Committee of correspondence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see Committee of correspondence (disambiguation).
The committees of correspondence were shadow governments organized by the Patriot leaders of the Thirteen Colonies on the eve of the American Revolution. They coordinated responses to Britain and shared their plans; by 1773 they had emerged as shadow governments, superseding the colonial legislature and royal officials. The Maryland Committee of Correspondence was instrumental in setting up the First Continental Congress, which met in Philadelphia, PA. These served an important role in the Revolution, by disseminating the colonial interpretation of British actions between the colonies and to foreign governments. The committees of correspondence rallied opposition on common causes and established plans for collective action, and so the group of committees was the beginning of what later became a formal political union among the colonies.
A total of about 7,000 to 8,000 Patriots served on these committees at the colonial and local levels, comprising most of the leadership in their communities—the Loyalists were excluded. The committees became the leaders of the American resistance to British actions, and largely determined the war effort at the state and local level. When Congress decided to boycott British products, the colonial and local Committees took charge, examining merchant records and publishing the names of merchants who attempted to defy the boycott by importing British goods.
The Committees promoted patriotism and home manufacturing, advising Americans to avoid luxuries, and lead a more simple life. The Committees gradually extended their power over many aspects of American public life. They set up espionage networks to identify disloyal elements, displaced the royal officials, and helped topple the entire Imperial system in each colony. In late 1774 and early 1775, they supervised the elections of provincial conventions, which took over the actual operation of colonial government.[1]
Contents [hide]
1 Function
2 History
2.1 Massachusetts
2.2 Virginia
2.3 Pennsylvania
2.4 Delaware
2.5 North Carolina
2.6 Other colonies
3 See also
4 Footnotes
5 References
5.1 Primary sources
6 Further reading
Function[edit]
A major function of the Committees in each colony was to inform the voters of the common threat faced by all the colonies, and to disseminate information from the main cities to the rural hinterlands where most of the colonists lived. As news was typically spread in hand-written letters or printed pamphlets to be carried by couriers on horseback or aboard ships, the committees were responsible for ensuring that this news accurately reflected the views of their parent governmental body on a particular issue and was dispatched to the proper groups. Many correspondents were also members of the colonial legislative assemblies, and were active in the secret Sons of Liberty or even the Stamp Act Congress of the 1760s.[2]
History[edit]
The earliest Committees of Correspondence were formed temporarily to address a particular problem. Once a resolution was achieved, they were disbanded. The first formal committee was established in Boston in 1764 to rally opposition to the Currency Act and unpopular reforms imposed on the customs service.[3]
During the Stamp Act Crisis the following year, New York formed a committee to urge common resistance among its neighbors to the new taxes. The Province of Massachusetts Baycorrespondents responded by urging other colonies to send delegates to the Stamp Act Congress that fall. The resulting committees disbanded after the crisis was over.
Boston, whose radical leaders thought it was under increasingly hostile threats by the royal government, set up the first long-standing committee with the approval of a town meeting in late 1772. By spring 1773, Patriots decided to follow the Massachusetts system and began to set up their own committees in each colony. Virginia appointed an 11 member committee in March, quickly followed by Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. By February 1774, 11 colonies had set up their own committees; of the 13 colonies that eventually rebelled, only North Carolina and Pennsylvania had not.
Massachusetts[edit]
In Massachusetts, in November 1772, Samuel Adams and Dr. Joseph Warren formed a committee in response to the Gaspée Affair and in relation to the recent British decision to have the salaries of the royal governor and judges be paid by the Crown rather than the colonial assembly, which removed the colony of its means of controlling public officials. In the following months, more than 100 other committees were formed in the towns and villages of Massachusetts. The Massachusetts committee had its headquarters in Boston and under the leadership of Adams became a model for other radical groups. The meeting when establishing the committee gave it the task of stating "the rights of the colonists, and of this province in particular, as men, as Christians, and as subjects; to communicate and publish the same to the several towns in this province and to the world as the sense of this town."[4]
Virginia[edit]
In March 1773, Dabney Carr proposed the formation of a permanent Committee of Correspondence before the Virginia House of Burgesses. Virginia's own committee was formed on March 12, 1773. Its members were Peyton Randolph, Robert Carter Nicholas, Richard Bland, Richard Henry Lee, Benjamin Harrison, Edmund Pendleton, Patrick Henry, Dudley Digges, Dabney Carr, Archibald Cary, and Thomas Jefferson.[5]
Pennsylvania[edit]
Among the last to form a committee of correspondence, Pennsylvania did so at a meeting in Philadelphia on May 20, 1774. In a compromise between the more radical and more conservative factions of political activists the committee was formed by combining the lists each proposed. That committee of 19 diversified and grew to 43, then to 66 and finally to two different groups of 100 between May 1774 and its dissolution in September 1776. One hundred sixty men participated in one or more of the committees, but only four were regularly elected to all of them: Thomas Barclay, John Cox, Jr., John Dickinson, and Joseph Reed.[6]
Delaware[edit]
According to Hancock (1973), a committee of correspondence was established by Thomas McKean after 10 years of agitation centered in New Castle County. In neighboring Kent CountyCaesar Rodney set up a second committee, followed by Sussex County. Following the recommendation of Congress in 1774, the Committees were replaced by elected "Committees of Inspection" with a subcommittee of Correspondence. The new committees specialize in intelligence work, especially the identification of men opposed to the Patriot cause. The Committees were in the lead in demanding independence. The Correspondence committees exchanged information with others in Boston and Philadelphia, and elsewhere. Their leadership often was drawn upon to provide Delaware with executive leaders. The Committees of Inspection used publicity as weapons to suppress disaffection and encourage patriotism. With imports from Britain cut off, the Committees sought to make America self-sufficient, so they encouraged the raising of flax and sheep for wool. The Committees helped organize local militia in the hundreds and later in the counties and all of Delaware. With their encouragement, the Delaware Assembly elected delegates to Congress favorable to independence.[7]
North Carolina[edit]
By 1773, the political situation had deteriorated. There was concern about the courts. Massachusetts' young and ardent Boston patriot, Josiah Quincy, Jr.[8] visited North Carolina staying 5 days. He spent the night of March 26, 1773 at Cornelius Harnett's home near Wilmington, North Carolina. The two discussed and drew up plans for a Committee of Correspondence. The Committee's purpose: communicate circumstances and revolutionary sentiment among the colonies. It was after this meeting that Quincy dubbed Harnett the "Samuel Adams of North Carolina."[9][10]
Perhaps characteristic of Committees of Correspondence members, Harnett was celebrated, distinguished, scholarly and possessed of unflinching integrity.[8] Harnett's father (also named Cornelius Harnett) was Sheriff of Albemarle, an area covering about 11 modern counties in northeastern North Carolina.[9][11]
The Correspondence Committee formed the next year at Wilmington. Although Harnett was absent, he was made chairman of the committee.[12]
Other colonies[edit]
By July 1773 and Rhode Island,and Connecticut, and New Hampshire, and South Carolina had also formed committees.
With Pennsylvania's action in May 1774 all of the colonies that eventually rebelled had such committees.[13]
The colonial committees successfully organized common resistance to the Tea Act and even recruited physicians who wrote drinking tea would make Americans "weak, effeminate, andvaletudinarian for life."
These permanent committees performed the important planning necessary for the First Continental Congress, which convened in September 1774. The Second Congress created its own committee of correspondence to communicate the American interpretation of events to foreign nations.
On December 17, 1774 John Lamb and others in New York City formed the last New York committee. This committee included Isaac Sears, Alexander McDougall, and others.
These committees were replaced during the revolution with Provincial Congresses.
By 1780, committees of correspondence had also been formed in Great Britain and Ireland.[14]
See also[edit]
Committee of Safety (American Revolution)
Committee of Sixty
Footnotes[edit]
Jump up^ Norton & Blight (2001), pp. 144–145.
Jump up^ Albert Bushnell Hart (1897). Formation of the Union. p. 49.
Jump up^ Richard D. Brown, Revolutionary Politics in Massachusetts: The Boston Committee of Correspondence and the Towns, 1772-1774 (1976) ch 1
Jump up^ Smith (1976), p. 368.
Jump up^ Van Schreeven & Schribner (1976)
Jump up^ Ryerson (1978), pp. 39–42, 49–52, 94–100, 128–131, 156–159, 275–281.
Jump up^ Hancock (1973)
^ Jump up to:a b Lossing (1855), p. 83.
^ Jump up to:a b Wells (1865), p. 421.
Jump up^ Maier (1978), pp. 6–7.
Jump up^ Ripley (1859)
Jump up^ Daniels (1986), p. 5.
Jump up^ Ketchum (2002), p. 245.
Jump up^ Puls (2006), p. 206.
References[edit]
Brown, Richard D. Revolutionary Politics in Massachusetts: The Boston Committee of Correspondence and the Towns, 1772-1774 (1976)
Hancock, Harold B. (1973). "County committees and the growth of independence in the three lower counties on the Delaware, 1765–1776". Delaware History 15 (4): 269–294.
Ketchum, Richard M. (2002). Divided Loyalties, How the American Revolution came to New York. Henry Holt and Co. ISBN 978-0-8050-6120-8.
Lossing, Benson John (1855). Our Countrymen: or, Brief Memoirs of Eminent Americans. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Granbo & Co.
Maier, Pauline (1978). "Early revolutionary leaders in the South and the problem of Southern distinctiveness". In Jeffrey J. Crow & Larry Tise. The Southern Experience in the American Revolution. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 978-0-8078-1313-3.
Norton, Mary Beth; Blight, David W. (2001). A People and a Nation 1 (6th ed.). Houghton Mifflin.ISBN 978-0-618-21469-3.
Puls, Mark (2006). Samuel Adams, father of the American Revolution. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-1-4039-7582-9.
Ryerson, Richard A. (1978). The Revolution is Now Begun: the Radical Committees of Philadelphia, 1765–1776. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 978-0-8122-7734-0.
Smith, Page (1976). A New Age Now Begins. McGraw-Hill. ISBN 978-0-07-059097-7.
Van Schreeven, William J.; Schribner, Robert L., eds. (1976). The Committees and the Second Convention, 1773–1775: a Documentary Record. Revolutionary Virginia: The Road to Independence2. University of Virginia Press. ISBN 978-0-8139-0601-0.
Primary sources[edit]
Revolutionary Virginia: The Road to Independence. Vol. 2, The Committees and the Second Convention, 1773-1775: A Documentary Record edited by William J. Van Schreeven, and Robert L. Schribner, (1974)