How ‘Continental’ was the Continental Congress?
John M. Coleman draws a distinction betweent the Thirteen Colonies and the rest of North America.
When the American Revolution broke out, the Continental Congress was an informal affair, exercising little or no control over the internal affairs of the various colonies. There may have been dedicated revolutionaries in the group, but they were amateur revolutionaries without a clear programme. The majority of the members still thought of themselves as loyal to the British and they distrusted the more radical delegates, especially those from Massachusetts and Virginia.
Events moved rapidly, however, and the imperial authorities and the loyalists soon lost their grip. How, then, did the radical leaders in Congress so quickly obtain control? The answer is that the Congress, under the skilful guidance of a small clique, adopted as its own whatever revolutionary activities had already been started—in the colonies, in the West Indies, in France, or wherever—and continued this practice for many years. Indeed, they were far more successful at adopting policies than they were at initiating programmes of their own.
To continue reading this article you need to purchase a subscription, available from only £5.
Start my trial subscription now
If you have already purchased access, or are a print & archive subscriber, please ensure you are logged in.
Please email digital@historytoday.com if you have any problems.
