John Dickinson was one of the conservative delegates to the Continental Congress. He was born on the 2nd of November, 1732 in Maryland. He studied law and graduated from the Middle Temple law school in London, England. In 1757 he set up his practice in Philadelphia. He was an avid writer, both on a personal and public level, and because of that he was rather well known when the disagreement with the mother country first became evident. An active member of the Pennsylvania Assembly, in 1765 Dickinson attended the Stamp Act Congress, and was a great influence on its proceedings. Although he was not named a member of the committee to draft a petition, John Dickinson made fourteen suggestions which were formalized, with very few changes, in the Declaration Of Rights And Grievances. More well known to the public, though, were a series of twelve anonymous letters Dickinson sent to the Philadelphia Chronicle between 05 November, 1767 and January, 1768 under the title of Letters From A Farmer in Pennsylvania To The Inhabitants Of The British Colonies. The Letters recounted the hardships that "liberty" had in attempting to exist throughout England's history and which outlined the various dangers that (parliamentary) taxation without (colonial) representation posed for the inhabitants of the American colonies. When the First Continental Congress convened on 05 September, 1774 Dickinson was not in attendance as one of the delegates from Pennsylvania. But, on 15 October the Pennsylvania Assembly voted to appoint him as a delegate and he was admitted to the Congress on the 17th.

   From the beginning, Dickinson was regarded as a radical. The scope of his radicalism, though, did not include the employment of armed aggression. Dickinson argued that the American colonies could remain in the British empire if they could convince King George to redress the grievances that had cropped up since the early 1760s. John Dickinson's belief that armed conflict could be averted led his fellow delegates to label him a conservative.

   The delegates assembled in Congress were not all hot-headed activists as our history books might lead us to think. The Journals Of The Continental Congress refer to numerous instances in which the delegates resolved themselves into a "committee of the whole to take into their farther consideration the state of America", during which they discussed the actions they should take in regard to some recent news. These discussions would result in a series of resolutions which the Congress would then publish to the inhabitants of the colonies or to King George and his Parliament. In addition to resolutions for calling out the militia or taking some similar defensive action, a statement expressing the hope that the differences between the mother country and her colonies might be resolved often was included. As the conflict unfolded in the colony of Massachusetts Bay the inhabitants of New York City began to fear that they would by the next target of British aggression. In early May, 1775 a letter from the inhabitants of New York asked the delegates assembled in Congress to consider their situation and make suggestions on how they should conduct themselves in the event that the British landed in that province. A set of resolutions were agreed upon during the sessions held on 25 and 26 May. Along with resolutions including (#5) "That the militia of New York be armed and trained and in conƒtant readiness to act at a moments warning...", the Congress resolved that (#6) "it be recommended to the congreƒs aforeƒd (i.e. the Provincial Congreƒs of New York) to perƒevere the more vigourouƒly in preparing for their defence, as it is very uncertain whether the earneƒt endeavors of the Congreƒs to accomodate the unhappy differences between G. Britain and the colonies by conciliatory Meaƒures will be ƒucceƒsful." Resolution #3 stated that:

"But, as we moƒt ardently wiƒh for a reƒtoration of the harmony formerly ƒubƒiƒting between our Mother country and theƒe colonies, the interruption of which muƒt, at all events, be exceedingly injurious to both countries, Reƒolved, that with a ƒincere deƒign of contributing by all the means in our power, not incompatible with a juƒt regard for the undoubted rights and true intereƒts of theƒe colonies, to the promotion of this moƒt deƒireable reconciliation, an humble and dutiful petition be preƒented to his Majeƒty."

   On 03 June, 1775 a motion was discussed and passed which resolved "that a committee of five be appointed to draught a petition to the King." Other committees were appointed to draft letters to the inhabitants of Great Britain, Ireland and Jamaica. The committee appointed to draft a petition to the King consisted of Thomas Johnson, John Rutledge, John Jay, Benjamin Franklin and John Dickinson. By the 8th of June, reports were arriving concerning the escalating hostilities that were taking place around Boston. The petition to the King would be preempted by more pressing concerns, including the establishment of an army.

   On 06 July, 1775 the Congress resumed consideration of the address to the inhabitants of Great Britain. Thomas Jefferson and John Dickinson were added to the original committee which consisted of John Rutledge, William Livingston, Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, and Thomas Johnson after the first draft they had prepared and presented for review on 24 June was not deemed satisfactory. The writing of the draft was recommitted to Jefferson. According to Dickinson, Jefferson's draft was too harsh. Dickinson was given the privilege to make changes to Jefferson's draft and it was his Declaration On Taking Arms which was presented by the committee to the Congress for approval on 06 July. On the 8th of July the Congress heard John Dickinson's letter to the King and, according to Thomas Jefferson,

"gave a ƒignal proof of their indulgence to Mr. Dickinƒon, and of their great deƒire not to go too faƒt for any reƒpectable part of our body, in permitting him to draw their ƒecond petition to the king according to his own ideas, and paƒsing it with ƒcarcely any amendment."

   That letter, which would come to be called The Olive Branch Petition, read as follows:

To the king's moƒt excellent Majeƒty: MOST GRACIOUS SOVEREIGN,
 
We, your Majeƒty's faithful subjects of the colonies of new Hampƒhire, Maƒsachuƒetts bay, Rhode iƒland and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jerƒey, Pennƒylvania, the counties of New Caƒtle, Kent, and Suƒsex, on Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, in behalf of ourƒelves, and the inhabitants of theƒe colonies, who have deputed us to repreƒent them in general Congreƒs, entreat your Majeƒty's gracious attention to this our humble petition.
 
The union between our Mother country and theƒe colonies, and the energy of mild and juƒt government, produced benefits ƒo remarkably important, and afforded ƒuch an aƒsurance of their permanency and increaƒe, that the wonder and envy of other Nations were excited, while they beheld Great Britain riƒeing to a power the moƒt extraordinary the world had ever known.
 
Her rivals, obƒerving that there was no probability of this happy connexion being broken by civil diƒsenƒions, and apprehending its future effects, if left any longer undiƒturbed, reƒolved to prevent her receiving ƒuch continual and formidable acceƒsions of wealth and ƒtrength, by checking the growth of theƒe ƒettlements from which they were to be derived.
 
In the proƒecution of this attempt, events ƒo unfavourable to the deƒign took place, that every friend to the intereƒts of Great Britain and theƒe colonies, entertained pleaƒing and reaƒonable expectations of ƒeeing an additional force and extention immediately given to the operations of the union hitherto experienced, by an enlargement of the dominions of the Crown, and the removal of ancient and warlike enemies to a greater diƒtance.
 
At the concluƒion, therefore, of the late war, the moƒt glorious and advantageous that ever had been carried on by Britiƒh arms, your loyal colonists having contributed to its ƒucceƒs, by ƒuch repeated and ƒtrenuous exertions, as frequently procured them the diƒtinguiƒhed approbation of your Majeƒty, of the late king, and of parliament, doubted not but that they ƒhould be permitted, with the reƒt of the empire, to ƒhare in the bleƒsings of peace, and the emoluments of victory and conqueƒt. While theƒe recent and honorable acknowledgments of their merits remained on record in the journals and acts of that auguƒt legiƒlature, the Parliament, undefaced by the imputation or even the ƒuƒpicion of any offence, they were alarmed by a new ƒyƒtem of ƒtatutes and regulations adopted for the adminiƒtration of the colonies, that filled their minds with the moƒt painful fears and jealouƒies; and, to their inexpreƒsible aƒtoniƒhment, perceived the dangers of a foreign quarrel quickly ƒucceeded by domeƒtic dangers, in their judgment, of a more dreadful kind.
 
Nor were their anxieties alleviated by any tendency in this ƒyƒtem to promote the welfare of the Mother country. For tho' its effects were more immediately felt by them, yet its influence appeared to be injurious to the commerce and proƒperity of Great Britain.
 
We ƒhall decline the ungrateful taƒk of deƒcribing the irkƒome variety of artifices, practiced by many of your Majeƒty's Miniƒters, the deluƒive preƒences, fruitless terrors, and unavailing ƒeverities, that have, from time to time, been dealt out by them, in their attempts to execute this impolitic plan, or of traceing, thro' a ƒeries of years paƒt, the progreƒs of the unhappy differences between Great Britain and theƒe colonies, which have flowed from this fatal ƒource.
 
Your Majeƒty's Miniƒters, perƒevering in their meaƒures, and proceeding to open hoƒtilities for enforcing them, have compelled us to arm in our own defence, and have engaged us in a controverƒy ƒo peculiarly abhorrent to the affections of your ƒtill faithful coloniƒts, that when we conƒider whom we muƒt oppoƒe in this conteƒt, and if it continues, what may be the conƒequences, our own particular miƒfortunes are accounted by us only as parts of our diƒtreƒs.
 
Knowing to what violent reƒentments and incurable animoƒities, civil diƒcords are apt to exaƒperate and inflame the contending parties, we think ourƒelves required by indiƒpenƒable obligations to Almighty God, to your Majeƒty, to our fellow ƒubjects, and to ourƒelves, immediately to uƒe all the means in our power, not incompatible with our ƒafety, for ƒtopping the further effuƒion of blood, and for averting the impending calamities that threaten the Britiƒh Empire.
 
Thus called upon to addreƒs your Majeƒty on affairs of ƒuch moment to America, and probably to all your dominions, we are earneƒtly deƒirous of performing this office, with the utmoƒt deference for your Majeƒty; and we therefore pray, that your royal magnanimity and benevolence may make the moƒt favourable conƒtruction of our expreƒsions on ƒo uncommon an occaƒion. Could we repreƒent in their full force, the ƒentiments that agitate the minds of us your dutiful ƒubjects, we are perƒuaded your Majeƒty would aƒcribe any ƒeeming deviation from reverence in our language, and even in our conduct, not to any reprehenƒible intention, but to the impoƒsibility of reconciling the uƒual appearances of reƒpect, with a juƒt attention to our own preƒervation againƒt thoƒe artful and cruel enemies, who abuƒe your royal confidence and authority, for the purpoƒe of effecting our deƒtruction.
 
Attached to your Majeƒty's perƒon, family, and government, with all devotion that principle and affection can inƒpire, connected with Great Britain by the ƒtrongeƒt ties that can unite ƒocieties, and deploring every event that tends in any degree to weaken them, we ƒolemnly aƒsure your Majeƒty, that we not only moƒt ardently deƒire the former harmony between her and theƒe colonies may be reƒtored, but that a concord may be eƒtabliƒhed between them upon ƒo firm a baƒis as to perpetuate its bleƒsings, uninterrupted by any future diƒsenƒions, to ƒucceeding generations in both countries, and to tranƒmit your Majeƒty's Name to poƒterity, adorned with that ƒignal and laƒting glory, that has attended the memory of thoƒe illuƒtrious perƒonages, whoƒe virtues and abilities have extricated ƒtates from dangerous convulƒions, and, by ƒecuring happineƒs to others, have erected the moƒt noble and durable monuments to their own fame.
 
We beg leave further to aƒsure your Majeƒty, that notwithƒtanding the ƒufferings of your loyal coloniƒts, during the courƒe of the preƒent controverƒy, our breaƒts retain too tender a regard for the kingdom from which we derive our origin, to requeƒt ƒuch a reconciliation as might in any manner be inconƒiƒtent with her dignity or her welfare. Theƒe, related as we are to her, honor and duty, as well as inclination, induce us to ƒupport and advance; and the apprehenƒions that now oppreƒs our hearts with unƒpeakable grief, being once removed, your Majeƒty will find your faithful ƒubjects on this continent ready and willing at all times, as they ever have been, with their lives and fortunes, to aƒsert and maintain the rights and intereƒts of your Majeƒty, and of our Mother country.
 
We, therefore, beƒeech your Majeƒty, that your royal authority and influence may be graciouƒly interpoƒed to procure us relief from our afflicting fears and jealouƒies, occaƒioned by the ƒyƒtem before mentioned, and to ƒettle peace through every part of your dominions, with all humility ƒubmitting to your Majeƒty's wiƒe conƒideration whether it may not be expedient for facilitating thoƒe important purpoƒes, that your Majeƒty be pleaƒed to direct ƒome mode, by which the united applications of your faithful coloniƒts to the throne, in purƒuance of their common councils, may be improved into a happy and permanent reconciliation; and that, in the mean time, meaƒures may be taken for preventing the further deƒtruction of the lives of your Majeƒty's ƒubjects; and that ƒuch ƒtatutes as more immediately diƒtreƒs any of your Majeƒty's colonies may be repealed.
 
For by ƒuch arrangements as your Majeƒty's wiƒdom can form, for collecting the united ƒense of your American people, we are convinced your Majeƒty would receive ƒuch ƒatiƒfactory proofs of the diƒpoƒition of the coloniƒts towards their ƒovereign and parent ƒtate, that the wiƒhed for opportunity would ƒoon be reƒtored to them, of evincing the ƒincerity of their profeƒsions, by every teƒtimony of devotion becoming the moƒt dutiful ƒubjects, and the moƒt affectionate coloniƒts.
 
That your Majeƒty may enjoy a long and proƒperous reign, and that your deƒcendants may govern your dominions with honor to themƒelves and happineƒs to their ƒubjects, is our ƒincere and fervent prayer.

   The Petition was not unanimously endorsed by the delegates to the Congress. John Adams, for one, had argued against it in the discussions of the Congress. Adams believed that the sending of the Petition to the king would imply that the colonies were weak and not as "united" as they claimed to be. In his diary, John Adams wrote:

"I took my hat, and went out of the door of Congreƒs Hall. Mr. Dickinƒon obƒerved me and darted out after me. He broke upon me in a moƒt abrupt and extraordinary manner: in as violent a paƒsion as he was capable of feeling, and with an air, countenance and geƒtures as rough and haughty as if I had been a ƒchool-boy and he the maƒter. He vociferated, 'What is the reaƒon, Mr. Adams, that you New England men oppoƒe our meaƒures of reconciliation? There, now, is Sullivan, in a long harangue, following you in a determined oppoƒition to our petition to the King. Look ye! if you don't concur with us in our pacific ƒyƒtem, I and a number of us will break off from you and New England, and we will carry on the oppoƒition by ourƒelves in our own way.' I own I was ƒhocked with this magiƒterial ƒalutation...
 
"The more I reflected on Mr. Dickinƒon's rude lecture in the State Houƒe yard, the more I was vexed with it; and the determination of Congreƒs in favor of the petition did not allay the irritation... I took my pen and wrote a very few lines to my wife, and about an equal number to General James Warren."

   The letter Adams wrote to James Warren was intercepted by the British and published. In that letter he described Mr. Dickinson as a "piddling genius whose fame has been trumpeted ƒo loudly" Dickinson had, according to Adams, "given a ƒilly caƒt to our whole doings." He noted that the time spent on the Petition should have been spent in preparing for war. "We ought to have had in our hands a month ago the whole legiƒlative, executive and judicial of the whole continent, and have completely modelled a conƒtitution; to have raiƒed a naval power and opened all our ports wide; to have arreƒted every friend of government on the continent and held them as hoƒtages for the poor victims in Boƒton..." Then, and only then, should there have been any petitioning according to Adams.

   The Olive Branch Petition was entrusted to Richard Henry Lee and Richard Penn to be taken to England and presented to the king. Penn left America on the 12th of July with the petition and arrived in London on 14 August. He was deliver the petition to Lord Dartmouth, who in turn would deliver it to the king. For some reason the petition was not delivered to Dartmouth until the 26th and when he attempted to deliver it to the king, George III refused to accept it. Lord Suffolk responded by stating that

"The King and his Cabinet are determined to liƒten to nothing from the illegal congreƒs, to treat with the colonies only one by one, and in no event to recognize them in any form of aƒsociation."

   There was a great chance that a reconciliation with the mother country might have been effected if the petition had been read and taken into consideration by the king. Sentiment for reconciliation began to spread in the colonies shortly after it was issued. But King George III not only rejected the Olive Branch Petition; on 23 August, 1775 he issued a statement in which he proclaimed the Americans in a state of rebellion:

"Whereas many of our ƒubjects in divers parts of our Colonies and Plantations in North America, miƒled by dangerous and ill deƒigning men, and forgetting the allegiance which they owe to the power that has protected and ƒupported them; after various diƒorderly acts committed in diƒturbance of the publick peace, to the obƒtruction of lawful commerce, and to the oppreƒsion of our loyal ƒubjects carrying on the ƒame; have at length proceeded to open and avowed rebellion, by arraying themƒelves in a hoƒtile manner, to withƒtand the execution of the law, and traitorouƒly preparing, ordering and levying war againƒt us: And whereas, there is reaƒon to apprehend that ƒuch rebellion hath been much promoted and encouraged by the traitorous correƒpondence, counƒels and comfort of divers wicked and deƒperate perƒons within this realm: To the end therefore, that none of our ƒubjects may neglect or violate their duty through ignorance thereof, or through any doubt of the protection which the law will afford to their loyalty and zeal, we have thought fit, by and with the advice of our Privy Council, to iƒsue our Royal Proclamation, hereby declaring, that not only all our Officers, civil and military, are obliged to exert their utmoƒt endeavors to ƒuppreƒs ƒuch rebellion, and to bring the traitors to juƒtice, but that all our ƒubjects of this Realm, and the dominions thereunto belonging, are bound by law to be aiding and aƒsiƒting in the ƒuppreƒsion of ƒuch rebellion, and to diƒclose and make known all traitorous conƒpiracies and attempts againƒt us, our crown and dignity; and we do accordingly ƒtrictl charge and command all our Officers, as well civil as military, and all others our obedient and loyal ƒubjects, to uƒe their utmoƒt endeavors to withƒtand and ƒuppreƒs ƒuch rebellion, and to diƒclose and make known all treaƒons and traitorous conƒpiracies which they ƒhall know to be againƒt us, our crown and dignity; and for that purpoƒe, that they tranƒmit to one of our principal Secretaries of State, or other proper officer, due and full information of all perƒons who ƒhall be found carrying on correƒpondence with, or in any manner or degree aiding or abetting the perƒons now in open arms and rebellion againƒt our Government, within any of our Colonies and Plantations in North America, in order to bring to condign puniƒhment the authors, perpetrators, and abetters of ƒuch traitorous deƒigns.
 
Given at our Court at St. James's the twenty-third day of Auguƒt, one thouƒand ƒeven hundred and ƒeventy-five, in the fifteenth year of our reign. God ƒave the King.

   The news of the rejection of the Olive Branch Petition was received by the delegates assembled in Congress on the 9th of November, 1775. In the Pennsylvania Packet of 10 November, 1775 it was noted "His Lordƒhip was preƒsed to obtain an anƒwer, but thoƒe who preƒented it were told, 'That as his Majeƒty did not receive it on the throne, no anƒwer would be given.'" Despite the response given to the petition by King George III, it was presented for consideration to the House of Commons on 07 November along with a motion that it constitute a basis for reconciliation. The motion was defeated by a vote of 83 to 33.

   Certain delegates to the Continental Congress, including John Dickinson, were not content to be slapped across the face and dismissed so easily. A draft of a letter to the Agents (of the various Colonies) in England was read for approval during the November 29th session of Congress in which the statement was made that "There is nothing more ardently deƒired by North America than a laƒting union with Great Britain on terms of juƒt and equal liberty..." One last effort was made to express to the king that it was not he, but rather the Parliament of Great Britain, with whom any quarrel existed. A decision had been made and a resolution passed on 04 December that "in the present situation of affairs, it will be very dangerous to the liberties and welfare of America, if any Colony should separately petition the King or either house of Parliament." A committee was chosen to comment on the royal proclamations which had recently been announced. On 06 December the committee presented the following statement, which was approved for publication.

"We, the Delegates of the thirteen United Colonies in North America, have taken into our moƒt ƒerious conƒideration, a Proclamation iƒsued from the Court of St. James's on the Twenty-Third day of Auguƒt laƒt. The name of Majeƒty is uƒed to give it a ƒanction and influence; and, on that account, it becomes a matter of importance to wipe off, in the name of the people of theƒe United Colonies, the aƒperƒions which it is calculated to throw upon our cauƒe; and to prevent, as far as poƒsible, the undeƒerved puniƒhments, which it is deƒigned to prepare for our friends. We are accuƒed of "forgetting the allegiance which we owe to the power that has protected and ƒuƒtained us. "Why all this ambiguity and obƒcurity in what ought to be ƒo plain and obvious, as that he who runs may read it? What allegiance is it that we forget? Allegiance to Parliament? We never owed --we never owned it. Allegiance to our King? Our words have ever avowed it, --our conduct has ever been conƒiƒtent with it. We condemn, and with arms in our hands, --a reƒource which Freemen will never part with, --we oppoƒe the claim and exerciƒe of unconƒtitutional powers, to which neither the Crown nor Parliament were ever entitled. By the Britiƒh Conƒtitution, our beƒt inheritance, rights, as well as duties, deƒcend upon us: We cannot violate the latter by defending the former: We should act in diametrical oppoƒition to both, if we permitted the claims of the Britiƒh Parliament to be eƒtabliƒhed, and the meaƒures purƒued in conƒequence of thoƒe claims to be carried into execution among us. Our ƒagacious anceƒtors provided mounds againƒt the inundation of tyranny and lawleƒs power on one ƒide, as well as againƒt that of faction and licentiouƒness on the other. On which ƒide has the breach been made? Is it objected againƒt us by the moƒt inveterate and the moƒt uncandid of our enemies, that we have oppoƒed any of the juƒt prerogatives of the Crown, or any legal exertion of thoƒe prerogatives? Why then are we accuƒed of forgetting our allegiance? We have performed our duty: We have reƒiƒted in thoƒe caƒes, in which the right to reƒiƒt is ƒtipulated as expreƒsly on our part, as the right to govern is, in other caƒes, ƒtipulated on the part of the Crown. The breach of allegiance is removed from our reƒiƒtance as far as tyranny is removed from legal government. It is alledged, that "we have proceeded to an open and avowed rebellion." In what does this rebellion conƒiƒt. It is thus deƒcribed --"Arraying ourƒelves in hoƒtile manner, to withƒtand the execution of the law, and traiterouƒly preparing, ordering, and levying war againƒt the King." We know of no laws binding upon us, but ƒuch as have been tranƒmitted to us by our anceƒtors, and ƒuch as have been conƒented to by ourƒelves, or our repreƒentatives elected for that purpoƒe. What laws, ƒtamps with theƒe characters, have we withƒtood? We have indeed defended them; and we will riƒque every thing, do every thing, and ƒuffer every thing in their defence. To ƒupport our laws, and our liberties eƒtabliƒhed by our laws, we have prepared, ordered, and levied war: But is this traiterouƒly, or againƒt the King? We view him as the Conƒtitution repreƒents him. That tells us he can do no wrong. The cruel and illegal attacks, which we oppoƒe, have no foundation in the royal authority. We will not, on our part, loƒe the diƒtinction between the King and his Miniƒters: happy would it have been for ƒome former Princes, had it been always preƒerved on that part of the Crown.
 
"Beƒides all this, we obƒerve, on this part of the proclamation, that "rebellion" is a term undefined and unknown in the law; it might have been expected that a proclamation, which by the Britiƒh conƒtitution has no other operation than merely that of enforcing what is already law, would have had a known legal baƒis to have reƒted upon. A correƒpondence between the inhabitants of Great Britain and their brethren in America, produced, in better times, much ƒatiƒfaction to individuals, and much advantage to the public. By what criterion ƒhall one, who is unwilling to break off this correƒpondence, and is, at the ƒame time, anxious not to expoƒe himƒelf to the dreadful conƒequences threatened in this proclamation --by what criterion ƒhall he regulate his conduct? He is admoniƒhed not to carry on correƒpondence with the perƒons now in rebellion in the colonies. How ƒhall he aƒcertain who are in rebellion, and who are not? He conƒults the law to learn the nature of the ƒuppoƒed crime: the law is ƒilent upon the ƒubject. This, in a country where it has been often ƒaid, and formerly with juƒtice, that the government is by law, and not by men, might render him perfectly eaƒy. But proclamations have been ƒometimes dangerous engines in the hands of thoƒe in power; information is commanded to be given to one of the Secretaries of State, of all perƒons "who ƒhall be found carrying on correƒpondence with the perƒons in rebellion, in order to bring to condign puniƒhment the authors, perpetrators, or abettors, of ƒuch dangerous deƒigns." Let us ƒuppoƒe, for a moment, that ƒome perƒons in the colonies are in rebellion, and that thoƒe who carry on correƒpondence with them, might learn by ƒome rule, which Britons are bound to know, how to diƒcriminate them; Does it follow that all correƒpondence with them deƒerves to be puniƒhed? It might have been intended to apprize them of their danger, and to reclaim them from their crimes. By what law does a correƒpondence with a criminal tranƒfer or communicate his guilt? We know that thoƒe who aid and adhere to the King's enemies, and thoƒe who correƒpond with them in order to enable them to carry their deƒigns into effect, are crimina1 in the eye of the law. But the law goes no farther. Can proclamations, according to the principles of reaƒon and juƒtice, and the conƒtitution, go farther than the law?
 
"But, perhaps the principles of reaƒon and juƒtice, and the conƒtitution will not prevail: Experience ƒuggeƒts to us the doubt: If they ƒhould not, we muƒt reƒort to arguments drawn from a very different ƒource. We, therefore, in the name of the people of theƒe United Colonies, and by authority, according to the pureƒt maxims of repreƒentation, derived from them, declare, that whatever puniƒhment ƒhall be inflicted upon any perƒons in the power of our enemies for favouring, aiding, or abetting the cauƒe of American liberty, ƒhall be retaliated in the ƒame kind, and the ƒame degree upon thoƒe in our power, who have favoured, aided, or abetted, or ƒhall favour, aid, or abet the ƒyƒtem of miniƒterial oppreƒsion. The eƒsential difference between our cauƒe, and that of our enemies, might juƒtify a ƒeverer punishment: The law of retaliation will unqueƒtionably warrant one equally ƒevere.
 
We mean not, however, by this declaration, to occaƒion or to multiply puniƒhments: Our ƒole view is to prevent them. In this unhappy and unnatural controverƒy, in which Britons fight againƒt Britons, and the deƒcendants of Britons, let the calamities immediately incident to a civil war ƒuffice. We hope additions will not from wantonneƒs be made to them on one ƒide: We ƒhall regret the neceƒsity, if laid under the neceƒsity, of making them on the other."

   The rift between the colonies and the mother country would become too wide for repair when, on 23 December, 1775 another royal proclamation was issued which would close all commerce to the colonies effective 01 March, 1776. Nothing, including the fluent prose of John Dickinson, could alter the course of events now.