, by William Walcutt. Public Domain

The French and Indian War of 1754 to 1763 had hardly ended before another war began on the American continent. In a fight over their geographic sovereignty, native tribes—including the Choctaw, Delaware, Ottawa, Seneca, and Shawnee—allied together against the British. This war, which began in 1763, was known as Pontiac’s Rebellion, named after the Ottawa war chief. The war began in the Great Lakes and Ohio River Valley and extended as far west as the Illinois territory and as far east as western Virginia, continuing for two years and ending in a stalemate.

A 19th-century engraving by Alfred Bobbett. In a famous council on April 27, 1763, Pontiac urged listeners rise up against the British. Public Domain

Just as with the French and Indian War, the American colonists assisted the British in the fight against the Indians. The colonists deemed such contributions as only proper since they viewed themselves as the king’s subjects on par with a Londoner. Not only were the colonists proud of their British station in life, but they were appreciative of the king’s efforts to protect their life and property.

Shortly after the end of Pontiac’s Rebellion, on June 23, 1766, the New York State Assembly chose to exhibit their appreciation to King George III by commissioning an equestrian statue of his highness to be erected in Manhattan’s Bowling Green. The statue was a symbol of gratitude not only for the king’s protection “from the fury of a cruel, merciless, and savage Enemy” but also for “the Repeal of the Stamp Act.”

The Conflict Begins

The mention of the Stamp Act, even within the context of a memorial to the king, proved that not all was going well in the colonies. The presence of British troops may have been a source of security, but it also came with a heavy price tag. The French and Indian War, known in Britain and globally as the Seven Years’ War, had plunged the empire into the staggering debt of approximately 140 million pounds.

George Grenville served as British prime minister from 1763 to 1765. Public Domain

The British Parliament, led by George Grenville, believed that levying taxes on the wealthy colonists seemed a certain method to help alleviate the burden. The Sugar Act of 1764, however, created an uproar among the colonists specifically for being taxed without having any representation in Parliament.

The colonists perceived a state of slavery in the offing. During a town meeting in Boston, on May 15, 1764, a month after the Sugar Act was passed, the question was posed to the Massachusetts General Court: “If Taxes are laid upon us in any shape without ever having a Legal Representative where they are laid, are we not reduced from the Character of Free Subjects to the miserable state of tributary Slaves?”

Parliamentarians were appalled at the colonists’ refusal to pay the tax, leading British politician Charles Townshend to state during a session in February 1765,

“Now, will these Americans, children planted by our care, nourished by our indulgence until grown to a degree of strength and opulence, protected by our arms, will they grudge to contribute a mite to relieve us from the heavy weight of that burden which we lie under for their defense?”

Don’t Blame the King

A month later, the Stamp Act was passed. The colonists, however, believed that it was not the king who was running roughshod over their rights as British subjects, but Parliament and the king’s ministers. On Dec. 20, 1765, nine months after Parliament passed the Stamp Act, James Otis, a Massachusetts lawyer, stood before the council in Boston and claimed that a “wicked and unfeeling minister has caused a people, the most loyal and affectionate that ever king was blest with, to groan under the most insupportable oppression.”

The Stamp Act was repealed on March 18, 1766. To the colonists, the repeal must have been induced by the king. A statue in his honor was certainly in order.

Printed copy of the Stamp Act of 1765. Public Domain

It was not until March 21, 1770, that the statute was erected in Bowling Green. During those intervening four years, however, the colonists continued to resist Parliament’s bills

On the same day the Stamp Act was repealed, Parliament passed the Declaratory Act of 1766, which made colonies provide British soldiers with supplies and housing. Arguably the most egregious bill was the Declaratory Act of 1766, which made the most unsettling declaratory statement that Parliament, with the king’s assent, had “full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and people of America … in all cases whatsoever.”

Additionally, it claimed that any resistance to Parliamentary legislation via colonial “resolutions, votes, orders, and proceedings ... are hereby declared to be, utterly null and void to all in purposes whatsoever.” In 1767, Parliament passed a new tax on glass, lead, paint, paper, and tea called the Townshend Act.

Dickinson and Political Resistance

The Stamp Act led to the creation of the Stamp Act Congress in October 1765. Delegates from nine of the 13 colonies assembled to address their concerns. Among those delegates was John Dickinson. A gifted Pennsylvania writer, lawyer, and farmer, he penned the Congress’s “Declaration of Rights and Grievances.” The declaration was published and numerous copies were sent to London, where the issue was debated in Parliament, contributed to the Act’s repeal.

Dickinson picked up his pen again in response to the Townshend Act. His 12 essays, “Letters From a Farmer in Pennsylvania,” clearly articulated the ongoing political struggle and were published in nearly every colonial newspaper. They were also read in England, as well as France, where the renowned philosopher, Voltaire, compared Dickinson to the famous Roman statesman, Cicero.

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

“My dear countrymen, rouse yourselves, and behold the ruin hanging over your heads,” Dickinson wrote in one of his essays. “If you ONCE admit, that Great Britain may lay duties upon her exportations to us, for the purpose of levying money on us only, she then will have nothing to do, but to lay those duties on the articles which she prohibits us to manufacture—and the tragedy of American liberty is finished.”

A Spreading Problem

Dickinson’s essays further encouraged colonists to continue boycotting British goods. In 1768 in Massachusetts, political firebrand Samuel Adams, wrote the Massachusetts Circular Letter, attacking Parliament’s taxations. Francis Bernard, the royal governor of Massachusetts, dissolved the colonial legislature and requested British military support. Bernard’s actions only escalated tensions.

When British troops arrived in Boston, they were met by angry locals. Though there had been the threat of armed resistance, none resulted. The Sons of Liberty in Massachusetts, however, continued to foment outrage against the British government.

South of Massachusetts in Virginia, the House of Burgesses passed four resolutions on May 16, 1769, among which contended that only the Virginia Legislature could tax the colonists. The following day, the royal governor, Lord Botetourt, dissolved the Virginia House. The representatives, however, had already arranged for the resolutions to be published and sent “to the Speakers of the several Houses of Assembly, on this continent.”

Furthermore, on May 17, members of the Virginia House, led by George Washington and George Mason, gathered at Raleigh Tavern to establish a nonimportation resolution. It’s clear, however, that the members still embraced their station as British subjects and that their anger remained directed at Parliament and not the king, as the resolution notes they toasted “The King. The Queen and Royal Family … [and a] speedy and lasting Union between Great-Britain and her Colonies.”

Tea and Coercive Acts

By this time, the commissioned statue was nearing completion and would soon be shipped. With the colonists irate at Parliament but not at the monarchy, it received a warm welcome in New York City. On March 21, 1770, the larger-than-life equestrian statue was erected upon a 15-foot marble pedestal.

The erection of the statue took place 16 days after the Boston Massacre. The event witnessed the first fatalities of the struggle between the colonists and the British government. The dichotomy between the colonists’ loyalty to the king and their disdain for Parliament was palpable. For the next several years, however, the colonists remained in the dark, not only about King George III’s approval of these colonial bills, but his encouragement of them.

Parliament passed the Tea Act on May 10, 1773. The colonists throughout the colonies responded with Tea Parties, the most famous taking place in Boston on Dec. 16, 1773. Parliament responded to the Boston Tea Party by passing the Coercive Acts, known in the colonies as the Intolerable Acts. These three bills—the Boston Port Act, the Massachusetts Government Act, and the Administration of Justice Act—blockaded the Boston harbor, practically eliminated local government, and greatly hindered the right to a fair trial.

These acts, the first of which was passed March 31, 1774, and received royal assent on May 20, appeared to be the breaking point for the colonists. King George III, however, apparently believed Great Britain had already reached its breaking point when he wrote to Prime Minister Lord North in September that “the die is now cast, the colonies must now either submit or triumph.”

The Die Is Cast

The same month that the king made this statement, the colonial leaders from 12 of the 13 colonies made another statement when they met in Philadelphia to form the First Continental Congress. The Congress remained in session until Oct. 26, with plans to meet again.

Before the First Continental Congress began, John Dickinson wrote to American diplomat Arthur Lee, who was in London, about its plans. Concerning the Coercive Acts, he wrote, “The insanity of Parliament has operated like inspiration in America. … The Colonists now know what is designed against them. All classes of people are surprisingly united in sentiment. … If severities increase, events will inevitably take place which a man so connected with this Continent as you are, must view with inexpressible pain of mind.”

Severities indeed did increase. April of 1775 witnessed the beginning of open hostilities between colonial militias and British troops, resulting in the battles of Lexington and Concord and “the shot heard round the world.” The unstoppable force of Parliament and the king had encountered the immovable object in the American colonists.

One Last Attempt

Signature page of the Olive Branch Petition, with John Hancock's prominent signature at the top. Scan of original in the Library of Congress. Public Domain

The die had irrevocably been cast. Dickinson, however, held out hope that perhaps the king would force Parliament to reverse course. Such a reversal seemed impossible, but the Second Continental Congress agreed to form a committee for a last-ditch effort. Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, John Rutledge, and Thomas Jefferson were on the committee, but it was Dickinson who was the primary author of what became known as the Olive Branch Petition.

It was during this week in history, on July 8, 1775, that the members of the Second Continental Congress signed the petition, which made it clear that the colonists held Parliament solely responsible for the rift, noting,

“Your Majestys ministers persevering in their measures and proceeding to open hostilities for enforcing them, have compelled us to arm in our own defence, and have engaged us in a controversy so peculiarly abhorrent to the affections of your still faithful colonists.”

The affections were not mutual. On Aug. 23, King George III issued a proclamation stating that the colonists “have at length proceeded to an open and avowed Rebellion.”

It was now obvious the king and Parliament were in lockstep. A year after signing the Olive Branch Petition, the Second Continental Congress finally broached the subject of what had over the previous decade seemed an undesirable possibility: independence.

On July 4, 1776, Congress signed the Declaration of Independence. In the coming days, it would be read to the troops of the Continental Army and to the now-citizens of a new nation. When the citizens of New York City heard it read, they marched in a frenzy toward the equestrian statue of King George III. The one person the colonists had hoped would put right the entire conflict would now help them in their fight for independence. It was also during this week in history, on July 9, 1776, that the statue of the king was toppled, broken into pieces, melted down, and turned into more than 42,000 bullets to help the Americans defeat the British army.

A 1912 drawing reconstruction of the equestrian statue of King George III. Public Domain

Never miss a This Week in History story! Sign up for the American History newsletter here.

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