The Freeman 1972 - The Ludwig von Mises Institute

1972 PRELUDE TO INDEPENDENCE 233tend to their grievances. Indeed,George III had been ruling for sixteenyears before independencewas declared, specific grievanceshad .gone unresolved.for thirteenyears, and British troops were encampedagainst American forcesfor more than a year. Colonistsdid sometimes rush· to resist particularmeasures, but they movedvery slowly in conceiving of changingtheir relationship to Britain.Nor can it be maintained thatthe colonists moved slowly ingrasping the nettle of independencein order simply to manipulatethe British into taking aggressivemeasures which would determinethe outcome of the question.The provocation came increasinglywithout the aid of colonial inducement.Probably, most Americansdid not want independencethroughout the years of resistance.What is even more certain is thatmany Americans did not want thequarrel to eventuate in· independenceand that others who did beginto think of separation wereloathe to alienate this goodly numberso .long as it could be avoided.So far.as we can tell, virtually allAmericans opposed various of theBritish measures, with the obviousexception of Crown officiaJs. Thisnear unanimity was sundered bythe question of independence. Theslowness of the movement for independenceto surface can be attributedto the desire to avoid internaldivisions as well as, perhaps,the calculation of leaders notto outrun their followers.The colonists, in any event, didnot move· SWiftly toward decidingfor independence; and on the positiveside, they employed deliberativebodies when and where theycould to make the decisions. Ofcourse, these deliberative bodieswere frequently not legal, but theywere the nearest thing to it thatthe colonists had available. From1774 into 1776 the colonists werefrequently denied their legal legislativeassemblies; and when thesecould not meet, other bodies resemblingthem were assembled.The First Continental CongressThe main focus of the CoerciveActs was on Boston and Massachusetts.The Boston·Port Act whichclosed the port of Boston until thetea was paid for might conceivablyhave separated Boston from therest of Massachusetts, at least fora time. But when other acts followedto alter the government ofall of Massachusetts, this potentialeffect was nullified by Parliamentitself. There was a greater probabilitythat Massachusetts wouldbe isolated from the other coloniesand that the British might succeedin a policy of divide and conquer.But the colonial leaders were intenton preventing any such policy