logo
A Year Before Declaring Independence, Colonists Offered 'Olive Branch' Petition to King George III

A Year Before Declaring Independence, Colonists Offered 'Olive Branch' Petition to King George III

Al Arabiya04-07-2025
Alarmed by the policies of President Donald Trump, millions turned out last month for protests around the US and overseas.
Mindful of next year's 250th anniversary of American independence, organizers called the movement 'No Kings.' Had the same kind of rallies been called for in the summer of 1775, the response likely would have been more cautious.
'It ('No Kings') was probably a minority opinion in July 1775,' says H.W. Brands, a prize-winning scholar and chair of the history department at the University of Texas at Austin.
'There was a lot of passion for revolution in New England, but that was different from the rest of the country,' says Pulitzer Prize–winning historian Joseph Ellis. 'There were still people who didn't want to be drawn into what they feared was an unnecessary war.'
This month marks the 250th anniversary–the semiquincentennial–of a document enacted almost exactly a year before the Declaration of Independence: The Olive Branch Petition, ratified July 5, 1775, by the Continental Congress. Its primary author was John Dickinson, a Pennsylvanian whose writing skills led some to call him the 'Penman of the Revolution,' and would stand as a final, desperate plea to reconcile with Britain.
They put forth a pre-revolutionary argument. The notion of 'No Kings' is a foundation of democracy. But over the first half of 1775, Dickinson and others still hoped that King George III could be reasoned with and would undo the tax hikes and other alleged abuses they blamed on the British Parliament and other officials.
Ellis calls it the 'Awkward Interval,' when Americans had fought the British in Lexington and Concord and around Bunker Hill while holding off from a full separation.
'Public opinion is changing during this time, but it still would have been premature to issue a declaration of independence,' says Ellis, whose books include Founding Brothers, The Cause, and the upcoming The Great Contradiction.
The Continental Congress projected unity in its official statements. But privately, like the colonies overall, members differed.
Jack Rakove, a professor of history at Stanford University and author of the Pulitzer Prize–winning Original Meanings, noted that delegates to Congress ranged from radicals such as Samuel Adams, who were avid for independence, to such moderates as Dickinson and New York's John Jay.
The Olive Branch resolution balanced references to the 'delusive pretences,' 'fruitless terrors,' and 'unavailing severities' administered by British officials with dutiful tributes to shared ties and to the king's 'royal magnanimity and benevolence.'
'(N)otwithstanding the sufferings of your loyal Colonists during the course of this present controversy, our Breasts retain too tender a regard for the Kingdom from which we derive our Origin to request such a Reconciliation as might in any manner be inconsistent with her Dignity or her welfare,' the sometimes obsequious petition reads in part.
The American Revolution didn't arise at a single moment, but through years of anguished steps away from the mother country–a kind of weaning that at times suggested a coming of age, a young person's final departure from home.
In letters and diaries written in the months before July 1775, American leaders often referred to themselves as children, the British as parents, and the conflict a family argument.
Edmund Pendleton, a Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, urged a reconciliation with 'Our mother Country.'
Jay, who would later help negotiate the treaty formally ending the Revolutionary War, proposed informing King George that 'your majesty's American subjects are bound to your majesty by the strongest ties of allegiance and affection and attached to their parent country by every bond that can unite societies.'
In the Olive Branch paper, Dickinson would offer tribute to the 'union between our Mother country and these colonies.'
An early example of peace through strength. The Congress, which had been formed the year before, relied in the first half of 1775 on a dual strategy that now might be called peace through strength, a blend of resolve and compromise.
John Adams defined it as 'to hold the sword in one hand, the olive branch in the other.'
Dickinson's petition was a gesture of peace. A companion document, The Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms, was a statement of resolve.
The 1775 declaration was drafted by Thomas Jefferson, who a year later would be the principal writer of the Declaration of Independence, revised by Dickinson and approved by the Congress on July 6.
The language anticipated the Declaration of Independence with its condemnation of the British for their 'intemperate Rage for unlimited Domination' and its vows to make known the 'Justice of our Cause.'
But while the Declaration of Independence ends with the 13 colonies absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, the authors in 1775 assured a nervous public that 'we mean not to dissolve that Union which has so long and so happily subsisted between us, and which we sincerely wish to see restored.'
'Necessity has not yet driven us into that desperate Measure, or induced us to excite any other Nation to war against them,' they wrote.
John Adams and Benjamin Franklin were among the peers of Dickinson who thought him naive about the British and were unfazed when the king refused even to look at the Olive Branch petition and ruled that the colonies were in a state of rebellion.
Around the same time Dickinson was working on his draft, the Continental Congress readied for further conflict. It appointed a commander of the newly formed Continental Army, a renowned Virginian whom Adams praised as 'modest and virtuous … amiable, generous and brave.' His name: George Washington.
His ascension, Adams wrote, 'will have a great effect in cementing and securing the Union of these Colonies.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Thousands of Afghans face possible deportation after court refuses to extend their legal protection
Thousands of Afghans face possible deportation after court refuses to extend their legal protection

Arab News

time34 minutes ago

  • Arab News

Thousands of Afghans face possible deportation after court refuses to extend their legal protection

VIRGINIA: Thousands of Afghans in the US are no longer protected from deportation after a federal appeals court refused to postpone the Trump administration's decision to end their legal status. A three-judge panel of the Fourth US Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia said in a ruling late Monday there was 'insufficient evidence to warrant the extraordinary remedy of a postponement' of the administration's decision not to extend Temporary Protected Status for people from Afghanistan and Cameroon. TPS for Afghans ended July 14, but was briefly extended by the appeals court through July 21 while it considered an emergency request for a longer postponement. The Department of Homeland Security in May said it was ending Temporary Protected Status for 11,700 people from Afghanistan in 60 days. That status — in place since 2022 — had allowed them to work and meant the government couldn't deport them. CASA, a nonprofit immigrant advocacy group, sued the administration over the TPS revocation for Afghans as well as for people from Cameroon, which expire August 4. It said the decisions were racially motivated and failed to follow a process laid out by Congress. A federal judge allowed the lawsuit to go forward but didn't grant CASA's request to keep the protections in place while the lawsuit plays out. A phone message for CASA on Tuesday was not immediately returned. Without an extension, TPS holders from Afghanistan and Cameroon face a 'devastating choice — abandoning their homes, relinquishing their employment, and uprooting their lives to return to a country where they face the threat of severe physical harm or even death, or remaining in the United States in a state of legal uncertainty while they wait for other immigration processes to play out,' CASA warned in court documents. In its decision on Monday, the appeals court said CASA had made a 'plausible' legal claim against the administration, and urged the lower court to move the case forward expeditiously. It also said many of the TPS holders from the two countries may be eligible for other legal protections that remain available to them. Temporary Protected Status can be granted by the Homeland Security secretary to people who face safety concerns in their home countries because of armed conflict, environmental disaster or other conditions. They can't be deported and can work legally in the US, but they don't have a pathway to citizenship. The status, however, is inherently precarious because it is up to the Homeland Security secretary to renew the protections regularly — usually every 18 months. The Trump administration has pushed to remove Temporary Protected Status from people from seven countries, with Venezuela and Haiti making up the biggest chunk of the hundreds of thousands of people affected. Homeland Security officials said in their decision to end the Temporary Protected Status for Afghans that the situation in their home country was getting better. Groups that help Afghan TPS holders say the country is still extremely dangerous. 'Ending TPS does not align with the reality of circumstances on the ground in Afghanistan,' Global Refuge President and CEO Krish O'Mara Vignarajah said in a statement. 'Conditions remain dire, especially for allies who supported the US mission, as well as women, girls, religious minorities, and ethnic groups targeted by the Taliban.' He called on Congress to provide Afghan TPS holders with a 'permanent path to safety and stability.'

Prominent Chicago defense lawyer Thomas Durkin, a zealous advocate for clients, has died at 78
Prominent Chicago defense lawyer Thomas Durkin, a zealous advocate for clients, has died at 78

Al Arabiya

timean hour ago

  • Al Arabiya

Prominent Chicago defense lawyer Thomas Durkin, a zealous advocate for clients, has died at 78

Thomas Anthony Durkin–a nationally prominent criminal defense attorney who for five decades was a fixture in Chicago's courthouses and who was known for his relentless advocacy for a roster of notorious clients–has died. He was 78 years old. Durkin died Monday after a brief battle with cancer, said a daughter, Alanna Durkin Richer, an Associated Press journalist in Washington. Durkin participated in some of Chicago's highest-profile court cases, but his influence spanned beyond the city through his representation of Guantanamo Bay detainees, lectures at law schools across the country, and legal essays and news media interviews in which he sounded the alarm about the perils of unchecked government power. His career was driven by a conviction that all defendants–no matter their alleged crime or society's perception of them–were entitled to a rigorous defense and to the protection of their constitutionally afforded civil rights. So committed was he to the defense of the unpopular that the headline of a 2016 Wall Street Journal article described him as a 'terror suspects' best hope in court.' 'I don't do this because I think my clients are wonderful people who should be exonerated,' he was quoted in the story as saying. 'I do it because I think I have a role in the system.' Durkin was born on the South Side of Chicago to a steel mill worker who saved enough money to put his son through the University of Notre Dame, where he graduated in 1968 and whose home football games he rarely missed. He later received a law degree from the University of San Francisco, where he was exposed to criminal defense by serving as a student adviser at a local public defender's office. Returning to Chicago, he clerked for Judge James Parsons of the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois before entering private practice with a specialty in federal criminal cases. From 1978 through 1984, he served as a federal prosecutor in Chicago. Over more than 40 years in private practice, he cultivated a reputation as one of the country's foremost advocates of defendants other attorneys would pass on representing. 'He took on the most challenging, controversial, and complex cases that other lawyers would run away from,' said Joshua Herman, an attorney who worked on national security matters with Durkin. 'Above all, he valued the rule of law the most and raised his strongest objections to what he saw as abuses of power.' Durkin's clients included Adel Daoud, who was accused in a plot to bomb a Chicago bar, and Mohammed Hamzah Khan, who as a teenager was arrested on charges of conspiring to provide support to ISIS. He won an acquittal on terrorism charges for Jared Chase, one of the so-called 'NATO 3' defendants accused of plotting to bomb the 2012 NATO summit in Chicago, and he represented Matthew Hale, a white supremacist leader accused of domestic terrorism offenses for soliciting the murder of a federal judge. 'I used to tell him he was my favorite cause lawyer,' said Dan Webb, a former US Attorney in Chicago who said he had known Durkin for more than 40 years and spoke to him just a week ago for a case they were working on together. 'When he got committed to a cause, he would not stop until he accomplished his goal.' He also was a go-to lawyer for numerous local elected officials who found themselves in legal trouble. The work, Durkin said, appealed not only to his commitment to civil liberties but stimulated him intellectually and spiritually as well. 'I think these are the cases of our day. They point out all the problems that terrorism has spawned with the reaction on our side, both good and bad. I find them fascinating,' he said in a 2014 Chicago Reader piece. 'There are some days I find it hard to believe that people are paying me to be involved in what I'm involved in. There's a tremendous amount of history you have to learn, which I enjoy. There's a lot of theology you have to understand, which I enjoy.' Beyond Chicago, he did legal work for detainees at Guantanamo Bay, including helping represent Ramzi bin al-Shibh, an accused facilitator of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, and representing others who have since been returned to their home countries. His experiences there, he said, helped show him the dark side of American intelligence. 'I think I've been involved in some pretty wild stuff around here, but I've never been involved in anything as wild as this,' he said in a 2009 Chicago television interview. Since 1984, he operated a law practice, Durkin & Roberts, with his wife, Janis Roberts, whose own legal career he was proud to pay tribute to. 'Without Roberts,' he has said, 'there is no Durkin.' Besides his wife and his daughter Alanna, he is survived by five other children: Erin Pieplow, Krista Mussa, Catherine Durkin Stewart, James Stewart, and Matthew Stewart, and 15 grandchildren.

Justice Department wants to interview Jeffrey Epstein's former girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell
Justice Department wants to interview Jeffrey Epstein's former girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell

Arab News

time2 hours ago

  • Arab News

Justice Department wants to interview Jeffrey Epstein's former girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell

WASHINGTON : The Department of Justice wants to interview Jeffrey Epstein's former girlfriend, who was convicted of helping the financier sexually abuse underage girls and is now serving a lengthy prison sentence, a senior official said Tuesday. If Ghislaine Maxwell 'has information about anyone who has committed crimes against victims, the FBI and the DOJ will hear what she has to say,' Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a post on X, adding that President Donald Trump 'has told us to release all credible evidence.' A lawyer for Maxwell confirmed there were discussions with the government. The overture to attorneys for Maxwell, who in 2022 was sentenced to 20 years in prison, is part of an ongoing Justice Department effort to cast itself as transparent following fierce backlash from parts of Trump's base over an earlier refusal to release additional records in the Epstein investigation. As part of that effort, the Justice Department, acting at the direction of the Republican president, last week asked a judge to unseal grand jury transcripts from the case. That decision is ultimately up to the judge. Epstein, who killed himself in his New York jail cell in 2019 while awaiting trial, sexually abused children hundreds of times over more than a decade, exploiting vulnerable girls as young as 14, authorities say. He couldn't have done so without the help of Maxwell, his longtime companion, prosecutors say. The Justice Department had said in a two-page memo this month that it had not uncovered evidence to charge anyone else in connection with Epstein's abuse. But Blanche said in his social media post that the Justice Department 'does not shy away from uncomfortable truths, nor from the responsibility to pursue justice wherever the facts may lead.' He said in his post that, at the direction of Attorney General Pam Bondi, he has 'communicated with counsel for Ms. Maxwell to determine whether she would be willing to speak with prosecutors from the Department.' He said he anticipated meeting with Maxwell in the coming days. A lawyer for Maxwell, David Oscar Markus, said Tuesday in a statement: 'I can confirm that we are in discussions with the government and that Ghislaine will always testify truthfully. We are grateful to President Trump for his commitment to uncovering the truth in this case.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store