Before the Declaration of Independence, there was the Olive Branch Petition.
Written 250 years ago on July 5th, the Olive Branch Petition was Thomas Jefferson’s first attempt to explain to King George III why the American Colonies were rebelling and ask for reconciliation.
The “Shot heard ‘round the world” had been fired almost three months earlier, and the Battle of Bunker Hill had just ended. It was readily apparent to the Second Continental Congress that the situation was spinning out of control. In a last-ditch effort to stave off a rebellion and attempt a peaceful settlement, John Hancock authorized the drafting of a document to explain the colonies’ position, acknowledge their loyalty to the King and propose a solution to the conflict.
Everything the colonists knew about their government was that the King’s representative controlled most of the governing of their political subdivision, and the actions of the Royal Governor were generally respected as if the King himself was in residence. What the colonists could not appreciate was the emerging British constitutional government caused Parliament to become more powerful while the King’s authority gradually eroded. Most critical in this tug of war for authority was the power of the purse. The King and Parliament routinely argued over taxing and spending with Parliament eventually gaining the upper hand.
But during this time, while the role and responsibility of the King and Parliament were being established, the colonies were in the midst of creating their own unique political system. Initially, the colonies grew and developed with little, if any, input from the King. The customs as British subjects were transferred in a seamless manner, almost by osmosis, that accepted a local structure of self-government that was limited and almost invisible. The law and accompanying political organization were accepted by the colonies because they were familiar; but most importantly, they worked.
Always looking for new revenue to fund both the Crown and Parliament, the colonies became an untapped revenue stream. Under the excuse that the cost of protecting the colonies from foreign invasion should be paid for by the direct beneficiaries (the colonies), Parliament acted. Beginning in 1764, Parliament sought to impose various taxes on the colonies. The King benefited from these taxes as a portion of the generated revenue directly funded his royal court, but the numerous acts imposing taxes were not issued in the name of the sovereign, but in the name of Parliament.
So, with each successive tax, the colonists became more vexed and sought to avoid new levies in many ways; some benign, like smuggling or boycotting to avoid payment, or direct action, like the destruction of property to illustrate displeasure. But in all these aggressions against parliamentary acts, the colonists reasoned that if King George could understand the situation and reign in Parliament, then the colonial relationship could be restored. The colonists failed to appreciate the King’s complicity in the imposition of the various taxes.
When the relationship between the colonies further deteriorated and red coats were ordered to disarm colonial militias, the war of words turned into a hot war with the loss of life and destruction of property. Lexington, Concord, and Bunker Hill were more than simple police actions — they were serious military conflicts with significant casualties. With the conflict escalating, the Continental Congress tried one last step and appealed to the King with the Olive Branch Petition, which almost begged for a restoration of their former relationship. Thomas Jefferson’s initial draft of the Olive Branch Petition was too strident and bellicose, so with input from other founding fathers, John Dickinson would tone it down, and his revision was sent to the King after being approved by Congress.
King George never read the conciliatory document and instead responded by issuing his own Proclamation of Rebellion authorizing force to restrain the rebellion and hang the leaders. The Olive Branch Petition was an attempt to avoid bloodshed and restore an amicable relationship between the crown and colonies, but in rejecting the petition, the King, to his eventual detriment, turned loyalists into rebels.
One year later, Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence would set an inevitable course; Washington’s victory at Yorktown would conclude the matter.
Will Sellers is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, graduate of Hillsdale College, and was appointed by Gov. Kay Ivey as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of Alabama. He is best reached at jws@willsellers.com
How many times have we heard our parents tell us “keep your hands to yourself”? Being one of four siblings, my parents had that phrase on replay—constantly. When we were children, my brothers and I were always trying to boss each other around and get our own way. But, as we grew up, we learned to mind our own business and control our own behavior. We began to realize that we might not LIKE what the other one was doing, but that their behavior was not up to us to control. Each of my brothers and I matured into grown-ups who understand that we are responsible for our own actions and reactions to other people.
The news media as of late has been replete with stories of how some people are “triggered” by words and symbols and even articles of clothing worn by other people. And, it is conceivable that those who are “triggered” are genuinely having an emotional reaction to their surroundings.
Humans are built to be relational, and part of relating is that we respond and react to those around us. Put two babies in a room together, if one of them starts crying, the other one will impulsively join in. But, as we mature, we learn that we can and must control our own responses to those around us. We can feel a “triggered” emotion without reacting to it, and certainly not by trying to control the people and things in our landscape to whom we are having an emotional reaction.
For example, if I were terrified of flying and seeing airplanes flying over my head does that mean that I should try to make airplanes illegal? They make me uncomfortable, people get hurt and injured in airplane accidents—I shouldn’t have to be made uncomfortable by seeing these things flying over my head…right?! Something should be done about these airplanes! Right?!
Of course not. My fears, my phobias, and my emotional reactions are MINE to deal with. It is MY responsibility to learn how to interact with the rest of the world and control my emotional responses through coping skills. I cannot expect the rest of the world to conform to what makes me feel comfortable. I have to learn to “keep my hands to myself.”
A more realistic example of how this scenario tends to play out is with firearms and our Second Amendment Constitutional Right to exercise our God-given Right to self-defense. Some people are made uncomfortable by the fact that I own firearms, even though I am a responsibly armed and trained citizen. They cite times when firearms have been improperly used by others to harm and murder our fellow men and women. They feel deeply that guns are bad, ignoring the obvious fact that millions of times each year guns are used to protect and save lives. The truth is that people who don’t “keep their hands to themselves” hurt other people, and guns are merely one of any number of tools used to maim and murder innocents.
Regardless, there are many who profess that the world would be a better place if everyone would simply listen to their “common sense” ideas of making these tools disappear. However, if those people can take from me my firearms and my right to own those tools, that makes ME feel transgressed and unsafe. Being deprived of my Second Amendment rights makes me deeply uncomfortable. Are my feelings less important than those of other people?
So, where does that leave us? If one person gets their way, the other is left feeling discomfort. What are we to do about that? Our Founding Fathers and Mothers created a solution. In fact, they believed so strongly in the principle of “keeping one’s hands to oneself” that they put everything on the line and fought, bled, starved, and died in order to have the opportunity to write a few documents about this very issue.
The Declaration of Independence was their instruction to the English Monarchy and Army to keep their hands to themselves. It was a boundary-setting written pronouncement of autonomy. It declared where the English Government ends and where the United States Government begins. The Founders followed that up with a missive called the Constitution of the United States, which set the rules for how our own government would behave. And the ultimate “keep your hands to yourself” document is the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights tells our own United States Government what it can NOT do in the personal lives and with the personal possessions of We the People—including our “arms” (guns, knives, swords, bows and arrows, etc.) which free citizens have the right to keep and bear, which means to own and carry. And our Founders, realizing how important firearms are to personal safety and security, included the Second Amendment which codified those inherent rights, and added a clause that you will find nowhere else in our Founding Documents. They wrote, “shall not be infringed.”
It was an emphatic punctuation declaring that no matter what, this right stands unfettered by any other law, decree, or governmental regulation. According to the National Archives website, “[The Bill of Rights] spells out Americans’ rights in relation to their government. It guarantees civil rights and liberties to the individual—like freedom of speech, press, and religion. It sets rules for due process of law and reserves all powers not delegated to the Federal Government to the people or the States.”
Part of being a grown-up is knowing that my rights end where my brothers’ and my neighbors’ begin. Keep your hands to yourself. These are timeless values and, in a way, our Founding Fathers and Mothers are continuing to parent each new generation in exactly that wise admonition nearly 300 years after they secured these rights for their own lives.
Cheryl Todd has an extensive history of being a Second Amendment Advocate. Along with being a Visiting Fellow for the Independent Women’s Forum, she is the owner of AZFirearms Auctions, Executive Producer & Co-Host of Gun Freedom Radio, the founder of the grassroots movement Polka Dots Are My Camo, and the AZ State Director for the DC Project.
