Title: George Mason: Our Lost Founding Father (Part 2)
Original CoS Document (slug): george-mason-our-lost-founding-father-part-2
Login Required to view? No
Created: 2024-08-21 09:17:37
Updated: 2024-08-21 14:20:21
Published: 2024-08-21 01:00:00
Converted: 2025-04-14T21:32:31.358799046
Part 1 of this four-part series introduced and provided a chronology of George Mason’s statesmanship from 1765 to 1788. Part 1 was published in Convention of States Action Blog on March 29, 2024. Part 2 will examine his pre-Revolutionary foundational and influential writings for Virginia and our Republic.
“A Virginia Planter’s” Taxation and Nonimportation Beginnings
While George Mason began his active political life in the House of Burgesses, his initial pre-Revolutionary Era defense of Virginia's rights in British America against the English Crown was enforcement resistance to the Stamp Act (1765) as a private citizen.[1] Americans were required to purchase stamps as a tax on most printed material such as legal documents, newspapers, and playing cards, which the colonists considered an internal British tax.[2] Moved to the center of the taxation fight by a request for help from George Washington and George William Fairfax, Mason devised a plan.[3]
In late December 1765, Mason’s “Scheme for Replevying Goods and Distress for Rent” was a plan to evade requirements of the Stamp Act. During the Stamp Act Era, landlords had difficulties obtaining rents from tenants, since to pay the rent would additionally require purchase of a legal stamp affixed to the document or bond. The debtor had the ability to “replevin,” or recover the goods pledged as security. Mason's plan enabled direct landlord action with the tenant for recovery of debt, approved by a single magistrate, avoiding the stamp requirement and a full court proceeding with other justices. Before the scheme could become active, the Stamp Act was cancelled in March 1766. While Mason placed his plan on paper, Virginians refused to purchase items that required a stamp. Thus, the act became unenforceable and hurt British economy. Although Mason's scheme was never tested, the significance of his plan left two major impressions.[4]
First, Mason introduced a topic he would return to in 1787 at Philadelphia – the evils of slavery, its negative impact on Virginians, and how leasing of lands is more beneficial than filling them with slaves:
The Policy of encouraging the Importation of free People & discouraging that of Slaves has never been duly considered in this Colony, or we shou'd not at this Day see one Half of our best Lands in most Parts of the Country remain unsetled, & the other cultivated with Slaves; not to mention the ill Effect such a Practice has upon the Morals & Manners of our People: one of the first Signs of the Decay, & perhaps the primary Cause of the Destruction of the most flourishing Government…very pathetically described by the Roman Historians… That the Custom of leasing Lands is more beneficial to the Community than…of settling them with Slaves is a Maxim that will hardly be denyed in any free Country…in Proportion as it is more useful to the Public… - no Means seem so natural as securing the Payment of Rents in an easy & effectual Manner…may be considered as an Equivalent to the greater Profit arising from the Labour of Slaves, or any other precarious & troublesome Estate.[5]
Secondly, clearly shown was Mason's overwhelming knowledge of English common land law. Though not a lawyer, he was often mistaken for one. Mason frequently led the General Assembly on issues specific to landlord's rights and tenancy.[6]
After the Stamp Act’s death, Mason congratulated the Committee of Merchants in London who successfully petitioned the House of Commons to repeal the act, stated his current position as a loyal Englishman in America, and shared the general sentiment of most Virginians.
Writing as “A Virginia Planter,” Mason acknowledged the evils of the Stamp Act were presently removed, gave thanks and praise to God, blessings to King George III, further gratitude for Parliament's prudent temperament, and the tireless diligence of America's British merchant friends who made the repeal happen based on a spirit of inseparable common interest for both nations.[7] Mason stated that only the locale and not loyalty of British Americans changed, and offered a reminder to
Let our fellow-Subjects in Great Britain reflect that we are descended from the same Stock with themselves,…that in crossing the Atlantic Ocean, we have only changed our Climate, not our Minds, our Natures & Dispositions remain unaltered; that We are still the same People with them, in every Respect; only not yet debauched by Wealth, Luxury, Venality, & Corruption; and then they will be able to judge how the late Regulations have been relished in America.[8]
Mason then issued a warning about future negative taxation levied on the American colonies:
There is a Passion natural to the Mind of Man, especially a free Man, which renders him impatient of Restraint. Do you…think that three or four Millions of People, not naturally defective in Genius, or in Courage,… will long submit to Oppression; if unhappily for yourselves, Oppression shou'd be offered them? Such another Experiment as the Stamp-Act wou'd produce a general Revolt in America.[9]
Slightly over a year after Mason's letter to the British merchants, “Such another Experiment” would be concocted by the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, Charles Townshend.
Townshend's Revenue Act of 1767 paid salaries of governors, custom judges, and other Crown officials in the American colonies. The act taxed British export items to America. Duties on goods paid by the colonials included tea, glass, lead, and paper. Townshend expected to return £40,000 annually in revenue from this supposed external tax. However, as learned from the Stamp Act internal tax fiasco and Mason 's merchant letter, the colonists opposed all tax revenue projects, holding firm to the belief and ongoing practice that only American legislatures could tax the colonies, yet acknowledged Parliament's ability to regulate trade through certain duties.[10] Parliament passed the Revenue Act of 1767 on June 29, 1767.[11] In short order, the Americans realized Townshend's true aim. The low amount of anticipated revenue from the colonies in the form of an external tax was more political than financial.
Townshend wanted to subtly re-impose Parliament's ability of colonial taxation, establish provisions for the costs of civil government and justice administration in the colonies, and ultimately make royal officials independent of colonial assemblies.[12] Americans could sense an oncoming destruction of their English constitutional rights. Prime evidence of this was found in New York when the assembly refused to enforce the Quartering Act. In response, the assembly was suspended effective on October 1, 1767, with subsequent passed assembly legislation declared “null and void.” The governor was ordered to veto all legislation. If the legislature complied with the Quartering Act, the prohibitions would be lifted.[13] For Americans, the Revenue Act of 1767 was the first dig of the spur to their loss of rights as English subjects. Although at first initial spectators to these events, Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and soon Virginia, would retaliate.
Anger from the 1765 Quartering Act, and now Townshend's duties, drove a flood of petitions from northern merchants and everyday citizens to stop importing goods from Great Britain until the new taxes were lifted. By March 1769, Boston, New York, and Philadelphia merchants had all agreed to form nonimportation associations until the Townshend duties (Revenue Act of 1767) were repealed. New York and Philadelphia associations would begin on November 1, 1769, with Boston's on January 1, 1770. The nonimportation movement would hit Virginia in April 1769, with Mason and Washington taking immediate action.[14]
By April 5, 1769, both Mason and Washington were in possession of copies of merchant's nonimportation association plans and agreements from Philadelphia and Annapolis. Included in the packet was a plan for a similar Virginia association. On the same day that Washington had consulted Mason and requested his advice on how to proceed, Mason responded he had already started to write “something of the Sort,” then stopped because of illness. After an interval of three weeks, Mason stated he had “made some few Alterations in it.” Washington's endorsed copy has all but one of Mason's changes.[15] While Mason's corrections were modeled from the Philadelphia merchant's plan, of major significance were his fifth and sixth resolutions to prohibit the importing of slaves and introduced the idea of prohibiting the exporting of American made goods, including tobacco, to England. On April 30, 1769, Washington left Mount Vernon with Mason's major contributions of the Virginia Nonimportation Resolutions for presentation to the House of Burgesses in Williamsburg.[16]
On May 16, the House of Burgesses approved the Virginia Resolves, which restated that Virginians, through the Burgesses, could only levy taxes on Virginia. Further, the Resolves claimed the right of petition to the Crown for a redress of grievances, restriction on trials for treason, prohibition of carrying Americans back to Great Britain to stand trial and closed with a reaffirmation of the Burgesses loyalty to His Majesty the King.[17] The next day, and before Washington could introduce Virginia's nonimportation resolutions, the Royal Governor Lord Botetourt dissolved the House of Burgesses. The former burgesses, now private citizens, moved to the Apollo Room of the Raleigh Tavern, where Washington introduced the April nonimportation resolutions he and Mason worked on. The next day, May 18, 1769, eighty-eight members of the now dissolved House signed the revised Virginia Nonimportation Resolutions of 1769.[18] While he was not a burgess, Mason's April 23 work and corrections were either retained or modified. Specifically, the whole of Article Three listing prohibited import items was retained and expanded to include reference to “plaid and Irish Hose,” while exemption for Mediterranean items was removed. In Article Five, the nonimportation of slaves was retained, with an effective date of November 1, 1769 added. Mason's original Article Six calling for an export embargo on goods to Great Britain, especially tobacco, was dropped. Importantly, the signatories promised to maintain the nonimportation until the Townshend Revenue Act and duties were repealed. The Virginia resolutions were then printed and given to each of the eighty-eight to carry back to their home districts.[19]
The negative impact of nonimportation was felt almost immediately. First, if the colonies refused to import English goods, they would need to either do without these same certain items or produce them locally. This they did, and quickly, thus denying British merchant's orders, income, or tax revenue from the Americans. Housewives stopped serving tea; at least tea imported from Great Britain. Fashionable cloths, silks, and satins then worn in England were renounced. Imported wines were replaced by those American-made. Homespun cloth, especially in the smaller towns, grew dramatically. In 1769 alone, 55,000 yards of cloth was locally weaved. Colonial artisans that sold leather goods, furniture, clocks, tools, and silverware were glad to no longer compete against British imports. The “tobacco colonies” of Virginia, Maryland, and North Carolina refused to import slaves during the boycott.[20] Awareness grew that this method of raising revenue against the American colonies was unconstitutional under English law. Close would be the next step of Great Britain laying duties on articles they prohibited the colonies from manufacturing, thus mandating purchasing from England those items easily made in America. Most importantly, as a clear exhibition to the royal colonial government and the Crown back home, was the unified determination of Americans to resist.[21]
Washington returned to the House of Burgesses during the autumn of 1769. There seemed to be a less confrontational air during this session than that which led to the spring dissolving of Virginia government. In England, Lord Frederick North was the new prime minister, and his government was determined to calm dissenting attitudes at home and in America relative to taxation. Virginia Governor Botetourt supported full repeal of the Townshend duties, except for the one on tea, and threatened to resign if the other acts were not revoked. On March 5, 1770, Lord North moved to repeal the Townshend duties (Revenue Act of 1767), except for East Indian tea. While letting the colonials know that Parliament still had the preeminent ability to tax their imports in the form of tea, the Virginia Association merchants pushing nonimportation were temporarily calmed. Things would soon change. That same fateful date of March 5, 1770, was the day British forces fired into a mob of Boston protesters. Five were killed during this “Boston Massacre.” The Virginia Association of 1769 was reignited, and Mason became more actively involved in his state's political movements. In June 1770, Mason was determined to strengthen and reinforce the resolutions and the Virginia Nonimportation Association agreement.[22]
While The Stamp Act (1765) and Revenue Act of 1767 had been repealed by June 1770, The Declaratory Act (1766) remained in full force, as did the Crown's tax on tea.[23] A general lessening of importation restrictions occurred almost immediately. American merchants quickly imported barley and pork, pewter and gold, boots and saddles from Great Britain.[24] By the end of 1770, most colonial merchants wanted a return to normalcy in trade with England. Awareness that the Crown and Parliament still had taxing authority over the American colonies that could be imposed at any time, Mason and Richard Henry Lee exchanged correspondence in the failed attempt to strengthen the Virginia Association and the resolutions of 1769.
In Mason's June 7, 1770 letter, Mason recommended: publishing names of merchants who violated Virginia's 1769 nonimportation resolutions, establishment of county committees to examine association violations, suggested imported goods in violation of the association should be stored in American ports unopened instead of resold or returned to England, and closed on the notion that Parliament believed America would fail in their associations, and for this reason, they only partially repealed the Revenue Act, excepting tea.[25] Mason's last prediction would be proven correct, and stated to Lee his thorough contempt for those merchants who placed personal gain above their patriotic duty:
The Objection that this wou'd be infringing the Rights of others, while we are contending for Liberty ourselves, is ill founded. Every Member of Society is in Duty bound to contribute to the Safety & Good of the Whole; and when the Subject is of such importance as the Liberty & Happiness of a Country, every inferior Consideration, as well as the Inconvenience to a few Individuals, must give place to it; nor is this any Hardship upon them; as themselves & their Posterity are to partake of the Benefits resulting from it. Objections of the same kind might be made to the most useful civil institutions.[26]
By the time the Virginia Association signed their nonimportation resolves on June 22, 1770, with Mason's offerings of starting county committees and publishing the names of members who violated the nonimportation agreement included, self-concerned business gains preoccupied most merchants. Collectively, they cooled their sentiments about nonimportation.[27] From 1771 to 1774, American imports from Great Britain totaled £9 million; about £4 million more than the three years from 1768 to 1770.[28] With the Crown and Parliament firmly determined to maintain the tea tax on America and the slow death of colonial nonimportation, George Mason left politics and returned to his Gunston Hall farm with full intent to live his life as a Virginia planter. Renewed English tyranny would restore him to republican service.
Tyranny and Republican Resolve
As the precursor to revolutionary violence, Boston was the flashpoint of events which summoned George Mason back to active patriotic service. Massachusetts Royal Governor Thomas Hutchinson ignited the flash in his June 13, 1772 announcement that effective in 1773, his and all Superior Court judges would be paid from customs revenue duty on tea. With the Crown in-charge of payment, local colonial control of these officials would be lost.[29]
Instead of controlling these colonials, Hutchinson’s actions provoked Boston’s new Committees of Correspondence throughout the state. These committees would share political writings and news with other Massachusetts cities. Soon, similar committees would appear in all the colonies, linked by riders carrying correspondence from Parliament and local governments of events dangerous to American freedoms. Virginians Thomas Jefferson, Richard Henry Lee, and Patrick Henry would broaden the committee concept into a permanent intercolonial organization. The colonials not only became linked by events, but grew in awareness to the common cause, and responded with common action.[30] Continued Crown and Hutchinson tea-centered tyrannies would dominate beginning in 1773, with Boston the focal point of cascading events which would bind the colonies to one another, as America inched ever closer to revolution.
England’s East India Company faced financial distress in 1773, with its stock value dropping from £280 to £160.[31] Prime Minister Lord North’s Tea Act of May 10, 1773 gave the company a total monopoly of tea sold in America.[32] Under the act, twelve pence per pound of tea shipped to the colonies would be refunded by the government, with the colonials paying only a three pence duty at the American port.[33] Advertised as an effort to undercut smuggled tea prices, a forced monopoly and a tea tax did not sit well with colonials. America was left without options and mandated compliance to taxation in which they continued to have no representation.[34]
North and Hutchinson had seriously miscalculated American resolve. If England could impose the forced purchase of tea, what other pretenses would be used to enslave British American compliance? Boston and the colonies would immediately combine in response to royal tyrannies with meetings and protests that led to action in December 1773.
Major port cities of Boston, Philadelphia, New York, and Charleston held protest meetings and argued England could not tax America, without colonial representation in Parliament. On October 16, Philadelphia renounced tea and considered anyone importing it from the East India Company as an enemy to America. New York issued handbills threatening merchants at port facilities. In November and December, Philadelphia and New York tea merchants agreed to resign their commissions in the East India Company. On December 16, 1773, colonists disguised as native Mohawk Indians threw an infamous “Boston Tea Party,” when they boarded three tea-laden English merchant ships and dumped 342 chests of tea, with a value of £15,000, overboard. Without a port to land and receive their goods, merchant ships turned about and sailed home to England. Philadelphia allowed the tea to land and rot in their warehouses. In New York, tea found its way to the bottom of the East River. In Charleston, tea was seized and placed into storehouses and later used to help fund South Carolina's war effort.[35] In retaliation for Boston's “party,” the Crown and Parliament were determined to make an example of the city and isolate it from the rest of the colonies through a series of five acts in 1774 intended to break America's will to resist.
These “Intolerable Acts” were a series of five acts passed in Parliament, with King George III's assent, from March to June 1774.[36] The first was the Boston Port Act, which went into effect on March 31, 1774. Next in sequential order were: the Massachusetts Government Act, the Impartial Administration of Justice Act, the Quartering Act of 1774 and lastly, the Quebec Act.[37]
When word of the Boston Port Act reached the Fairfax County Committee, Mason was attending one of many of these freeholder meetings called to discuss the crisis in Boston. He was most likely in Alexandria on July 5, 1774, when Fairfax County provided £273, 38 barrels of flour, and 150 bushels of wheat for the relief of Boston. On July 6, Mason started his manifesto in response to ongoing British tyranny, and by July 17, 1774, had put his final touches on the tract that newly elected Burgess George Washington carried to Alexandria and introduced the next day during a meeting of Fairfax County Freeholders and citizens, who approved Mason's twenty-four resolves that day.[38]
Mason's Fairfax County Resolves was the first declaratory document from any elected body in America that the colonies had an exclusive right to issue their own laws governing their own affairs.[39] Within these twenty-four points, Mason introduced themes which, beginning slightly more than two years later, would be echoed in his Virginia Declaration of Rights, lifted by Jefferson and implanted into the Declaration of Independence, and debated during the 1787 Federal Convention in Philadelphia.[40] The clearest declaration of colonial sentiment against the onslaught of tyranny from the Crown was Mason's fifth resolve:
5. RESOLVED that the Claim lately assumed and exercised by the British Parliament of making all such Laws as they think fit, to govern the People of these Colonies, and to extort from Us our Money without our Consent, is not only diametrically contrary to the first Principles of the Constitution, and the original Compacts by which We are dependant upon the British Crown and Government; but is totally incompatible with the Privileges of a free People, and the natural Rights of Mankind; will render our own Legislatures merely nominal and nugatory, and is calculated to reduce Us from a State of Freedom and Happiness, to Slavery and Misery.[41]
Other key Mason resolves that dominated events during the American Revolutionary War and U.S. Constitutional period included: the full rights of the people in the colonies to be treated as English subjects, as if they had never left the English realm (Resolve 1); that the people can be governed by no laws which they have not given their consent (Resolve 2); since the colonies were not represented in Parliament, they could only be governed by their own provincial assemblies (Resolve 3); taxation and representation were inseparable (Resolve 6); although as subjects dependent on the British Government, the colonies would use every means to prevent becoming slaves (Resolve 8); that sudden and repeated dissolving of colonial assemblies would ruin Great Britain and the colonies (Resolve 9); imposing of taxes on America without consent, new and dangerous jurisdictions, taking away jury trials, removal of criminally accused persons from America back to England to stand trial for offenses committed in the colonies, and parliamentary vengeance upon Boston were unjust, and as a response to show common cause with Boston, each county in Fairfax to assign persons of character to purchase provisions to be delivered to gentlemen of Boston (Resolve 10); no goods or merchandize will be imported from Great Britain, effective September 1, 1774 (Resolve 15); no slaves will be imported into any British colony in North America (Resolve 17); if American grievances were not redressed by November 1, 1775, all exports of produce from the colonies to Great Britain would stop (Resolve 19); other colonies should break off trade with colonial provinces that refuse agreement with the plan adopted by Congress (Resolve 21); if Boston fell, Fairfax County will take those measures established by the general Congress to preserve life, liberty, and fortunes, and not bind themselves to any oppressive measures (Resolve 22); and finally, Congress would draft a petition of redress to the Crown, asserting the constitutional rights and privileges of America as British subjects (Resolve 23).[42] While other Virginia county committees also established resolves, Mason's twelfth went a bit further when he emphasized the necessity for a colonial union, establishment of a congress, development of a common plan for defense of colonial rights, and a constitutional form of government:
12. RESOLVED that Nothing will so much contribute to defeat the pernicious Designs of the common Enemies of Great Britain and her Colonies as a firm Union of the latter; who ought to regard every Act of Violence or Oppression inflicted upon any one of them, as aimed at all; and to effect this desireable Purpose, that a Congress shou'd be appointed, to consist of Deputies from all the Colonies, to concert a general and uniform Plan for the Defence and Preservation of our common Rights, and continueing the Connection and Dependance of the said Colonies upon Great Britain, under a just, lenient, permanent, and constitutional Form of Government.[43]
Resolve 24 appointed Washington, as a recently elected member from Fairfax County to the Virginia General Assembly and former burgess, to attend the Virginia Convention in Williamsburg beginning August 1, 1774. With him, he carried Mason's recently created and adopted Fairfax County Resolves.[44]
Within a week, the Virginia Convention, newly born from the dissolved House of Burgesses, accomplished two major feats originally penned by George Mason in the Fairfax County Resolves. First, George Washington, Patrick Henry, and Richard Henry Lee, along with four others, were elected to represent Virginia in the First Continental Congress at Philadelphia that September of 1774, as mentioned in Resolve 12.[45]
Then the delegates hammered-out the Association of Virginia Convention, which mirrored Mason's resolved themes on non-importation of: any goods from Great Britain, slaves, tea and other commodities from the East India Company; non-exportation of tobacco or any article whatever to Great Britain, non-killing of sheep in order to increase American wool production at the cost of British woolen items, non-dealing with those merchants who failed to sign the association, and of Virginia's affordable liberal contributions collected and remitted to Boston.[46]
As Mason's Fairfax County Resolves were tailored to the colony in the shape of the Virginia Association, so did the First Continental Congress, on October 20, 1774, shape and adopt the Continental Association for all thirteen colonies in British America, aligned strikingly to Mason's: Nonimportation Association (1769), Virginia Nonimportation Resolutions (1770), and the Fairfax County Resolves (1774).[47] Mason's writings on nonimportation, his call for Congress to be established, and unyielding defense of American constitutional rights earned increased public notice and acclaim. Soon, he would be thrust into the revolutionary limelight of 1776.
Tommy Jensen is a Legislative Liaison and State Content Writer for Convention of States Action Oklahoma. He is a retired U.S. Navy Cryptologist, graduated Magna Cum Laude with a B.A. in History from University of Maryland Global Campus, and is enshrined in the Phi Alpha Theta History National Honor Society. This blog series is adapted from his COSA article, “George Mason: Our Lost Founding Father.” His first article for COSA was, “Federalist 40: James Madison – 'Publius' Moves the Republic from Confederation to Constitution.”
_______________________________________
Notes:
[1] Robert A. Rutland, ed., “George Mason Chronology,” in The Papers of George Mason, 1725-1792, vol. 1, 1749-1778 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1970), cxxvii. George Mason represented Virginia's Fairfax County in the House of Burgesses from 1758-1761; William G. Hyland Jr., George Mason: The Founding Father who Gave us the Bill of Rights (Washington, DC: Regnery History, 2019), 98. The Stamp Act (1765) imposed a direct internal tax on America, and in Mason's view violated the tradition that only American legislatures could tax the colonies. The act was further offensive to America since the 13 English colonies were not represented in Parliament.
[2] Hyland Jr., George Mason, 98.
[3] Ibid., 99. Rutland, ed., Papers of George Mason, vol. 1, 60-61. Washington and Fairfax were then Fairfax County delegates to the House of Burgesses.
[4] Rutland, ed., Papers of George Mason, vol. 1, 60-65. Hyland Jr., George Mason, 99. George Mason, “Scheme for Replevying Goods and Distress for Rent (December 23, 1765),” in The Papers of George Mason, 1725-1792, vol. 1, 1749-1778, ed. Robert A. Rutland (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1970), 61-64, https://www.consource.org/document/scheme-for-replevying-goods-and-distress-for-rent-1765-12-23/20130122081241/.
[5] Rutland, ed., vol. 1, 61-62.
[6] Rutland, ed., vol. 1, 64n-65n.
[7] Ibid., 69.
[8] Ibid., 68.
[9] Ibid., 70. Mason's complete letter: George Mason, “Letter to the Committee of Merchants in London (June 6, 1766),” in The Papers of George Mason, 1725-1792, vol. 1, 1749-1778, ed. Robert A. Rutland (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1970), 65-72, https://www.consource.org/document/george-mason-to-the-committee-of-merchants-in-london-1766-6-6/20130122080759/.
[10] Robert Middlekauff, The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789, rev. ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 156. Richard J. Werther, “Charles Townshend: Architect of the Townshend Duties,” Journal of the American Revolution (January 13, 2022): 3-9, https://allthingsliberty.com/2022/01/charles-townshend-architect-of-the-townshend-duties/. The Townshend Acts were four separate acts attributed to Townshend: the Revenue Act, Indemnity Act, Commissioners of Customs Act, and the Suspending Act. All were passed by Parliament between June 5 and June 29, 1767. Historical books and journals frequently use the Townshend Acts, the Revenue Acts, or the Townshend Duties interchangeably when referring to 1767 English revenue and taxation of the American Colonies. For our purposes, the Revenue Act of 1767 is used.
[11] Werther, “Charles Townshend,” 3.
[12] Werther, 9.
[13] Middlekauf, 156-57.
[14] Rutland, ed., vol. 1, 94. Middlekauf, 185-88.
[15] Rutland, ed., vol. 1, 94. Ron Chernow, Washington: A Life (New York: Penguin Books, 2010), 144. There is historical conflict of events between Rutland and Chernow. Rutland claimed that Mason is not the original author of the Virginia Nonimportation Association draft edited by Mason and revised as “The Nonimportation Association as Corrected by Mason [23 April 1769],” because the association draft is not in Mason's handwriting, although Mason provided significant editorial additions. Chernow claimed that “The packet included plans for a comparable Virginia association, drawn up by a nameless writer.” Washington sent the plan to Mason, “who turned out to be the author.” When disparities are found by the researcher, historical methodology requires the researcher to evaluate the available evidence, draw and report conclusions in the context of the era and subject under inquiry, then determine and report which conflict is most plausible, or offer a new theory based from this evidence. My conclusion and theory follows.
In agreement with most Revolutionary Era historians, GM's corrected version (23 April 1769) and The Virginia Nonimportation Resolutions of 1769 (18 May 1769) were modeled from Philadelphia's four resolutions. However, we also find a letter from GM to Washington (23 April 1769), as a cover letter to his corrections of the same date. In this letter, GM makes reference to slaves and tobacco. It is apparent to GM that Virginia should not only ban imports, but also exports as mentioned in the letter, his corrections, and the Virginia Nonimportation Resolutions (18 May 1769) Washington carried to the General Assembly. We recall that GM and Washington both had packets from 5 April 1769. Washington writes to GM on 5 April 1769, requesting advice on how to proceed. On that same date GM writes to Washington, in response, that “something of this Sort I had begun…”, but his persistent illnesses prevented further work. In this letter, GM first discusses not importing slaves and not exporting tobacco to Great Britain. Then, an intervening 18 days before the next correspondence of 23 April 1769.
My operative conclusion to be used in this article is that during the near three weeks of a correspondence gap, GM had drafted the inclusion of slaves and tobacco early, then due to his illnesses, had a second person transcribe the changes in the 23 April 1769 letter. This would account for the change in handwriting, while also account for in the 23 April 1769 cover letter the statement: “Upon looking over the Association, of which I sent you a Copy,…”. Why would Washington need another copy of an association draft that he already originally held, unless, this was the second version corrected by Mason to an initial draft earlier sent to Washington? Also, Mason and Washington were major slaveholders in Virginia at the time. With evaluation given GM's earlier comments in the above December 1765 “Replevying” scheme regarding slavery, and those offered during the 1787 Philadelphia Federal Convention, GM established a history against slavery and its importation into Virginia. So, in this author's opinion, GM drafted, in total, The Nonimportation Association as Corrected by Mason. Washington carried this version to Williamsburg to be introduced to the House of Burgesses as The Virginia Nonimportation Resolutions of 1769.
(1) GM's Letter of 5 April 1769: George Mason, “To George Washington from George Mason, 5 April 1769,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/02-08-02-0133. [Original source: The Papers of George Washington, Colonial Series, vol. 8, 24 June 1767 – 25 December 1771, ed. W. W. Abbot and Dorothy Twohig. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1993, 182–184.]
(2) GM's Letter of 23 April 1769: George Mason, “George Mason to George Washington (April 23, 1769),” in The Papers of George Mason, 1725-1792, vol. 1, 1749-1778, ed. Robert A. Rutland (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1970), 102-03, https://www.consource.org/document/george-mason-to-george-washington-1769-4-23/20130122083622/.
(3) The Nonimportation Association as Corrected by Mason [23 April 1769]: George Mason, “The Nonimportation Association as Corrected by Mason,” in The Papers of George Mason, 1725-1792, vol. 1, 1749-1778, ed. Robert A. Rutland (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1970), 103-05, https://www.consource.org/document/the-nonimportation-association-as-corrected-by-mason-1769-4-23/20130122080304/.
(4) The Virginia Nonimportation Resolutions of 1769 [18 May 1769]: George Mason, “Document and signed by the Virginia House of Burgesses (May 18, 1769),” in The Papers of George Mason, 1725-1792, vol. 1, 1749-1778, ed. Robert A. Rutland (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1970), 109-12, https://www.consource.org/document/document-and-signed-by-the-virginia-house-of-burgesses-1769-5-18/20130122075737/.
[16] Chernow, 145.
[17] House of Burgesses, “The Virginia Resolves of 1769,” Teaching American History, https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/the-virginia-resolves-of-1769/.
[18] The Virginia Nonimportation Resolutions of 1769 [18 May 1769], https://www.consource.org/document/document-and-signed-by-the-virginia-house-of-burgesses-1769-5-18/20130122075737/. Chernow, 146. Middlekauf, 188-89.
[19] Rutland, ed., vol. 1, 103-12, and note 112-13.
[20] Middlekauf, 189-92.
[21] Werther, 10.
[22] Rutland, ed., vol. 1, 112-13. Chernow, 147.
[23] British Parliament, “The Declaratory Act; March 18, 1766,” Yale Law School, The Avalon Project, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/declaratory_act_1766.asp. [Original source: Great Britain. The Statutes at Large … [from 1225 to 1867] by Danby Pickering. Cambridge: Printed by Benthem, for C. Bathhurst; London, 1762-1869.] This act, passed immediately after the Stamp Act repeal, declared the American colonies are subordinate to the Crown and Parliament, with authority to make laws binding Americans as subjects to the Crown in all cases. Further, if the colonies made any laws questioning the authority of Parliament, those laws were “utterly null and void to all in purposes whatsoever.”
[24] Chernow, 147.
[25] Rutland, ed., vol. 1, 116-19. George Mason, “George Mason to Richard Henry Lee (June 7, 1770),” in The Papers of George Mason, 1725-1792, vol. 1, 1749-1778, ed. Robert A. Rutland, 116-19. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1970. https://www.consource.org/document/george-mason-to-richard-henry-lee-1770-6-7/20130122080342/. [One or more pages of the letter have been lost.]
[26] Rutland, ed., vol. 1, 118.
[27] Ibid., 120-24. Virginia Association, “Virginia Nonimportation Resolutions, 22 June 1770,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-01-02-0032#print_view.
[28] Middlekauf, 218.
[29] Thomas Pearcy and Mary Dickson, “From Empire to Independence, Chapter Five: A Worsening Crisis,” in Perspectives America: A Narrative History, 2 (New York: W. W. Norton, 1997), https://wwnorton.com/college/history/ralph/research/sovidoc4.htm; Richard M. Ketchum et al., eds. The American Heritage Book of The Revolution. New York: American Heritage, 1958, 66; Middlekauf, 221.
[30] Ketchum et al., eds., The Revolution, 66-7. Middlekauf, 220-21.
[31] Ketchum et al., eds., 67.
[32] British Parliament, “The Tea Act, May 10, 1773,” Independence Hall Association, UShistory.org, https://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/teaact.html.
[33] Pearcy and Dickson, 2-3.
[34] Ketchum et al., eds., 67. Middlekauf, 227.
[35] Ketchum et al., eds., 67-8. Middlekauf, 228-29. Pearcy and Dickson, 3.
[36] “The Intolerable Acts” were also referred to as “The Coercive Acts” interchangeably. For consistency, “Intolerable Acts” are used by this author. Sequentially, as passed by Parliament and assented by King George III, here are the Intolerable Acts:
(1) British Parliament, “The Boston Port Act: March 31, 1774,” Yale Law School, The Avalon Project, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/boston_port_act.asp. [Original source: Great Britain. The statutes at Large … [from 1225 to 1867] by Danby Pickering. Cambridge: Printed by Benthem, for C. Bathhurst; London, 1762-1869.]
(2) British Parliament, “The Massachusetts Government Act; May 20, 1774,” Yale Law School, The Avalon Project, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/mass_gov_act.asp. [Original Source: Great Britain. The Statutes at Large … [from 1225 to 1867] by Danby Pickering. Cambridge: Printed by Benthem, for C. Bathhurst; London, 1762-1869.]
(3) British Parliament, “The [Impartial] Administration of Justice Act; May 20, 1774,” Yale Law School, The Avalon Project, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/admin_of_justice_act.asp. [Original source: Great Britain. The Statutes at Large … [from 1225 to 1867] by Danby Pickering. Cambridge: Printed by Benthem, for C. Bathhurst; London, 1762-1869.]
(4) British Parliament, “The Quartering Act; June 2, 1774,” Yale Law School, The Avalon Project, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/quartering_act_1774.asp. [Original source: Great Britain. The Statutes at Large … [from 1225 to 1867] by Danby Pickering. Cambridge: Printed by Benthem, for C. Bathhurst; London, 1762-1869.]
(5) British Parliament, “The Quebec Act, 1774 (The British North America (Quebec) Act, 1774), 22 June 1774,” William F. Maton, https://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/PreConfederation/qa_1774.html.
[37] Ketchum et al., eds., 69. Middlekauf, 236-37. Pearcy and Dickson, 3.
[38] Rutland, ed., vol. 1, 199-200. Chernow, 167.
[39] Hyland Jr., 109.
[40] George Mason, “Fairfax County Resolves,” Founders Online, National Archives, in The Papers of George Mason, 1725-1792, vol. 1, 1749-1778, ed. Robert A. Rutland, 201-09 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1970), https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/02-10-02-0080. [Original source: The Papers of George Washington, Colonial Series, vol. 10, 21 March 1774 – 15 June 1775, ed. W. W. Abbot and Dorothy Twohig. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1995, pp. 119–128.] Author's Note: It is suggested the reader open the URLs for the: Fairfax County Resolves, Virginia Declaration of Rights, and Declaration of Independence. Essentially, by laying all three documents down in a side-by-side-by-side comparison, much of Mason's resolves would be amplified and included into the Declaration. While it will be later shown that Jefferson extracted widely from Mason's Virginia Declaration of Rights, we can see general themes that originated in 1774 from Mason's pen. It is important to compare Resolve 2 and Resolve 17 with Mason's later arguments in Philadelphia specific to monarchy and tyrannical aristocracy, and slavery. Mason's consistency of thought on these issues are either synthesized or argued verbatim. See: James Madison, Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 Reported by James Madison, ed. Adrienne Koch (Athens: Ohio University Press, 1985), 503-04; 651.
[41] Mason, “Fairfax County Resolves,” ed. Rutland, vol. 1, 203.
[42] Mason, Rutland, ed., vol. 1, 201-09.
[43] Mason, Rutland, ed., vol. 1., 205.
[44] Rutland, ed., vol. 1., 209-10. Chernow, 167-68.
[45] Mason, Rutland, ed., vol. 1., 205. Joseph J. Ellis, His Excellency George Washington (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2004), 64.
[46] Virginia Convention, “The Association of the Virginia Convention; August 1-6, 1774,” Yale Law School, The Avalon Project, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/assoc_of_va_conv_1774.asp. [Original source: Niles, Hezekiah, 1777-1839. Principles and Acts of the Revolution in America: or, An Attempt to Collect and Preserve Some of the Speeches, Orations, & Proceedings, With Sketches and Remarks on Men and Things, and Other Fugitive or Neglected Pieces, Belonging to the Men of the Revolutionary Period in the United States … By H. Niles…Baltimore, Printed and pub. for the editor, by W.O. Niles, 1822.]
[47] First Continental Congress, “Continental Association, 20 October 1774,” Founders Online, National Archives, Founders Online, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-01-02-0094. [Original source: The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 1, 1760–1776, ed. Julian P. Boyd. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950, pp. 149–154.] Middlekauf, 253-54. South Carolina threatened not to sign the agreement unless an export exemption was allowed for rice to Europe. Congress relented. Article Fourth mentions this exemption.