Congress' response to King George's rejecting the Olive Branch Petition

After King George refused to receive the united colonies' petition for peace, known as the Olive Branch Petition, the Americans were deeply angered. Their delegates in Congress sent this response to him, but it didn't change the king's mind either. They tried to avert the Revolutionary war, but because of the king's stubbornness, they were forced to make their Declaration of Independence less than a year later.

"We, the Delegates of the thirteen United Colonies in North America, have taken into our moフ テrious conナderation, a Proclamation iピued from the Court of St. James's on the Twenty-Third day of Auguフ laフ. The name of Majeフy is uテd to give it a ヂnction and influence; and, on that account, it becomes a matter of importance to wipe off, in the name of the people of theテ United Colonies, the aパerナons which it is calculated to throw upon our cauテ; and to prevent, as far as poピible, the undeテrved puniドments, which it is deナgned to prepare for our friends. We are accuテd of "forgetting the allegiance which we owe to the power that has protected and ブフained us. "Why all this ambiguity and obツurity in what ought to be バ plain and obvious, as that he who runs may read it? What allegiance is it that we forget? Allegiance to Parliament? We never owed --we never owned it. Allegiance to our King? Our words have ever avowed it, --our conduct has ever been conナフent with it. We condemn, and with arms in our hands, --a reバurce which Freemen will never part with, --we oppoテ the claim and exerciテ of unconフitutional powers, to which neither the Crown nor Parliament were ever entitled. By the Britiド Conフitution, our beフ inheritance, rights, as well as duties, deツend upon us: We cannot violate the latter by defending the former: We should act in diametrical oppoナtion to both, if we permitted the claims of the Britiド Parliament to be eフabliドed, and the meaブres purブed in conテquence of thoテ claims to be carried into execution among us. Our ヂgacious anceフors provided mounds againフ the inundation of tyranny and lawleピ power on one ナde, as well as againフ that of faction and licentiouハess on the other. On which ナde has the breach been made? Is it objected againフ us by the moフ inveterate and the moフ uncandid of our enemies, that we have oppoテd any of the juフ prerogatives of the Crown, or any legal exertion of thoテ prerogatives? Why then are we accuテd of forgetting our allegiance? We have performed our duty: We have reナフed in thoテ caテs, in which the right to reナフ is フipulated as expreピly on our part, as the right to govern is, in other caテs, フipulated on the part of the Crown. The breach of allegiance is removed from our reナフance as far as tyranny is removed from legal government. It is alledged, that "we have proceeded to an open and avowed rebellion." In what does this rebellion conナフ. It is thus deツribed --"Arraying ourテlves in hoフile manner, to withフand the execution of the law, and traiterouネy preparing, ordering, and levying war againフ the King." We know of no laws binding upon us, but ブch as have been tranノitted to us by our anceフors, and ブch as have been conテnted to by ourテlves, or our repreテntatives elected for that purpoテ. What laws, フamps with theテ characters, have we withフood? We have indeed defended them; and we will riヒue every thing, do every thing, and ブffer every thing in their defence. To ブpport our laws, and our liberties eフabliドed by our laws, we have prepared, ordered, and levied war: But is this traiterouネy, or againフ the King? We view him as the Conフitution repreテnts him. That tells us he can do no wrong. The cruel and illegal attacks, which we oppoテ, have no foundation in the royal authority. We will not, on our part, loテ the diフinction between the King and his Miniフers: happy would it have been for バme former Princes, had it been always preテrved on that part of the Crown. Beナdes all this, we obテrve, on this part of the proclamation, that "rebellion" is a term undefined and unknown in the law; it might have been expected that a proclamation, which by the Britiド conフitution has no other operation than merely that of enforcing what is already law, would have had a known legal baナs to have reフed upon. A correパondence between the inhabitants of Great Britain and their brethren in America, produced, in better times, much ヂtiデaction to individuals, and much advantage to the public. By what criterion ドall one, who is unwilling to break off this correパondence, and is, at the ヂme time, anxious not to expoテ himテlf to the dreadful conテquences threatened in this proclamation --by what criterion ドall he regulate his conduct? He is admoniドed not to carry on correパondence with the perバns now in rebellion in the colonies. How ドall he aツertain who are in rebellion, and who are not? He conブlts the law to learn the nature of the ブppoテd crime: the law is ナlent upon the ブbject. This, in a country where it has been often ヂid, and formerly with juフice, that the government is by law, and not by men, might render him perfectly eaペ. But proclamations have been バmetimes dangerous engines in the hands of thoテ in power; information is commanded to be given to one of the Secretaries of State, of all perバns "who ドall be found carrying on correパondence with the perバns in rebellion, in order to bring to condign puniドment the authors, perpetrators, or abettors, of ブch dangerous deナgns." Let us ブppoテ, for a moment, that バme perバns in the colonies are in rebellion, and that thoテ who carry on correパondence with them, might learn by バme rule, which Britons are bound to know, how to diツriminate them; Does it follow that all correパondence with them deテrves to be puniドed? It might have been intended to apprize them of their danger, and to reclaim them from their crimes. By what law does a correパondence with a criminal tranデer or communicate his guilt? We know that thoテ who aid and adhere to the King's enemies, and thoテ who correパond with them in order to enable them to carry their deナgns into effect, are crimina1 in the eye of the law. But the law goes no farther. Can proclamations, according to the principles of reaバn and juフice, and the conフitution, go farther than the law? But, perhaps the principles of reaバn and juフice, and the conフitution will not prevail: Experience ブggeフs to us the doubt: If they ドould not, we muフ reバrt to arguments drawn from a very different バurce. We, therefore, in the name of the people of theテ United Colonies, and by authority, according to the pureフ maxims of repreテntation, derived from them, declare, that whatever puniドment ドall be inflicted upon any perバns in the power of our enemies for favouring, aiding, or abetting the cauテ of American liberty, ドall be retaliated in the ヂme kind, and the ヂme degree upon thoテ in our power, who have favoured, aided, or abetted, or ドall favour, aid, or abet the ペフem of miniフerial oppreピion. The eピential difference between our cauテ, and that of our enemies, might juフify a テverer punishment: The law of retaliation will unqueフionably warrant one equally テvere.

We mean not, however, by this declaration, to occaナon or to multiply puniドments: Our バle view is to prevent them. In this unhappy and unnatural controverペ, in which Britons fight againフ Britons, and the deツendants of Britons, let the calamities immediately incident to a civil war ブffice. We hope additions will not from wantonneピ be made to them on one ナde: We ドall regret the neceピity, if laid under the neceピity, of making them on the other."

Read the Olive Branch petition here

Back to Top

Home Page

Return from this page to Olive Branch Petition page

American Historical Documents