What were the Intolerable Acts?

To Begin the World Over Again 9.1 – Declarations of Independence What were the Intolerable Acts?

British authorities were stunned by the Boston Tea Party. In their wanton destruction of private property—and so much, at that!—the Americans had gone too far this time. They must be taught their place: subordinate to England and to Parliament. In 1774, Parliament passed the punitive Coercive Acts (known in the colonies as the “Intolerable Acts”), legislation designed to do just that. There were five:

The Boston Port Act closed the port of Boston. In order to see it reopened, the city would need to pay the British East India Company back for the tea that had been destroyed.
The Massachusetts Government Act threw the colony under the direct control of the British government. Gone was the old colonial charter. Gone was the colonial prerogative of appointing or electing most government officials; now they’d almost all be appointed by the king (or his governing appointees) or Parliament. Mostly gone, too, was that most sacred of Massachusetts political traditions: the town meeting. Such gatherings were to be limited to just one per year.
The Administration of Justice Act allowed for royal officials in America accused of offense while in the line of duty to be moved to Britain (or elsewhere within the Empire) for trial—somewhere it was unlikely the witnesses requisite for conviction could follow.
The Quartering Act, applicable to all of the colonies, took control over the provision of housing for British troops out of the hands of the various colonial assemblies and into the hands of the royal governors—who could then requisition suitable, unoccupied quarters for them, even if those quarters happened to be privately-owned.
The Quebec Act, though not a direct response to the Boston Tea Party, was passed at the same time as the other four. American colonists themselves considered it one of the “Intolerable Acts” not only because it enlarged the Province of Quebec at the expense of rival colonial claims, but it guaranteed the free practice of Roman Catholicism.

Thomas Gage, by John Singeton Copley – Gage may have been the inspiration behind the Coercive Acts—after which he was appointed governor of Massachusetts in order to enforce them.

The Coercive Acts enraged the colonists of Massachusetts, and not just firebrands like Sam Adams. Many law-abiding citizens in Boston felt that they were being unfairly punished for the actions of a relative handful of troublemakers. Were Bostonians to be given no chance to defend themselves and their behavior? While residents of Massachusetts fumed over their loss of governmental control, residents of other colonies now worried for their own political institutions; if Parliament and the Crown could simply declare such a system for Massachusetts, why not similar proclamations for the rest? Citizens throughout the colonies likewise worried about the precedent set by the trying of royal officials in courts outside of America; not only might this facilitate the escape of the guilty, it was also a slap in the face of the colonials—who were apparently unfit to administer justice themselves (had the British forgotten the fair trial of the redcoats in the wake of the Boston Massacre?). And while quartering troops no one wanted was bad enough, it was far worse now to be further deprived of property rights via gubernatorial requisitions. To add insult to injury, at a time when New Englanders were being punished, it seemed the colonies’ northern, non-Protestant neighbors—whom they had recently fought during the French and Indian War—were being offered preferential treatment.

Clearly, the “Intolerable Acts” were meant to quarantine Boston, to sequester that vexatious city, from the rest of America. But this failed miserably. Colonists from every colony not only followed events in Massachusetts closely, but thousands—from as far away as Georgia—donated foodstuffs, livestock, and cash to the beleaguered residents of Boston. Unwittingly, the British themselves were cultivating a sense of shared American grievance!

Not all lawmakers in Britain approved of the Coercive Acts. One of America’s last friends in Parliament, Edmund Burke, argued that an American colony could either be forced into obedience to each and every British law or be “left to govern itself by its own internal policy.” The latter, clearly, was the more practical solution. And besides, Burke argued, opposition to Parliament’s various taxes was so universal in the colonies that to force the issue was to invite inevitable—and general—resistance. Warned Burke to his fellow Parliamentarians: “[T]his is the day then that you wish to go to war with America.”

More important, however, was George III’s position—and he was delighted at the tough stance Parliament had taken toward feisty Massachusetts. The king appointed as the colony’s new governor none other than military man Thomas Gage (the general we met in Session 8.5 in New York). This was an important decision, for it was Gage’s own philosophy vis-a-vis the Americans which had actually formed a basis for the Coercive Acts themselves. When news of the Boston Tea Party had reached London, Gage, who happened to be there, was summoned to the king’s presence so that the monarch and his ministers might “hear his ideas as to the mode of compelling Boston to submit to whatever may be thought necessary.” The ministers listened, and the “Intolerable Acts” were the result.

In 1774, Gage entered Boston. Though he was cordially welcomed, he remained vigilant and suspicious. His enforcement of the Coercive Acts made him few friends. Once, he sent a small army to prevent Salem from holding a town meeting; the army was unsuccessful after the residents of Salem barricaded themselves inside the town hall. He was just as unsuccessful at stopping the Bostonians, who likewise managed to hold illegal town meetings. The new governor refused to show any special favor toward the colony’s Congregationalist leaders (denying them a request for an official Day of Fasting and Prayer, for example), and thereby quickly isolated himself from them, too. When Gage packed the courts with loyalist judges (as was his prerogative according to the Massachusetts Government Act), local juries simply refused to serve.

This was all very exasperating to Thomas Gage. Finally, he resolved that the moment for “conciliating, moderation, reasoning is over.” And then: “Nothing can be done but by forcible means.” Writing to London, Gage explained, “I mean…to avoid any bloody crisis as long as possible, unless forced into it by themselves [i.e. the colonists], which may happen.”

Margaret Gage – Wife of Thomas, Margaret was from New Jersey—and may have been the very informant who warned the colonists of plans to arrest Sam Adams and John Hancock and burn militia supplies at Concord. Her role has never been proved, as the Son of Liberty with whom she may have worked (Dr. Joseph Warren) was killed at the Battle of Bunker Hill.

Feedback?

Previous Session

Back to Session

Next Topic

To Begin the World Over Again

What were the Intolerable Acts?

Feedback?

Please note that this form is not required. If you do not have any feedback on this session, feel free to move on to the next!