On 4 November 1767, a British ship arrived in Boston, and three customs board members were passengers. The next day and night was Pope’s Night, and Boston celebrated in rowdy fashion. Bernard blamed Samuel Adams for intentionally organizing so much disorder, making him as the MA Governor look like he wasn’t in control of things in Boston. The three officials moved through Boston without any trouble, even passing by a large crowd surrounding a large bonfire without incident. A protest mob was supposedly organized to go into action on 20 November 1767 when the Townshend Act became official, but nothing materialized. MA seemed to be cowed, and Bernard crowed.
Adams must have been incredibly frustrated at that juncture, and what added to his frustration was a vicious piece targeting him in the Gazette in January 1768 titled “Simple Sammy”. The eight stanzas in the piece claimed that Adams had exhausted Boston with his meddling, and that he should give up and devote himself to harmless passions, such as curing bacon. Bernard and Hutchinson had to be savoring the stanzas when they read the Gazette. The attack against him in the Gazette was a true surprise to Adams, since his critic was someone that was close at hand. Adams wisely did not issue a public reply to the stanzas. Adams assured Hancock that he knew the identity of the poetic critic, and that given time, the insults would transform to acclaim.
Adams must have been incredibly frustrated at that juncture, and what added to his frustration was a vicious piece targeting him in the Gazette in January 1768 titled “Simple Sammy”. The eight stanzas in the piece claimed that Adams had exhausted Boston with his meddling, and that he should give up and devote himself to harmless passions, such as curing bacon. Bernard and Hutchinson had to be savoring the stanzas when they read the Gazette. The attack against him in the Gazette was a true surprise to Adams, since his critic was someone that was close at hand. Adams wisely did not issue a public reply to the stanzas. Adams assured Hancock that he knew the identity of the poetic critic, and that given time, the insults would transform to acclaim.
Between December 1767 and the end of February 1768, editorials appeared in the Gazette, as well as other Colonial newspapers, from an anonymous author, which turned out to be 35 year old John Dickinson from Philadelphia. Dickinson hoped that Boston would again lead the way in opposition and defiance, this time towards the Townshend Act. For nine weeks, Dickinson’s anonymous editorials featured his incandescent and intoxicating arguments, and they spread throughout the Colonies. Over the next few years, Adams would use Dickinson’s arguments often, repeating and expanding them as he so desired. It was Dickinson, not Adams, that in early-1768 presented the most serious challenge to date of British authority in the Colonies.
MA accepted Dickinson’s torch and ran with it, but in a different direction than what Bernard and Hutchinson anticipated. Adams, in his letters to the MA House agent in London, still expressed his belief that Parliament, which Adams described as “just”, and the Crown, which he called “infallible”, had been deceived and misinformed by what was actually going on in the Colonies. The MA House wrote directly to five members of Parliament, going around Bernard doing so. Independence was not the goal, but what was desired was to press the reset button and return to how things were before the Stamp Act.
During mid-January 1768, Adams sent a missive to London, asking for permission to speak to King George III in order to outline his reasons why the Colonies were unfairly taxed since they didn’t have direct representation in Parliament. The MA House toned down Adams’ missive before sending it, limiting the objections solely to the Townshend Act. Very soon after the MA House approved the petition to King George III, Adams and Otis wanted the petition to be circulated in the Colonies, but the motion to do so was defeated 2 to 1 after a fierce debate. Bernard and Hutchinson predicted that there would be no more trouble concerning the Townshend Act.
MA accepted Dickinson’s torch and ran with it, but in a different direction than what Bernard and Hutchinson anticipated. Adams, in his letters to the MA House agent in London, still expressed his belief that Parliament, which Adams described as “just”, and the Crown, which he called “infallible”, had been deceived and misinformed by what was actually going on in the Colonies. The MA House wrote directly to five members of Parliament, going around Bernard doing so. Independence was not the goal, but what was desired was to press the reset button and return to how things were before the Stamp Act.
During mid-January 1768, Adams sent a missive to London, asking for permission to speak to King George III in order to outline his reasons why the Colonies were unfairly taxed since they didn’t have direct representation in Parliament. The MA House toned down Adams’ missive before sending it, limiting the objections solely to the Townshend Act. Very soon after the MA House approved the petition to King George III, Adams and Otis wanted the petition to be circulated in the Colonies, but the motion to do so was defeated 2 to 1 after a fierce debate. Bernard and Hutchinson predicted that there would be no more trouble concerning the Townshend Act.
However, on 4 February 1768, the MA House in a large majority instructed Adams to circulate the petition directly to King George III, while also striking the original 2 to 1 vote from the record. Adams was elated, but he had no idea that the circulation of the petition would cause a firestorm in London, or that it would accelerate the level of resistance and revolt against Britain in the Colonies. The petition would soon be called the Circular Letter, and as it worked its way to the Southern Colonies, Hutchinson became even more frustrated and distraught with who he called “Professed Patriots”. The Gazette directly berated Bernard, calling him a man “totally abandoned to wickedness”. Bernard and Hutchinson pursued libel claims, but were rebuffed, almost certainly due to Adams’ machinations. In the Gazette, Adams advocated calm and patience while also urging that no mobs or violence occur via his anonymous writings. Another anonymous writer in the Gazette was Dr. Joseph Warren (under the pseudonym “A True Patriot”) who became a close friend of Adams; ironically, it was Warren who helped Hutchinson recover from his nervous breakdown in 1767.
Meanwhile, the attempted boycotts were set to commence on 1 June 1768, but there was no chance of success without the participation of NYC and Philadelphia, and they were on the fence. Bernard believed Adams’ campaign to refuse to buy British goods would never work, since the Colonies were beyond-heavily dependent on finished goods from Britain, and couldn’t manufacture/produce nearly enough items (e.g. wool, nails, paper, etc.) to make up for the shortfall. During the Spring of 1768, Adams’ popularity decreased, proven by his narrow reelection victory in the MA House that spring. An increasing number of people that had supported him before seemed to have tired of his rhetoric and actions.
Meanwhile, the attempted boycotts were set to commence on 1 June 1768, but there was no chance of success without the participation of NYC and Philadelphia, and they were on the fence. Bernard believed Adams’ campaign to refuse to buy British goods would never work, since the Colonies were beyond-heavily dependent on finished goods from Britain, and couldn’t manufacture/produce nearly enough items (e.g. wool, nails, paper, etc.) to make up for the shortfall. During the Spring of 1768, Adams’ popularity decreased, proven by his narrow reelection victory in the MA House that spring. An increasing number of people that had supported him before seemed to have tired of his rhetoric and actions.
Adams didn’t change at all, staying the course, “indefatigable in mischief” according to Bernard. Hutchinson was short by three votes in the MA House on the first ballot to return to the Council, largely due to Adams bringing up that Hutchinson was a pensioner, receiving 200 pounds/year from the Townshend Act revenues as income for his official duties in MA, especially on the bench. Otis then rose and named an alternate candidate; it was a choreographed set-up by Adams and Otis, and Hutchinson received fewer votes on the second ballot, and was again denied being a member of the Council. It didn’t escape Hutchinson that Adams and others should be in prison as debtors instead of in positions of power, denying him his due. Hutchinson was so caught up in his own affairs that it barely registered that a week before, a British ship of 50 guns arrived in Boston Harbor.
By this time, Adams and Otis were viewed as the co-leaders of the opposition to Bernard and Hutchinson. The two were kind of back as the “Dynamic Duo” in that Otis was now in support of the boycott for the Townshend Act, but he still stated that Parliament had absolute sovereignty over the Colonies. Otis’ flip-flops and fence-sitting opened him to attacks from all sides. Otis actually challenged George Grenville to a duel, which would never happen, and far worse, urged a second attack on Hutchinson’s home, a real threat. One day Otis was a Whig in opposition, and on another day he was a Tory, loyal to Britain. Through it all, Adams managed Otis and did damage control.
During 1768, the dynamic between Adams and Otis changed due to rivalry, when it became clear that Adams was the one that edited, often heavily, the writings that were attributed to Otis. When the Townshend Act customs officials took their posts in Boston, they viewed Adams as the leader of the opposition, with among his chief lieutenants Dr. Warren. To these customs officials, Adams was the clear leader, the “political dictator”, and he had a “secret influence” over Boston; all the while, Otis’ resentment grew.
By this time, Adams and Otis were viewed as the co-leaders of the opposition to Bernard and Hutchinson. The two were kind of back as the “Dynamic Duo” in that Otis was now in support of the boycott for the Townshend Act, but he still stated that Parliament had absolute sovereignty over the Colonies. Otis’ flip-flops and fence-sitting opened him to attacks from all sides. Otis actually challenged George Grenville to a duel, which would never happen, and far worse, urged a second attack on Hutchinson’s home, a real threat. One day Otis was a Whig in opposition, and on another day he was a Tory, loyal to Britain. Through it all, Adams managed Otis and did damage control.
During 1768, the dynamic between Adams and Otis changed due to rivalry, when it became clear that Adams was the one that edited, often heavily, the writings that were attributed to Otis. When the Townshend Act customs officials took their posts in Boston, they viewed Adams as the leader of the opposition, with among his chief lieutenants Dr. Warren. To these customs officials, Adams was the clear leader, the “political dictator”, and he had a “secret influence” over Boston; all the while, Otis’ resentment grew.
The ascendancy of Adams to this lofty status in the eyes of the customs officials (and many others) very much bothered Otis. Where Adams stayed the course, being consistent, Otis zigged and zagged. Adams was committed to liberty, as he saw it, whereas Otis was focused on receiving attention. Adams did his work behind the scenes where it was the most effective, where Otis had to be in the spotlight.
On 21 June 1768, Bernard announced to the MA House that King George III commanded that the chamber renounce the Circular Letter. Bernard also informed the chamber that if it refused to do so, he was instructed by London to dissolve the MA House. On this day it was an “Anti-Government Day” for Otis, who pronounced and preened for two hours against British authority. Some of Otis’ arguments were correct, in that he pointed out that British officials often didn’t stay in office long enough to have even a remote idea about the Colonies. Bernard demanded an immediate answer from the MA House, but the chamber kept him waiting for nine days. During that time, the MA House received letters from MD and VA applauding the Circular Letter, with three other Colonies doing so in short order, which of course pleased Adams. Bernard received his answer from the MA House on 29 June 1768, where in a closed session behind locked doors and a guard at the door, the chamber voted 92 - 17 to not rescind the Circular Letter. It seemed nothing had united the Colonies more than the Circular Letter, unless one counted Britain’s demand that it be retracted.
On 21 June 1768, Bernard announced to the MA House that King George III commanded that the chamber renounce the Circular Letter. Bernard also informed the chamber that if it refused to do so, he was instructed by London to dissolve the MA House. On this day it was an “Anti-Government Day” for Otis, who pronounced and preened for two hours against British authority. Some of Otis’ arguments were correct, in that he pointed out that British officials often didn’t stay in office long enough to have even a remote idea about the Colonies. Bernard demanded an immediate answer from the MA House, but the chamber kept him waiting for nine days. During that time, the MA House received letters from MD and VA applauding the Circular Letter, with three other Colonies doing so in short order, which of course pleased Adams. Bernard received his answer from the MA House on 29 June 1768, where in a closed session behind locked doors and a guard at the door, the chamber voted 92 - 17 to not rescind the Circular Letter. It seemed nothing had united the Colonies more than the Circular Letter, unless one counted Britain’s demand that it be retracted.
During that same afternoon, the MA House created a committee to request a recall of Bernard as MA governor, and Adams was the committee’s chair. To prevent the MA House from considering the committee’s proposal of his recall, Bernard dissolved the MA House, which would not reconvene again until May 1769. Adams succeeded in keeping the MA House’s vote to not retract the Circular Letter secret until it was published in newspapers. Otis took issue with Adams over this tactic, since he wanted to play fair and provide proper notice to the MA and British officials before doing so. The dispute between Adams and Otis delayed the publication of the MA House vote until 18 July 1768, and Bernard immediately sent the newspaper to London.
During mid-July 1768, a Sons of Liberty mob assembled at the home of the Inspector General of Customs, demanding that he leave his post or leave town. The mob attempted to break into the property’s courtyard, and the British official was able to hold off the mob with a gun. Interestingly, that scene was not mentioned at all in the Gazette, which had to be due to Adams. A month before, British customs officials impounded a 90 ton sloop owned by Hancock, and a crowd made sure that the seizure of the ship did not occur. Later, a mob assaulted two British officials, as well as vandalizing their homes. These officials fled for the safety of a British ship in the harbor, and later to The Castle, a literal island of safety, authorized to do so by Bernard.
Increasingly, the Sons of Liberty refused to take responsibility for actions of mobs that continued to form, of which they had of course at least encouraged, if not organized. Again and again, Adams reduced the actions of these mobs as a “boys’ frolic”, or a “few broken panes of glass”, with Adams accusing Bernard of turning minor disturbances into major riots in his letters to London.
During mid-July 1768, a Sons of Liberty mob assembled at the home of the Inspector General of Customs, demanding that he leave his post or leave town. The mob attempted to break into the property’s courtyard, and the British official was able to hold off the mob with a gun. Interestingly, that scene was not mentioned at all in the Gazette, which had to be due to Adams. A month before, British customs officials impounded a 90 ton sloop owned by Hancock, and a crowd made sure that the seizure of the ship did not occur. Later, a mob assaulted two British officials, as well as vandalizing their homes. These officials fled for the safety of a British ship in the harbor, and later to The Castle, a literal island of safety, authorized to do so by Bernard.
Increasingly, the Sons of Liberty refused to take responsibility for actions of mobs that continued to form, of which they had of course at least encouraged, if not organized. Again and again, Adams reduced the actions of these mobs as a “boys’ frolic”, or a “few broken panes of glass”, with Adams accusing Bernard of turning minor disturbances into major riots in his letters to London.
During the Spring of 1768, at the urging of Samuel Adams, John Adams moved to Boston from Braintree. Once in Boston, John Adams declined all positions offered to him that were under the umbrella of British authority in MA. In August 1768, nearly 200 Boston merchants agreed to the Non-Importation Agreement, and promised to continue the boycotts until the Townshend Act was repealed. Bernard had a dilemma, in that he needed British regulars to restore order, but he could not request military assistance without a vote from the Council, which he no longer controlled. A frustrated Bernard knew that British regulars were in NJ and PA, and colonists there were “obedient”. Bernard was beyond-horrified at the prospect of what would happen to him, his family, and his property if British regulars appeared in Boston, and it was discovered that he had sent for them.
During late-June 1768, before the MA House was dissolved, a committee asked Bernard if he had requested British regulars. Bernard truthfully answered that he had not. In truth, General Thomas Gage had been ignoring Bernard’s increasingly desperate hints. Bernard had secured a leave from his post as MA governor, which started in September 1768, so by that point Bernard in no way wanted British regulars in Boston until after he was safely away. Hutchinson privately and publicly stated that if British regulars arrived, he would have nothing to do with them. During July 1768, Bernard received a special messenger that delivered a confidential letter from General Gage, who was in NYC. Gage knew that Bernard was in a tough spot, and warned Bernard to keep their communications secret. Gage wanted to know if the MA governor wanted one or two British regiments to arrive in Boston.
During late-June 1768, before the MA House was dissolved, a committee asked Bernard if he had requested British regulars. Bernard truthfully answered that he had not. In truth, General Thomas Gage had been ignoring Bernard’s increasingly desperate hints. Bernard had secured a leave from his post as MA governor, which started in September 1768, so by that point Bernard in no way wanted British regulars in Boston until after he was safely away. Hutchinson privately and publicly stated that if British regulars arrived, he would have nothing to do with them. During July 1768, Bernard received a special messenger that delivered a confidential letter from General Gage, who was in NYC. Gage knew that Bernard was in a tough spot, and warned Bernard to keep their communications secret. Gage wanted to know if the MA governor wanted one or two British regiments to arrive in Boston.