MILTON AND 
 THE SUFFOLK RESOLVES 
 
 'By 
 LAURISTON L. SCAIFE 
 
 Milton Historical Society 
 1921 
 
.S2.7 
 
 Gift 
 
 Sooiety 
 
 OCT iJlSIl 
 
 7Aomas Todd (Company 
 
 PRINTERS 
 
 'Bouon 
 
<:JMiIton and the Suffolk T^solves 
 
 PART I 
 
 ON Saint Valentine's day following the Armis- 
 tice,* President Wilson, at a plenary session of 
 the Peace Conference in Paris, presented to the 
 world the Covenant of the League of Nations. That 
 night he left Paris for a hurried visit to Washington, 
 bringing with him a copy of the Covenant, which, how- 
 ever, had been cabled at once to America. In the Senate 
 it was received with some unfavorable mutterings ; so 
 the President, before reaching America, requested that 
 there be no discussion of the Covenant until after his 
 return and explanation; saying, in effect, that there were 
 good reasons even for the "verbiage" of the document. 
 
 His explanation to the Senatorial Committee in the 
 ensuing conference at the White House was not satis- 
 factory to all of them. Two — Senators Lodge and 
 Knox — promptly addressed the Senate in opposition to 
 the Covenant before the President left Washington on 
 his second trip to Paris, — Senator Lodge speaking on 
 February 28th and Senator Knox on March ist. Both of 
 them, in discussing the Covenant, went back to the early 
 days of our history, and claimed that the provisions of 
 the League were contrary to the fundamental and tradi- 
 tional principles and policies of our government as ad- 
 vocated by Washington, Jefferson, Monroe, and others 
 of the fathers of our Republic. 
 
 On his way back to Paris, on March 6, 19 19, Presi- 
 dent Wilson made a good-bye address at the Metropoli- 
 tan Opera House in New York. There he notified his 
 League opponents of the extent to which he would go 
 
 • February 14, 1 9 19. 
 
 [3] 
 
in his effort to break down or circumvent the opposition 
 in the Senate to his Covenant, saying: "When that 
 treaty comes back, gentlemen on this side will find the 
 Covenant not only in it, but so many threads of the 
 treaty tied to the Covenant that you cannot dissect 
 the Covenant from the treaty without destroying the 
 whole vital structure." 
 
 However, the President desired to prevail, not merely 
 by threat, but by winning adherents to his League; and 
 in this desire he combatted the plea of the opposition 
 that the League was contrary to the principles and poli- 
 cies of Washington and other founders of our republic. 
 As a step, and a most important one, in this effort, the 
 President, in this address of March 6th, said : 
 
 "It (the United States) was set up for the benefit of 
 mankind.'^ 
 
 Later, in the same address, he said : 
 
 "Take an Individual American and you may often find 
 him selfish, and confined to his special Interests; but take 
 the American in the mass and he is willing to die for 
 an idea. The sweet revenge, therefore, is this, that we 
 believed in righteousness, and now we are ready to make 
 the supreme sacrifice for It, the supreme sacrifice of 
 throwing in our fortunes with the fortunes of men 
 everywhere." 
 
 In his war message of April 2, 191 7, he had said: 
 
 "A steadfast concert for peace can never be main- 
 tained except by a partnership of democratic nations. . . . 
 Only free peoples can hold their purpose and their 
 honor steady to a common end and prefer the interests 
 of mankind to any narrow Interest of their own." 
 
 In Paris, in his initiation address as a newly-made 
 member of the Institute of France, he said, speaking 
 of the birth of our nation: 
 
 "We came into the world consecrated to liberty, and 
 whenever we see the cause of liberty imperiled, we are 
 
 [4] 
 
ready to cast in our lot in common with the lot of those 
 whose liberty is threatened." 
 
 In short, throughout his advocacy of the League of 
 Nations, patriotism was ignored or disparaged, and in- 
 ternationalism was advocated; and to strengthen this 
 advocacy, it was represented that the object of our revo- 
 lutionary struggle was the benefit of mankind at large, 
 and not simply the benefit of the colonists and the future 
 inhabitants of our country. 
 
 Thus was a grave historical question of the highest 
 Importance thrust Into the forefront of the struggle over 
 the League of Nations. 
 
 Citizens were urged to examine and study for them- 
 selves the matter of the League of Nations as the most 
 Important subject ever presented In the history of the 
 country. Some of us tried to do so; and early In the 
 study met this question as to whether our forefathers 
 fought for and established this government simply for 
 themselves and their posterity, or for the benefit of man- 
 kind at large. 
 
 In the course of my preliminary reading I happened 
 across the statement that Washington was commissioned 
 as General expressly to defend "American liberty"; and 
 the writer suggested the desirability. In studying our 
 history, of going directly back to the original records, 
 particularly to the "Journals of the Continental Congress" 
 of 1774— 1775, as furnishing "the genetic record" of 
 our country. Resorting to this source. It was found most 
 interesting. 
 
 Looking up at once the matter of Washington's com- 
 mission as General and Commander-in-chief, the record 
 showed that on the day the Battle of Bunker Hill was 
 being fought, — June 17, 1775, — the delegates to the 
 Continental Congress, sitting in Philadelphia, were de- 
 bating and settling the terms and Instructions to be 
 set forth in the Commission of George Washington, 
 
 [5] 
 
whom they had unanimously elected Commander-in- 
 chief. The commission, as there determined, appointed 
 him "to be General and Commander-in-chief of the army 
 of the United Colonies, and of all the forces now raised, 
 or to be raised by them, and of all others who shall 
 voluntarily offer their service, and join the said army 
 for the Defence of American Liberty, and for repelling 
 every hostile invasion thereof^ 
 
 American Liberty was the subject matter of the con- 
 test, and the fact was emphasized by the use of the word 
 "thereof" following the words "hostile invasion." The 
 military forces were to repel the invasion, not primarily 
 of America, but of American liberty. 
 
 On the same day they passed a resolution somewhat 
 amplifying the language in reference to American lib- 
 erty, extending it from the term, — "for the defence of 
 American liberty," — to the term, — -"for the maintenance 
 and preservation of American liberty." 
 
 What did the Continental Congress mean by Ameri- 
 can liberty? 
 
 The records of that body furnish the authoritative 
 answer. 
 
 As later in the case of the Convention which framed 
 the constitution, it was intended that the proceedings of 
 the Continental Congress be kept secret; but during the 
 administration of President John Adams, Congress au- 
 thorized a publication of 400 copies of the "Journals 
 of Congress," i. e., of the Continental Congress. 
 
 The record in the first volume is very meager as to 
 many desirable particulars; yet at times it is extended 
 to the fullest details. It shows that the Congress began 
 its work on Monday, September 5th, 1774, in Philadel- 
 phia, where "a number of the delegates, chosen and 
 appointed by the several colonies and provinces in North 
 America, . . . assembled at the Carpenters Hall." 
 
 It gives the names of the delegates then present, — 
 [6] 
 
names which will remain immortal while American in- 
 dependence survives. 
 
 The only business recorded for the first day was the 
 choice of a President, Peyton Randolph, of Virginia, 
 and Secretary, Charles Thompson, and the production, 
 reading, and approval of the credentials of the dele- 
 gates. Meager as is the day's record in other respects, 
 these credentials are set forth in full; and they tell, better 
 than any set speeches would do, why and for what ends 
 these delegates were there. 
 
 The New Hampshire delegates were authorized "to 
 attend and assist in the General Congress of delegates 
 from the other colonies, ... to devise, consult, and 
 adopt such measures as may have the most liicely tendency 
 to extricate the colonies from their present difficulties; 
 to secure and perpetuate their rights, liberties, and privi- 
 leges, and to restore that peace, harmony, and mutual 
 confidence which once happily subsisted between the 
 parent country and her colonies." 
 
 The Massachusetts credential was somewhat longer; 
 but the delegates were to aid in "the recovery and es- 
 tablishment of their just rights and liberties, . . . and 
 the restoration of union and harmony between Great 
 Britain and her colonies, most ardently desired by all 
 good men." 
 
 The object of Rhode Island was likewise "to establish 
 the rights and liberties of the colonies, upon a just and 
 solid foundation." 
 
 Without going through the entire list, it may be noted 
 that Maryland's object was tersely stated, — "to effect 
 one general plan of conduct, operating on the commer- 
 cial connection of the colonies with the mother country, 
 for the relief of Boston, and preservation of American 
 liberty." 
 
 The North Carolina delegation did not appear until 
 [7] 
 
September 14th. Their credential indicates and approves 
 of the ground and purposes of the Congress: 
 
 . . . "*Resolved, That we approve of the proposal of 
 a general Congress ... to take such measures as they 
 may deem prudent to effect the purpose of describing 
 with certainty the rights of Americans, repairing the 
 breach made in those rights, and for guarding them for 
 the future from any such violation done under the sanc- 
 tion of public authority." 
 
 It is to be noted that the purpose was to begin by 
 "describing with certainty the rights of Americans.'^ The 
 "rights" included their liberty. 
 
 The Congress promptly proceeded to carry out this 
 program. In fact, its proceedings to this end had begun 
 on the very day after the formal opening session. The 
 record of September 6th shows that, immediately after 
 establishing rules of procedure and providing for secrecy, 
 it was resolved that two committees be appointed; the 
 first, "to state the rights of the colonies in general, the 
 several instances in which those rights are violated or 
 infringed, and the means most proper to be pursued for 
 obtaining a restoration of them." 
 
 The second committee were "to examine and report 
 the several statutes, which affect the trades and manu- 
 factures of the colonies." 
 
 These committees were duly appointed, and went to 
 work to perform their respective duties. Obviously 
 nothing of importance could be done until they reported 
 to the Congress, which met from day to day and ad- 
 journed to await the expected reports. The Journal 
 shows but little aside from further credentials from 
 newly arrived delegates until Saturday, September 17th. 
 Under that date the record says: "The Resolutions en- 
 tered into by the delegates from the several towns and 
 districts in the County of Suffolk, in the province of the 
 
 •Vol. ,,p. .3. 
 
 [8] 
 
Massachusetts bay . . . were laid before the Congress, 
 and are as follows:" 
 
 The Resolutions there set forth in full are the so-called 
 "Suffolk Resolves." The record shows that they had 
 been "unanimously voted" in Milton on September 9th, 
 eight days before they were presented to the Congress. 
 
 Thus the investigation of American Liberty led directly 
 to the fact that the very first document discussing that 
 subject which appears in the "Journals of the Conti- 
 nental Congress" went there from Miltou. 
 
 The chaotic conditions now prevailing throughout the 
 world (our own country included) have brought con- 
 viction that a present-day realization of the truths of 
 our own fundamental history is an essential of our pres- 
 ent and future well-being and security. So, in order to 
 awaken, if possible, at least a local interest in a renewed 
 study of our foundations, it seems worth while to review 
 once more, for the Milton Historical Society, something 
 of the relation which the Suffolk Resolves bore to the 
 struggle which resulted in our independence. This re- 
 lation has been well known and forgotten many times 
 during the five generations which have passed since the 
 Continental Congress assembled in Philadelphia in 1774; 
 but it is hoped that it may add to the interest of such 
 review to show, as above, that recent events have given 
 renewed importance to the history of our evolution from 
 Colonialism to self-government. 
 
 There had been an unsuccessful attempt to hold a 
 meeting of Suffolk delegates in Stoughton in April, 1774. 
 Such a meeting was finally held in Dedham on the 
 following September 6th, when Dr. Joseph Warren was 
 appointed chairman of a committee to draw suitable 
 resolutions and present them at an adjourned meeting 
 to be held in Milton on September 9th. The adjourned 
 meeting was held in Milton on that date, and the 
 Suffolk Resolves were there presented, discussed, and 
 
 [9] 
 
adopted. As stated in a footnote in Ford's edition of 
 the "Journals of the Continental Congress" (Vol. i, 
 P- 39)) "they were sent express to Congress by Paul 
 Revere, who reached Philadelphia on Friday, Septem- 
 ber 1 6th, and delivered them to the Massachusetts dele- 
 gates." Turning to the Diary of John Adams (Vol. 2, 
 p. 380), under date of September 17, 1774, we find the 
 following: 
 
 "17. Saturday. This was one of the happiest days 
 of my life. In Congress we had generous, noble senti- 
 ments, and manly eloquence. This day convinced me that 
 America will support [the] Massachusetts or perish with 
 her!" 
 
 This is accompanied by a footnote saying: 
 
 "On this day the celebrated resolutions of Suffolk 
 County in Massachusetts had been laid before Congress, 
 and resolutions were adopted by the Congress expres- 
 sive of sympathy and support. See the Journals." 
 
 Resorting to the Journals we find that, on the same 
 day, the Congress ordered that the resolutions of the Con- 
 gress, "together with the resolutions of the County of 
 Suffolk, be published in the newspapers." 
 
 It is to be borne in mind that while the "Journals of the 
 Congress" are now open to the world, they were then 
 "secret." Going back to the footnote in John Adams's 
 Diary (Vol. 2, p. 380), we find a quotation from a letter 
 by John Adams to his wife dated the day after the intro- 
 duction and action upon the Suffolk Resolves, to wit: 
 
 "The proceedings of the Congress are all a profound 
 secret as ' yet, except two votes passed yesterday and 
 ordered to be printed. You ivill see them from every 
 quarter. These votes were passed in full Congress with 
 perfect unanimity." 
 
 (The italics are the present writer's.) 
 
 Thus we see that what the Milton meeting of the Suf- 
 folk delegates adopted and sent express by Paul Revere 
 [10] 
 
to the Congress in Philadelphia received the approval of 
 every member of the Continental Congress, including the 
 representative men from not only widely separated but 
 also widely differing colonies and communities; men not 
 only likely to differ, but who did actually differ with one 
 another on some of the most vital points involved in the 
 controversy. It surely was most helpful to the progress 
 of the great cause then on trial between Great Britain 
 and her American Colonies that the first important paper 
 presented to the Congress was one which met with instant 
 support and unanimity. It is worth remembering that 
 George Washington and Patrick Henry and both of the 
 South Carolina Rutledges, John and Edward, and Samuel 
 Chase and John Jay and Roger Sherman and Silas Deane 
 all concurred with John and Samuel Adams in approving 
 the Suffolk Resolves and commending the course of ac- 
 tion there laid down, and in putting aside, for the mo- 
 ment, the rule of secrecy which had been adopted, in 
 making these Resolves public and publishing them in de- 
 tail, broadcast, with the seal of the unanimous approval 
 of the entire Congress. Here is conclusive evidence of 
 the importance as estimated by the entire membership of 
 the Congress of this initial stroke emanating from Milton. 
 
 A similar estimate of importance coming contempo- 
 raneously from the other side of the Atlantic is shown in 
 the brief though admirable article on the Suffolk Re- 
 solves in Teele's "History of Milton" (p. 429), where 
 the following appears as a quotation from the British 
 press of the day: 
 
 "The friends of America have the satisfaction to learn 
 that the Resolves of the late Continental Congress re- 
 specting the votes of the County of Suffolk published 
 in the English papers here not only surprised, but con- 
 founded the ministry, as by it they perceive the Union 
 of the Colonies to be complete, and their present menaces 
 only mark their despair." 
 
 [II] 
 
These Resolves have been examined and analyzed in 
 history. One interesting treatment of them appears in 
 Pitkin's "History of the United States" (Vol. i, pp. 
 279—280). John Fiske, in his work on the "American 
 Revolution" (Vol. i, pp. 127—128), gives an epitome 
 of them and notes that they were enthusiastically in- 
 dorsed by the Congress. Alden Bradford quotes them 
 in full in his "History of Massachusetts" from 1764 
 to July, 1775, p. 339. 
 
 The Suffolk Resolves were followed by other notable 
 documents issued by the Continental Congress, includ- 
 ing the Statement of Violations of Rights, Address to 
 the People of Great Britain, Memorial to the Inhabi- 
 tants of Quebec, Petition to the King, and Declaration 
 on Taking Arms. Not alone in America did these 
 papers create a tremendous impression. Lord Chatham 
 praised them so highly in the House of Lords that his 
 praise has been noted by writers on both sides of the 
 Atlantic. 
 
 Washington Irving in his "Life of George Washing- 
 ton" says (Vol. i, pp. 404-405) : 
 
 "The papers issued by it [the Continental Congress] 
 have deservedly been pronounced masterpieces of prac- 
 tical talent and political wisdom. Chatham, when speak- 
 ing on the subject in the House of Lords, could not 
 restrain his enthusiasm. 'When your lordships,' said he, 
 'look at the papers transmitted to us from America; when 
 you consider their decency, firmness, and wisdom, you 
 cannot but respect their cause, and wish to make it your 
 own. For myself, I must declare and avow that, in the 
 master states of the world, I know not the people, or 
 senate, who, in such a complication of difficult circum- 
 stances, can stand in preference to the delegates of Amer- 
 ica assembled in General Congress at Philadelphia.' " 
 
 Almost the same language may be found in Knight's 
 "History of England" (Vol. 6, p. 343), where the quota- 
 [12] 
 
tion from Lord Chatham's speech closes with the words, 
 "I trust it is obvious to your lordships that all attempts 
 to impose servitude upon such men, to establish despotism 
 over such a mighty continental nation, must be vain, must 
 be fatal." 
 
 This conclusion was reached from Lord Chatham's 
 high estimate of the state papers emanating from the 
 Continental Congress. 
 
 It has already been noted that the first of these papers 
 was the Suffolk Resolves, upon which the Congress had 
 set the stamp of their unanimous approval. It seems 
 worth while to see if these Resolves bore any appreciable 
 relation to the later papers. 
 
 We have also seen that between the opening of the 
 Congress and the presentation there of the Suffolk Re- 
 solves, the Congress was awaiting, from day to day, the 
 reports of the two important committees upon which the 
 Congress would, presumedly, base its course of action. 
 The "Journals of Congress" show neither the work in 
 committee nor the speeches in the Congress. For informa- 
 tion as to these resort must be had to such outside sources 
 as exist. 
 
 The most fruitful of these sources, apparently, are the 
 "Life and Works of John Adams" and the "Correspond- 
 ence" between John Adams and his wife. 
 
 In Vol. II of Adams's "Life and Works" we find several 
 pages of Notes of the Debates of the Congress on Sep- 
 tember 8, 1774 (pp. 370-373). Here he shows that 
 Colonel Lee of Virginia was claiming that our "rights were 
 built on a fourfold foundation; on nature, on the British 
 constitution, on charters, and on immemorial usage." 
 Mr. John Rutledge agreed that our claims were founded 
 on the British constitution, but denied they were founded 
 on the laws of nature. Other delegates also differed 
 materially from Colonel Lee as to the proper basis of our 
 rights and claims. 
 
 [13] 
 
Following the extracts from the Adams diary is an 
 "Extract from the Autobiography" [of John Adams] 
 (see Vol. II of "Life and Works," p. 373 ) . It seems that 
 this statement was written from memory in 1804. 
 
 Speaking of the work in these committees, he says (p. 
 
 373): 
 
 "It would be endless to attempt even an abridgment of 
 the discussions in this committee, which met regularly 
 every morning for many days successively, till it became 
 an object of jealousy to all the other members of Congress. 
 . . . The two points which labored the most were : 
 
 1. Whether we should recur to the law of nature, as 
 well as to the British constitution, and our American char- 
 ters and grants. ... I was very strenuous for retain- 
 ing and insisting on it, as a resource to which we might 
 be driven by Parliament much sooner than we were aware. 
 
 2. The other great question was, what authority we should 
 concede to Parliament; whether we should deny the au- 
 thority of Parliament in all cases, etc. . . . These dis- 
 cussions spun into great length, and nothing was de- 
 cided. . . . 
 
 "After a multitude of motions had been made, dis- 
 cussed, negatived, it seemed as if we should never agree 
 upon anything. Mr. John Rutledge of South Carolina, 
 . . . addressing himself to me, was pleased to say, 
 'Adams, we must agree upon something; you appear to be 
 as familiar with the subject as any of us; and I like your 
 expressions, — "the necessity of the case," and "excluding 
 all ideas of taxation, external and internal;" I have a great 
 opinion of that same idea of the necessity of the case, and 
 I am determined against all taxation for revenue. Come, 
 take the pen and see if you can't produce something that 
 will unite us.' 
 
 "Some others of the committee seconding Mr. Rutledge, 
 I took a sheet of paper and drew up an article. When it 
 was read, I believe not one of the committee was fully 
 
 [14] 
 
satisfied with It ; but they all soon acknowledged that there 
 was no hope of hitting on anything in which we could 
 all agree with more satisfaction. 
 
 "All these five agreed to this, and upon this depended 
 the union of the Colonies." 
 
 Thus we find that there was no natural unanimity be- 
 tween the delegates to the Congress. The differences had 
 to be thrashed out. Ideals could not always be made 
 practicable, but sometimes had to be pared down or aban- 
 doned to meet the necessity of the case. The matters 
 were first considered in subcommittee, then in full com- 
 mittee, and finally the Statement of Violation of Rights is 
 set forth in the Journals under date of October 14, 1774 
 (Ford's ed., pp. 63-73). Two drafts appear in parallel 
 columns ; the first being "Sullivan's Draught" ; the second 
 containing the 4th Resolution as prepared by John Adams, 
 the difficulties contained in which were shown above. 
 
 It is interesting to compare the language of the funda- 
 mental points in the Suffolk Resolves and in the statement 
 issued by the Congress : 
 
 Suffolk Resolves Statement of Violation of 
 
 "3. That the late acts of ^'^^^^ 
 
 the British parliament . . . "That the inhabitants of 
 
 are gross infractions of the English Colonies in 
 those rights to which we North America, by the im- 
 are justly entitled by [l] mutable laws of nature, the 
 the laws of nature, [2] the principles of the English 
 British constitution, and constitution, and the sev- 
 [3] the charter of the eral charters or compacts, 
 province." have the following right." 
 
 "Journals of Congress," 
 Ford's ed.. Vol. i, p. 67. 
 
 Having shown the practical identity of the fundamen- 
 tals in these two documents, it remains that the Suffolk 
 
 [15] 
 
Resolves set the mark for what was thrashed out a few 
 weeks later in the Continental Congress. 
 
 An examination of these state papers will give some 
 insight into why they were so effective. 
 
 The records show that they were prepared and con- 
 sidered with great care. The opening sentence in the 
 Suffolk Resolves shows that they were "several times 
 read, and put paragraph by paragraph," before being 
 "unanimously voted." (Journals, p. 32.) 
 
 These Resolves, like the succeeding papers, show the 
 "decency, firmness, and wisdom" which Lord Chatham 
 recognized as the basis of his high praise. He obviously 
 uses the term "decency" in its etymological sense of "being 
 fit, suitable, or becoming." Accordingly all these papers 
 undertook to show the true relation of the parties to each 
 other and to the subject matter. And this they did with 
 the "firmness and wisdom" which he also noted. This 
 "fitness" of treatment was not accidental. The guiding 
 spirits in this movement were not only men of character, 
 but men of education. If anybody will take the trouble 
 to read what John Adams disclosed as to his own self- 
 education, self-training immediately following his gradua- 
 tion from Harvard College, he will begin to realize why 
 Adams accomplished so much in his early manhood and 
 why his services were so much sought after. Likewise 
 Thomas Jefferson, notwithstanding his youthfulness, had 
 lived a life largely filled with experiences and, through 
 reading, study, and contact with men, had mentally ac- 
 quired a vast storehouse of experiences of a kind to fit 
 him to cope with the important questions of that time. 
 Indeed, generally speaking, the men who went to Phila- 
 delphia were exceptionally well fitted for their tasks. 
 
 While they were men of marked individuality, and 
 
 therefore strong in their differences, we have seen that 
 
 they were, nevertheless, capable of what we now-a-days 
 
 call "team play." Moreover the results showed that, by 
 
 [16] 
 
utilizing, in team play, these very differences, a better 
 result was produced than would have been attained if the 
 sole efforts of any one man, even the best among them, 
 had been adopted and followed. This is demonstrated 
 in the Ford edition of the "Journals of the Continental 
 Congress" by a comparison of the facsimile drafts of some 
 of these state papers showing the various alterations and 
 elisions, as well as the individual work of some of the 
 draftsmen. For example: Washington left Philadel- 
 phia on June 21, 1775, to take command of the American 
 army at Cambridge. Two days later the Congress 
 adopted a Resolution appointing a committee of five "to 
 draw up a declaration, to be published by General Wash- 
 ington, upon his arrival at the Camp before Boston." 
 
 The members of this committee were John Rutledge, 
 William Livingston, Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, and 
 Thomas Johnson. The next day (Saturday, June 24th) 
 the committee reported a declaration "which was read 
 and debated, and referred for further consideration till 
 Monday next." On the Monday (June 26th) the mat- 
 ter was recommitted, and John Dickinson and Thomas 
 Jefferson were added to the committee. 
 
 From that date to July 6th the official record is silent 
 in regard to this matter, which does not re-appear upon 
 the record till Thursday, July 6th, when the declaration 
 was brought into the Congress by the committee, was 
 read, was "taken into consideration, and being debated 
 by paragraphs, was approved." 
 
 Now it is to be noted that this declaration, begun on 
 June 23d, was intended by the resolution to be published 
 by General Washington "upon his arrival at the camp 
 before Boston." The committee, as originally consti- 
 tuted, obviously saw that speed was necessary, and re- 
 ported a declaration the next day. If that draft had been 
 satisfactory and had been immediately adopted, Wash- 
 ington could easily have been overtaken by an express 
 
 [17] 
 
rider before his arrival in camp, which was not until July 
 2d. But the declaration was not finally reported to and 
 adopted by the Congress until July 6th, four days after 
 Washington's arrival at the appointed destination. 
 
 IV hat had caused this delay? 
 
 The Journal records give no clue; but the valuable foot- 
 notes and the various drafts in the Ford edition, written 
 from his gleanings in various collateral contemporaneous 
 resources, furnish the explanation. 
 
 In Vol. II of Ford's edition of the "Journals of the 
 Continental Congress," pp. 128 to 140, we find in parallel 
 columns two drafts entitled "Jefferson's Drafts," and two 
 copious footnotes on page 128 furnish the explanation. 
 These notes condense the information so fittingly that 
 the temptation is strong to repeat them both here in full. 
 
 However, the limitations of time and space will be 
 observed to the extent of cutting down the reproductions 
 here to Note 2, the shorter of the two notes: 
 
 2. "These two papers ['Jefferson's Drafts'] are found 
 in the Jefferson Manuscripts in the Library of Congress. 
 The second, or later, draft contains some suggested 
 changes in the writing of John Dickinson, and bears on 
 the last page the following memorandum by Jefferson : 
 
 " '^TyS' June 23. Congress appointed a committee to 
 prepare a Declaration to be published by General Wash- 
 ington on his arrival at the camp before Boston, to wit, 
 J. Rutledge, W. Livingston, Dr. Franklin, Mr. Jay, and 
 Mr. Johnson. 
 
 'June 24, a draught was reported. 
 
 " 'June 26, being disliked, it was recommitted and Dr. 
 Dickinson and T. Jefferson added to the committee, the 
 latter being desired by the commee to draw up a new 
 one, he prepared this paper. On a meeting of the com- 
 mee J. Dickinson objected that it was too harsh, wanted 
 softening, etc., whereupon the commee desired him to 
 [18] 
 
retouch it, which he did in the form which they reported 
 July 6, which was adopted by Congress.' 
 
 "Although the Jefferson drafts were never actually 
 laid before Congress, they are essential to a proper under- 
 standing of the Declaration as finally accepted." 
 
 As stated, the two Jefferson drafts extend from page 
 128 to page 140. 
 
 Beginning on page 140, the two remaining drafts ap- 
 pear in parallel columns. The left-hand column is headed 
 "John Dickinson's Draft," the right one — "Final Form." 
 
 It is the last of these four drafts, the one marked 
 "Final Form," which went forth to the world as the 
 Declaration on taking arms. I have read all these state 
 papers again and again, and to me this document is the 
 finest, strongest of the entire number, surpassing even the 
 Declaration of Independence. 
 
 These four drafts furnish to the student a wonderful 
 opportunity to see the workings of individual minds, and 
 of one mind on another; thus showing the advantage of 
 team work. This does not mean that such work can 
 best be done by large numbers of people. That would 
 be impracticable, as was well known long before Lord 
 Chatham's time. Lord Bacon in his essay "Of Dispatch" 
 says: "There be three parts of business: the preparation, 
 the debate or examination, and the perfection. Whereof, 
 if you look for dispatch, let the middle only be the work 
 of many, and the first and last of few." That was the 
 course pursued, with such excellent results, in these 
 famous papers. 
 
 Those who, alone or with others, will study these 
 papers will, I think, find the hoped-for benefit of studying 
 these "genetic records" in preference to the predigested 
 pabulum served up by the historians. 
 
 In the final draft of the "Declaration on taking arms," 
 reference was made to the results of the French Colonial 
 war; and the document went on to say: 
 
 [19] 
 
"Towards the conclusion of that war, it pleased our 
 sovereign to make a change in his counsels. . . . The 
 new ministry finding the brave foes of Britain, though 
 frequently defeated, yet still contending, took up the un- 
 fortunate idea of granting them a hasty peace, and of then 
 subduing her faithful friends. 
 
 "These devoted colonies were judged to be in such a 
 state, as to present victories without bloodshed, and all 
 the easy emoluments of statuteable plunder." 
 
 Whether from the pen of Lloyd George or Clemenceau 
 or Woodrow Wilson, can you find any utterance in the 
 recent world-war more skillfully and effectively constructed 
 than that just quoted? Yet apparently, — though Rut- 
 ledge (who had been described by Patrick Henry as the 
 most eloquent member of the Continental Congress) and 
 Benjamin Franklin and John Jay and Jefferson himself 
 had all tried their hands, — it was left to John Dickinson, 
 of comparatively inferior fame, to carve out this won- 
 derfully condensed and vivid statement of the origin of 
 the trouble between Great Britain and her colonies, — a 
 statement which was accepted by the committee and ap- 
 proved and made public by the entire Congress. 
 
 The more detailed statement (on pp. 145-146) of the 
 grievances suffered is made with beautiful simplicity and 
 directness. So also is the statement of the efforts made 
 to obtain redress and satisfaction. Finally (on p. 153), 
 the situation then presented is reached, saying: 
 
 "We are reduced to the alternation of choosing an un- 
 conditional submission to the tyranny of irritated minis- 
 ters, or resistance by force. The latter is our choice. . . . 
 Honor, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to sur- 
 render that freedom which we received from our gallant 
 ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right 
 to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and 
 guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretched- 
 ness which inevitably awaits them, if we barely entail 
 hereditary bondage upon them." 
 [20] 
 
Let us come down to the end : 
 
 "In our own native land in defence of the freedom 
 that is our birth-right — and which we ever enjoyed till the 
 late violation of it — for the protection of our property, 
 acquired solely by the honest industry of our fore-fathers 
 and ourselves, against violence actually offered, we have 
 taken up arms. We shall lay them down when hostilities 
 shall cease on the part of the aggressors, and all danger 
 of their being renewed shall be removed, and not before." 
 (p. 156.) 
 
 So said John Dickinson and Thomas Jefferson and Ben- 
 jamin Franklin and John Rutledge and John Jay in com- 
 mittee, and the rest of the delegates in open Congress, 
 on the 6th day of July, 1775, to an admiring world of 
 which Lord Chatham became the spokesman. 
 
 Had not the Suffolk delegates sent to them from Mil- 
 ton, in the Suffolk Resolves, full inspiration for this great 
 aftermath? 
 
 Bear carefully in mind the words just quoted from the 
 "Declaration on taking arms" while you hear or read these 
 words which went forth from Milton : 
 
 "Whereas the power, but not the justice, the vengeance 
 but not the wisdom of Great Britain, which of old perse- 
 cuted, scourged and exiled our fugitive parents from their 
 native shore, now pursues us, their guiltless children, with 
 unrelenting severity. And whereas, this, then savage and 
 uncultivated desert, was purchased by the toil and treas- 
 ure, or acquired by the blood and valor of those our 
 venerable progenitors; to us they bequeathed the dear- 
 bought inheritance, to our care and protection they con- 
 signed it, and the most sacred obligations are upon us 
 to transmit the glorious purchase, unfettered by power, 
 unclogged with shackles, to our innocent and beloved off- 
 spring." 
 
 So much from the preamble. 
 
 The first resolution acknowledged the rightful sover- 
 eignty of the King. 
 
 [21] 
 
The second was : 
 
 "That it is an indispensable duty which we owe to 
 God, our country, ourselves and posterity, by all lawful 
 ways and means in our power to maintain, defend and 
 preserve those civil and religious rights and liberties, for 
 which many of our fathers fought, bled and died, and to 
 hand them down entire to future generations." 
 
 Is it to be wondered at that, in Adams's letter above 
 referred to, he says : 
 
 "The esteem, the affection, the admiration for the 
 people of Boston and the Massachusetts, which were ex- 
 pressed yesterday, and the fixed determination that they 
 should be supported, were enough to melt a heart of 
 stone. I saw the tears gush into the eyes of the old grave, 
 pacific Quakers of Pennsylvania"? 
 
 The third resolution described broadly the infractions 
 of their rights. 
 
 The fourth, comprising only three lines, was the brav- 
 est, the greatest, the most inspiring of all, and was sur- 
 passed by nothing In the course of the entire revolutionary 
 period save only the final act of separation itself by the 
 Declaration of Independence. 
 
 Behold this fourth resolution in its simplicity: 
 
 4. "That no obedience is due from this province to 
 either or any part of the acts above mentioned, but that 
 they be rejected as the attempts of a wicked administra- 
 tion to enslave America." 
 
 We may drop down now to the twelfth resolution: 
 
 12. "That during the present hostile appearances on 
 the part of Great Britain, notwithstanding the many in- 
 sults and oppressions which we most sensibly resent, yet, 
 nevertheless, from our affection to his majesty, which we 
 have at all times evidenced, we are determined to act 
 merely on the defensive, so long as such conduct may be 
 vindicated by reason and the principle of self-preservation 
 hut no longer." 
 
 [22] 
 
As our last excerpt we take the eighteenth resolution: 
 1 8. "That whereas the universal uneasiness which pre- 
 vails among all orders of men, arising from the wicked 
 and oppressive measuresof the present administration, may 
 influence some unthinking persons to commit outrage upon 
 private property; we would heartily recommend to all per- 
 sons of this community, not to engage in any routs, riots, 
 or licentious attacks upon the properties of any person 
 whatsoever, as being subversive of all order and govern- 
 ment; but, by a steady, manly, uniform and persevering 
 opposition, to convince our enemies, that in a contest so 
 important, in a cause so solemn, our conduct shall be such 
 as to merit the approbation of the wise, and the admira- 
 tion of the brave and the free of every age and of every 
 country." 
 
 Thus history shows that the Suffolk Resolves, — framed 
 in "words of decency, firmness, and wisdom," — adopted in 
 Milton and approved and published by the Congress in 
 Philadelphia, furnished both inspiration and guidance 
 in the maintenance and preservation of American liberty, 
 — upon the firm foundation of law and order. 
 
 [23] 
 
PART II 
 
 It may be admitted that one of the principal objects of 
 this paper was to show that the Town of Milton was and 
 is entitled to higher rank among the immortals of the 
 Revolution than has been accorded to it. It will be noted 
 that the only basis so far suggested for this claim is that 
 the act of bringing forth these Resolves was performed 
 here. While this basis would have supported such claim 
 in much the same way that the signing of the Declaration 
 of Independence has conferred lasting renown upon the 
 city of Philadelphia, the mere contribution of the place of 
 the act, — of what the lawyers call the locus ret acta, — 
 did not seem wholly satisfactory. The human touch was 
 needed. What, If anything, had the men of Milton to do 
 with it? 
 
 Then, too, there was another impediment to complete 
 satisfaction. It is true that an ancient building In the 
 Town bears upon its front a tablet stating, — "In this Man- 
 sion the Suffolk Resolves were adopted"; but it is well 
 known locally that the truth of this statement is doubted 
 by some of our citizens who should be deemed amongst 
 those best qualified to decide upon the matter. 
 
 The desire to learn, if possible, as to the activities of 
 the men of Milton leading up to the adoption of the 
 Suffolk Resolves, and also to find out more about the dis- 
 puted question as to the building where they were adopted, 
 caused further investigation before attempting to com- 
 plete this paper; and the results are set forth below. 
 
 We know of no record of what occurred at the meeting 
 where the Suffolk Resolves were adopted aside from the 
 Resolves themselves. In Ford's edition of the "Journals 
 of Congress" [Vol. i, p. 37] the names are given of the 
 m.embers of a Committee there appointed to present cer- 
 
 [24] 
 
tain remonstrances to Governor Gage. This list contains 
 the names of two Milton men, Col. William Taylor and 
 Dr. Samuel Gardiner, but no statement is made as to their 
 activities. 
 
 The records of the Town of Milton, however, furnish 
 important circumstantial evidence of the actual partici- 
 pation of the Town in the making of the Suffolk Resolves. 
 The main evidence upon this point is the record of Town 
 Meetings held June 27th, 1774, and July 25th, 1774. 
 
 At the June meeting it was 
 
 "Voted to choose a Committee of five persons to con- 
 sider & determine upon some proper measures for this 
 Town to come into respecting the situation of publick 
 affairs, and that sd Committee be enjoined to set forth- 
 with, and report as soon as may be." 
 
 Note the strength of the language in the duty placed 
 upon the Committee : 
 
 "That sd Committee be enjoined to set forthwith, and 
 report as soon as may be." 
 
 Our first inclination was to correct the spelling of the 
 word "set" as constituting a small blemish upon the re- 
 port. Further consideration and Investigation show, how- 
 ever, that it is no blemish, but the use of a word of pre- 
 cision giving, and most tersely, both clearness and strength. 
 For if the verb "set" is here an intransitive verb, it has 
 as one of its meanings : 
 
 "To apply one's self; to undertake earnestly." 
 
 Thus by the simple monosyllable "set," the Committee 
 were enjoined "to apply themselves, to undertake seri- 
 ously 'forthwith.'" 
 
 After the appointment of the Committee the meeting 
 was adjourned "to the 25th day of July next at four 
 o'clock In the afternoon." 
 
 It seemed desirable to learn, if possible, where these 
 meetings were held ; and it Is hoped that the following 
 
 [25] 
 
evidence upon the point may prove of sufficient Interest 
 to warrant Its Insertion here. 
 
 It Is to be borne In mind that these meetings were Town 
 Meetings, while the Suffolk Resolves were adopted at a 
 Convention of delegates from all the Cities and Towns of 
 the County of Suffolk, which then comprised nineteen 
 towns. Including all of the present County of Norfolk. 
 Wherever no place of meeting Is stated in the record, the 
 presumption, of course, would be that these Town Meet- 
 ings were held In whatever was then the official place for 
 holding such meetings. 
 
 On page 284 of Teele's "History of Milton" we find 
 that: 
 
 "Town meetings were held in the meeting house, or, 
 in suitable weather, on the church green, until A.D. 
 1836." 
 
 The question, therefore, becomes — Where was the 
 meeting house at the time of each of these meetings? 
 
 Going back to page 277 (in the "History of Milton") 
 we find the subdivision of Chapter X entitled "Meeting 
 Houses." It Is here shown (p. 277) that " the first meet- 
 ing house In use, before the establishment of the town, 
 seems to have stood on or near the 'Country Heighway' 
 at the head of Churchill's Lane"; that the "second meet- 
 ing house" was erected in 167 1 on or near what is now 
 Vose's Lane and Centre Street (p. 280) ; that the "third 
 meeting-house" was built in 1728-1729. On page 282 
 of the History we find that "this third meeting-house, 
 . . . was built near Canton Avenue, in front of the pres- 
 ent Unitarian Church. Its size was fifty-feet by forty, 
 and twenty-eight feet high with a belfry." . . . 
 
 This "third meeting-house" continued to be the meet- 
 ing-house until replaced, upon the same plot of land, by 
 the "Fourth Meetlng-House," which was authorized in 
 1785 (p. 283) and dedicated January ist, 1788. This 
 "fourth meeting-house," with various changes and Im- 
 [26] 
 
provements, briefly described on page 284, is "the same 
 edifice now occupied by tlie Unitarian Society." . . . 
 (p. 284.) 
 
 It thus clearly appears that the Milton Town Meetings, 
 held from the passage of the Stamp Act in 1765 until 
 after the close of the Revolutionary War, were held in 
 the "third meeting-house," or if the weather was suitable, 
 on the church green, upon the plot of ground partly cov- 
 ered by the present church building of the First Parish 
 of Milton. 
 
 Here, then, picture to yourselves the men of Milton 
 gathered together on June 27th, 1774, to choose those 
 of their number best qualified to consider and determine 
 upon and report "some proper measures for this Town to 
 come into respecting the situation of publick affairs." 
 
 Volumes of history have been written upon those "pub- 
 lick affairs." A very few points out of the great mass 
 of material available will help us toward viewing the 
 situation from the standpoint of your townsmen of that 
 day. 
 
 The famous, or infamous, Stamp Act had been enacted 
 in the spring of 1765. Of it a leading English historian* 
 has written: 
 
 "A Stamp Act to raise sixty thousand pounds produced 
 a war that cost a hundred millions." 
 
 Were he writing today he might add to the cost — and 
 the loss of Colonies whose possessions less than a century 
 and a half later were worth more than fifty thousand 
 million pounds or two hundred and fifty thousand million 
 dollars. 
 
 The Act was followed in Massachusetts by several 
 notable communications upon the subject between Gov- 
 ernor Bernard and the House of Representatives. In 
 the fall of 1765 the stamped papers to be used under the 
 Act arrived here; and the Governor sent to the Council 
 
 * Knight's '* History of England," Vol. VI, p. 271. 
 [27] 
 
and House of Representatives on September 25th a mes- 
 sage saying : 
 
 "A ship is arrived in this harbor with stamped papers 
 on board for the King's use in this province. . . . 
 
 "As Mr. Oliver has declined the office of distributor of 
 stamped papers, and cannot safely meddle with what are 
 arrived, the care of them devolved to this government. 
 ... I have already laid this matter before the Council, 
 and they have referred it to the General Court. I there- 
 fore now apply to you, jointly, to desire your advice and 
 assistance,"* etc. 
 
 The next day the two houses sent an answer to the 
 Governor; an answer so brief and conclusive it may be 
 given here entire : 
 
 "May it please your Excellency, The House having 
 given all due attention to your Excellency's message of 
 this day, beg leave to acquaint your Excellency, that as 
 the stamped papers, mentioned in your message, are 
 brought here without any directions to this government, 
 it is the sense of the House that It may prove of ill con- 
 sequence for them anyways to interest themselves in this 
 matter. We hope, therefore, your Excellency will excuse 
 us if we cannot see our way clear to give you any advice 
 or assistance herein."* 
 
 As the position of the House of Representatives was 
 thus non-committal, and as the Stamp Act was to go into 
 effect on November first, a meeting of the citizens of 
 Milton was held on October 24th, 1765. The record of 
 that meeting (which Teele says was held "on the green 
 about the church") shows that it voted to choose a Com- 
 mittee to draw up instructions to the Town's representa- 
 tlv-e respecting the Stamp Act, and that Dr. Gardner was 
 one of the three Committeemen chosen. The Committee 
 drew up and presented instructions from which we quote 
 as follows : 
 
 * Massachusetts State Papers, p. 49. 
 
 [28] 
 
"Instructions by the Freeholders and other Inhabitants 
 of Milton to Stephen Miller, Esq., their present Repre- 
 sentative. 
 
 "Being sensibly affected by the calamitous circumstances 
 to which this Country must soon be reduced by the execu- 
 tion of the Stamp Act, unless by some means relieved, we 
 think proper in the present distressed conjunction of 
 affairs to give you the following instructions. 
 
 "ist. That you promote and readily join in representing 
 our grievances to the King and Parliament in a suitable 
 manner, and if redress may easily be obtained it will be 
 most acceptable to us — yet as the distress threatened must 
 [if not prevented] bring Slavery and Ruin, we expect you 
 to promote and join in measures which may relieve us, 
 be the expense and consequences what they will." 
 
 The Stamp Act was repealed; but other grievances con- 
 tinued and multiplied. 
 
 Eight years later, in January, 1773, the Town again 
 held a meeting to instruct its representative. The meeting 
 was held on January 4th and again appointed a similar 
 Committee. The meeting was adjourned to January 8th, 
 when the Committee presented a Report formulating in- 
 structions to Mr. Josiah How, Representative for the 
 Town of Milton. Out of the numerous grievances then 
 known, four were selected and clearly stated. The Rep- 
 resentative was thereupon instructed as follows : 
 
 "We recommend and enjoin you to use your interest 
 and influence in the House of Representatives as far as 
 is consistent with the rights of the people to Petition his 
 Majesty, and to remove the grievance we labor under. 
 And in the meantime we depend upon your steadiness, 
 prudence, and firmness, and that you give not up one jot 
 or tittle of our rights, but dispute every inch of ground 
 with the enemies of our Liberties and Freedom." 
 
 The Town voted to accept this report as instructions to 
 their Representative. 
 
 [29] 
 
The Committee so reporting were John Adams (prob- 
 ably Deacon John Adams), Col. William Taylor, Dr. 
 Samuel Gardner, Capt. David Rawson, and Daniel Vose. 
 
 We have thus shown the temper, firmness, and persist- 
 ence of the Town from the passage- of the Stamp Act 
 in 1765 to 1773; and history shows no faltering until the 
 end, — Independence, — was reached. 
 
 This, then, was the state of mind of the men of Milton 
 when they met in June, 1774, to consider and act upon 
 the ever increasing grievances which had reached a point 
 demanding united action by all the Colonies in a Congress 
 then appointed to meet in Philadelphia in the following 
 September. 
 
 Did the men of Milton then wait to see what the Con- 
 gress would advise or do? 
 
 Their action is the answer. Let us, then, turn to their 
 Record. 
 
 We have seen that on June 27th, 1774, they appointed 
 a Committee "to consider & determine upon some 
 proper measures for this Town to come into respecting 
 the situation of ptibUck affairs." 
 
 The scope of this Committee embraced the entire rela- 
 tion between Great Britain and the Colonies; yet the 
 Town of Milton, disdaining the role of follower, resolved 
 to be a leader in the determination of how the awful situa- 
 tion must be met. 
 
 The Committee were given a month, until July 25th, 
 to further study conditions and formulate their Report. 
 
 Finally the Freemen and other Inhabitants of the Town 
 of Milton met on July 25th, 1774, to receive and act 
 upon the Committee's Report. 
 
 The Town records have preserved the Report in full. 
 It is found in the volume entitled "Milton Records, 1729- 
 1775," at page 334. 
 
 It begins with the statement of the precise purpose f or ■ 
 which the Committee was appointed; yet the Committee, 
 
 [30] 
 
— and rightly, we think, — prefaced its recommendations 
 with a statement regarding the subject matter, saying: 
 
 "We the Inhabitants of Milton acknowledge George 
 the third to be our rightful Monarch — we feelingly de- 
 clare ourselves to be his true & loyal Subjects — and 
 next to the Horrors of Slavery we detest the thought of 
 being seperated from our Parent State — we have been 
 wont to glory in our connextion with our Mother Country 
 — our Hearts have been ever warm with filial affection — 
 and we are ready and willing on all proper Occasions to 
 spend our Blood and Treasure in defence of his Majesties 
 Crown & Dignity — and we are Equally ready and will- 
 ing to spend our ALL in defending our own religious & 
 civil Liberties when invaded by any humane Power." 
 
 "But in defiance of the Laws of God and society — in 
 direct Violation of Sacred Compact, the British Parli- 
 nient have assumed a Power to alter and destroy, our free 
 Constitution of Civil Government, and to introduce any 
 Species of oppression whatever." 
 
 Now follows the proposed action of the Town : 
 
 "And being clearly of opinion that to withstand such 
 assumed Power, and to oppose in a regular way; the 
 Oppressive Measures which are carrying into Execution 
 by such Power, is a duty we owe to God, to ourselves, 
 and to unborn Millions, We therefore RESOLVE that 
 we will unite with our Brethren THE SONS OF FREE- 
 DOM IN AMERICA in any proper Measures, that may 
 be adopted to defeat the late cruel & oppressive Acts of 
 the British Parliment respecting America, and this Dis- 
 tressed Province in particular,^ — -to extirpate the Idea of 
 Tyranizing, which is so fondly fostered in the Bosoms of 
 those in Power — and to secure to ourselves and to Pos- 
 terity our invaluable Rights & Priveleges." 
 
 "A Non-Consumption Agreement we think the most 
 rational as it is the most Peaceful, But as Committees 
 from the several Colonies on this Continent are soon to 
 
 [31] 
 
meet and 'to deliberate & determine upon some wise 
 & proper Measures for the recovery & Establishment' 
 of American Liberties — and as we doubt not but the 
 WISDOM OF AMERICA will fix upon such righteous 
 measures as will Eventually prove not only the Salvation 
 of this Extensive Continent but also the Permanentest 
 Dignity of Great Britain, we therefore RESOLVE to 
 commit our cause under God, to them, and to adopt such 
 Righteous Measures as shall be by them recommended 
 to the Colonies as necessary to regain & secure our free 
 Constitution of Government." 
 
 It should be observed that definite recommendations 
 were omitted, apparently because the Committee knew 
 of the coming Congress to be held in Philadelphia. Even 
 so, the Committee placed on record here what it believed 
 to be the most rational as well as the most peaceful meas- 
 ure to secure the desired result, saying: "A Non-Con- 
 sumption Agreement we think, the most rational as it is 
 the most Peaceful." 
 
 This is substantially all that was actively done by the 
 Continental Congress at its first session. 
 
 The conclusion, for the time being, reached by the 
 Continental Congress before it adjourned October 26th, 
 1774, was as follows: 
 
 . . . "we have for the present, only resolved to pur- 
 sue the following peaceable measures: 
 
 "i. To enter into a non-importation . . . association. 
 
 "2. To prepare an address to the people of Great 
 Britain, and a memorial to the inhabitants of British 
 America, and 
 
 "3. To prepare a loyal address to his Majesty, agree- 
 ably to Resolutions already entered into."* 
 
 The great deliberation and care are shown in the addi- 
 tional votes which were passed at the meeting. 
 
 •Pitkin's " History of United States of America," Vol. I, p. l88, citing "Journals 
 of Congress," Vol. I, pp. 28, 29, and 30. See also Ford's edition of Journals, Vol. I, 
 P- 73- 
 
 [32] 
 
"2d. Voted that said Report be read Paragraff by 
 Paragraff and the accepting or not accepting each Para- 
 graff to be put to Vote seperate. accordingly sd. Report 
 was read, and each and every Paragraff was accepted. 
 
 "3d. the question was put whether the Town do accept 
 the whole of sd. Report and the Vote was in the Affirma- 
 tive. 
 
 "4th. Voted that Capt. David Rawson, Col. William 
 Taylor, Doctor Samuel Gardner, Amariah Blake, & Mr. 
 Ralph Houghton be a Committee to Correspond with 
 the Committees of Correspondence in the Towns through 
 this Province, and thro' America, as occasion may re- 
 quire. 
 
 "5th. Voted that the Committee send a letter to the 
 Committee of Correspondence for Boston, thanking them 
 for their Publick spirit and noble Zeal for the weal of 
 America. 
 
 "6th. Voted that the Town Clerk send an attested copy 
 of the Transactions of this Town respecting Publick 
 affairs, to the Committee of Correspondence for Boston. 
 
 "7. Voted that this meeting be adjourned to the first 
 monday in October next at two of the clock afternoon." 
 
 These votes are worthy of special consideration. They 
 are a material part of the circumstantial evidence show- 
 ing the activity and influence of the Town of Milton in 
 the making and issuing of the Suffolk Resolves. Ob- 
 viously the Town recognized the indefiniteness, the lack 
 of concrete determinations, so far as they could be ascer- 
 tained from the subject matter of the report, as the Town 
 was virtually silent upon all other active points save its 
 recommendation as to a Non-Consumption Agreement. 
 But obviously the Town did not intend to remain thus 
 indefinite in pressing its contentions. After accepting 
 each paragraph of the report and after accepting the 
 whole of the report, the Town appointed another Com- 
 mittee, — this time "to correspond with the Committees 
 
 [33] 
 
of Correspondence in the Towns through this Province, 
 and thro' America, as occasion may require." Note 
 particularly the sixth vote, — "that the Town Clerk send 
 an attested copy of the Transactions of this Town re- 
 specting Publick affairs, to the Committee of Correspond- 
 ence for Boston." This vote imposed a very considerable 
 duty upon the Town Clerk. The vote was not merely 
 to send an attested copy of the record of this particular 
 meeting, but a copy of all of the transactions of this Town 
 respecting public affairs. 
 
 The last vote was that the meeting be adjourned to the 
 first Monday in October next. 
 
 But events moved faster than was anticipated on July 
 25th. The Town could not wait until October; so 
 another Town Meeting was held on the 2d of September, 
 1774. The first vote passed at that meeting has so im- 
 portant a bearing upon the Town relation to the Suffolk 
 Resolves that it is here quoted in full : 
 
 "ist. Voted that the present Committee of Correspond- 
 ence, Viz. Capt. David Rawson, Col. William Taylor, 
 Doctor Samuel Gardner, Amariah Blake, and Mr. Ralph 
 Houghton be members to attend a County Convention to 
 be held at Mr. Woodwards Innholder in Dedham on 
 Tuesday the sixth day of this Instant at ten of the clock 
 forenoon (or any other meeting of sd. Convention until! 
 this Vote shall be disannulled by this Town) to deliber- 
 ate & determine upon all such matters as the distressed 
 circumstances of this Province may require." 
 
 In the first place the Town then definitely knew that 
 what it calls the County Convention was intended to be 
 held in Dedham, on September 6th. The Town intended 
 to be represented there, and by its strongest men. Note 
 that Capt. David Rawson again heads the list of its Com- 
 mittee; that the Committee again contains the names of 
 Dr. Samuel Gardner and Mr. Ralph Houghton as well 
 as that of Amariah Blake. 
 
 [34] 
 
And now, will you call to mind that Captain Rawson 
 and Dr. Gardner had been members of all of the Commit- 
 tees as far back as the Committee of 1765 appointed in 
 relation to the Stamp Act? Captain Rawson was one of 
 the leading men of the Town, and in the year under con- 
 sideration (1774) he represented Milton at the General 
 Court. Teele says : "He was a prominent and important 
 man during the eventful years of the Revolution. His 
 name often appears as Moderator of those meetings when 
 great principles were asserted and maintained."* 
 
 Dr. Gardner was a graduate of Harvard of the Class 
 of 1746, — twenty-eight years before the date of the Con- 
 vention. 
 
 In view of the gravity of the situation it is a safe con- 
 clusion that Captain Rawson and Dr. Gardner, at least, 
 and perhaps others of the Milton delegates occupied a 
 large part of the time between their appointment on Sep- 
 tember 2d and the final adoption of the Suffolk Resolves 
 on September 9th in active work upon the making of the 
 Suffolk Resolves. The Town of Milton, at meetings where- 
 in these men were Committeemen, had made its record on 
 many of the questions involved; and the Milton Town 
 Clerk had been required to furnish information as to the 
 Town's action upon public affairs. These delegates and 
 particularly Dr. Gardner and Captain Rawson un- 
 doubtedly had a clear, accurate, working knowledge of 
 the demands and requirements of Milton and the points of 
 difficulty between Great Britain and the Colonies. 
 
 As Dr. Joseph Warren had obviously been selected for 
 leadership in the Convention, it cannot be doubted that, — 
 in the interim between the appointment of the Milton 
 delegates and the presentation by Dr. Warren of his re- 
 port at the adjourned meeting in Milton on September 9th, 
 — he and Dr. Gardner were in frequent, if not in almost 
 continuous, consultation and active cooperation upon the 
 
 *Teele's "History of Milton," p. 107. 
 
 [35] 
 
subject matter of that report. It is to be borne in mind 
 that, in addition to the points of mutual interest and 
 helpfulness, both were doctors and both were graduates 
 of Harvard. These ties in all time are of the strongest. 
 
 Moreover Dr. Gardner was an older graduate of Har- 
 vard than Dr. Warren, the former graduating in 1746 
 and the latter in 1759; and although Dr. Warren was the 
 leader of the Convention, yet under the circumstances he 
 must inevitably have consulted with Dr. Gardner in pre- 
 paring the report, and must have been influenced largely 
 by him especially because of his activity and experience 
 in the matters involved from the very moment when the 
 passage of the Stamp Act had become known in the 
 Colonies. Moreover it should be noted here that Dr. 
 Gardner and Colonel Taylor were appointed, at the Suf- 
 folk Convention, upon the Committee with Dr. Warren 
 to interview Governor Gage. 
 
 The conclusion is inevitable, then, that the Suffolk Re- 
 solves were very materially affected by the spirited and 
 inspiring Milton resolves and the action taken thereunder, 
 and by the active work of the delegates from Milton. 
 Bearing in mind what we have seen of the form and sub- 
 stance and timeliness of Milton's work, the inference is 
 inevitable that the Suffolk Resolves were not only par- 
 ticipated in by Milton, but were largely the result of the 
 leadership of Milton. 
 
 There is one more historical fact which, perhaps, 
 should be considered as having given to Milton and to 
 the position of its representative men special prominence 
 at that particular period. 
 
 The Milton Town Meeting leading up to the County 
 Convention was begun on June 27, 1774. On the first 
 day of that month Governor Hutchinson had taken his 
 silent departure from the Colony, leaving his home on 
 Milton Hill and going directly from there to his ship in 
 Boston Harbor. John Adams said of him : "He had been 
 
 [36] 
 
admired, revered, rewarded, and almost adored; and the 
 idea was common that he was the greatest and best man 
 in America."* 
 
 Even after his reputation for loyalty was lost, his per- 
 sonality so affected some of his fellow townsmen that, 
 when it became known that he was to leave the country, 
 they addressed a friendly letter to him. This was more 
 than their liberty-loving townsmen could endure; and at 
 the time when the work of the Suffolk Convention was 
 being done, the citizens of Milton were contemplating 
 the discipline that, before the month of September was 
 over, they had inflicted upon the writers of that letter. 
 The disaffection of Governor Hutchinson, as well as his 
 great prominence, obviously not only gave importance to 
 the action of the Town of Milton, but made it incumbent 
 upon its loyal inhabitants to make up, if possible, by their 
 own flawless devotion and unflagging work, for whatever 
 of loss of reputation had come to their Town through the 
 disaffection of its most distinguished citizen. 
 
 All the foregoing circumstances concurred to impel 
 Milton to active leadership in the Suffolk Convention, and 
 will account for the fact that the adjournment on Septem- 
 ber 6th in Dedham was to Milton, so that the final work 
 of the Convention should be performed in and emanate 
 from the Town whose leadership in the cause had raised it 
 to this distinction. 
 
 If you think it is going too far to speak thus of Mil- 
 ton's leadership, read the words of Alden Bradford in 
 his "History of Massachusetts" (p. 338) : 
 
 "The resolutions adopted by the meeting of commit- 
 tees at Milton, in the county of Suffolk, were more ex- 
 plicit and spirited, than any which had been before pub- 
 lished. They discovered a sensibility more alive to the 
 distresses of the people, and more indignant at the con- 
 duct of administration, than appeared in the proceedings 
 of the other counties." 
 
 *Teele, p. 419. 
 
 [37] 
 
Here is the judgment by the collator of the Massachu- 
 setts State Papers and the author of the "History of 
 Massachusetts from 1764 to July, 1775," confirming our 
 claim as to Milton's leadership; nay, anticipating it by 
 nearly a century. 
 
 This claim is made in the same spirit in which Brad- 
 ford, in his "Introductory Remarks" to his collection of 
 Massachusetts State Papers (p. 9), said as to Massa- 
 chusetts : 
 
 "We mean not to claim for Massachusetts all the merit 
 of opposition to the arbitrary measures of Great Britain, 
 nor all the influence which was exerted to effect the revo- 
 lution. Other colonies were forward and decisive in dis- 
 approving of the power claimed by the British ministry, 
 of that period, over the people in these provinces; and 
 readily united with Massachusetts in measures of re- 
 dress." 
 
 He then gives credit to Virginia, New York, and Penn- 
 sylvania, and closes this branch of the subject by saying: 
 "We believe, however, that the history of those times 
 will abundantly shew, that the House of Representatives 
 in Massachusetts was the most firm, systematic and per- 
 severing in its efforts for the repeal of these oppressive 
 acts, In exciting a just sense of our rights and our dangers, 
 and in rousing the spirit of the people generally to make 
 a solemn, decisive stand, which involved the alternative 
 of liberty or death."* 
 
 In effect we are as nearly as possible In like manner 
 trying to say as to Milton that "we believe, however, that 
 the history of those times will abundantly shew," that, 
 especially in the proceedings leading up to the first Con- 
 tinental Congress, while there was great activity along 
 similar lines in a very large number of communities, the 
 Town of Milton "was the most firm, systematic and 
 persevering ... in exciting a just sense of our rights 
 
 * Massachusetts State Papers, p. 9. 
 
 [38] 
 
and our dangers, and in rousing the spirit of the people 
 generally," as above stated by Bradford; and this was 
 obviously the belief of Bradford, as shown by the above 
 quotation from his "History of Massachusetts" (*) writ- 
 ten four years after his collation of the Massachusetts 
 State Papers, (f) 
 
 Yet more : Bradford adds the human touch for which 
 this writer was seeking. Having judged the work, he 
 turns to the men who did it, saying: 
 
 "It is deemed proper that the resolutions of the Suf- 
 folk Convention be here given, In justice to the patriotic 
 feelings and high purposes of men, who stood forth, at 
 every hazard, in support of civil liberty; and to whom with 
 others, the present generation in America are wholly in- 
 debted for a most perfect condition of political and social 
 freedom." {Ibid., p. 339.) 
 
 Twice, at least, since these words were written has our 
 political and social freedom been In imminent danger of 
 shipwreck, — from the civil war; and from the recent 
 world war. To us and to those who shall come after us, 
 no stronger or better words can be addressed than those 
 Issued from the beautiful spot by the old church, when 
 Milton enjoined Its Representative, saying: 
 
 "We depend upon your steadiness, prudence and firm- 
 ness, and that you give not up one jot or tittle of our 
 rights, but dispute every inch of ground with the enemies 
 of our Liberties and Freedom," — to which we add only 
 the words — whether these enemies be from without our 
 borders, or within them. 
 
 * Published 1822. 
 t Published 18 18. 
 
 [39] 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 011 699 930 4^ 
 
LIBRAR 
 
 00 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 011 699 930 4 ^ 
 
 peRimlfpe*