and trade, and the latter were found to be
‘the more slavish thing of the two,’ and ‘the more inconsistent with civil liberty.’
The protesting Lords had affirmed, that if the provinces might refuse obedience to one statute, they might to all,—that there was no abiding place between unconditional universal submission and independence.
Alarmed that such an alternative should be forced upon them, the colonists, still professing loyalty to a common sovereign, drew nearer and nearer to a total denial of the power of the British Legislature
‘I will freely spend nineteen shillings in the pound,’ said Franklin
, ‘to defend my right of giving or refusing the other shilling; and, after all, if I cannot defend that right, I can retire cheerfully with my little family into the boundless woods of America
, which are sure to afford freedom and subsistence to any man who can bait a hook or pull a trigger.’1
,’ said the press of Virginia
‘are hasty in expressing their gratitude, if the repeal of the Stamp Act is not at least a tacit compact that Great Britain
will never again tax us;’ and it advised ‘the different Assemblies, without mentioning the proceedings of Parliament, to enter upon their journals as strong declarations of their own rights as words could express.’3
To the anxious colonies, Boston
proposed union as the means of security.
While within its own borders it sought ‘the total abolishing of slavery,’ and encouraged learning, as the support of the constitution