1. Consider Samuel Seabury’s thought on American independence. How does Seabury feel about independence? Why does he think independence was or was not a good idea? (Bring clean copy of petition: Seabury’s thoughts)

Thesis Statement: Samuel Seabury strongly opposed American independence, arguing that it would lead to disorder, tyranny, and the breakdown of legitimate authority. He believed that the revolutionary movement was fueled by a small faction of radicals who undermined legal governance, and that independence would bring about oppressive rule and chaos, rather than liberty or peace.

In-Depth Outline:

I. Introduction

• Brief context of the American Revolution (1763-1783) and rising calls for independence.

• Introduction of Samuel Seabury as a Loyalist clergyman who vocally opposed the revolutionary movement.

• Thesis statement: Samuel Seabury viewed independence as a disastrous idea, believing it would replace legitimate British authority with unlawful, oppressive rule led by radicals. He feared that revolutionaries were introducing tyranny under the guise of liberty, which would ultimately harm the colonies.

II. Seabury’s View of Legitimate Authority

• Discuss Seabury’s belief in the British system of governance as legitimate and fair, where colonists had a role through elected representatives.

• Seabury saw colonial rights as protected under the British constitution, with grievances to be addressed legally.

• Emphasis on his critique of revolutionary leaders for bypassing the authority of elected representatives, thereby undermining legitimate governance.

  • Quote: "The people have a right to share in the legislature... But when they have chosen their representatives, that right, which was before diffused through the whole people, centers in their Representatives alone."

III. Critique of Revolutionary Tactics

• Examine Seabury’s disdain for the methods of the revolutionaries, whom he described as acting illegally and tyrannically.

• He accused them of forming committees and conventions without legal backing, usurping power from legitimate colonial assemblies.

• Argue that Seabury saw these actions as mob rule, leading to disorder and threatening the stability of the colonies.

  • Quote: "A Committee, chosen in a tumultuous, illegal manner, usurped the most despotic authority over the province."

IV. Fear of Tyranny and Mob Rule

• Analyze Seabury’s fear that independence would lead to internal tyranny and mob violence, not freedom.

• Seabury believed that the Continental Congress and local committees exercised despotic power, silencing dissent and encouraging riots to enforce their will.

• Contrast his view of British governance as measured and lawful with his portrayal of revolutionary leaders as tyrannical.

  • Quote: "The state to which the Grand Congress, and the subordinate Committees, have reduced the colonies, is really deplorable. They have introduced a system of the most oppressive tyranny."

V. Seabury’s Concerns About Economic and Social Consequences

• Discuss Seabury’s concerns that the revolution would not only destroy legitimate political authority but also disrupt colonial society and economy.

• He argued that levying taxes without the consent of colonial representatives (as the revolutionaries did) would lead to financial instability.

• Seabury feared that money raised for revolutionary purposes, under the guise of helping colonists, would be misused to wage war against the British crown.

  • Quote: "Money is levied upon us without the consent of our representatives: which very money, under color of relieving the poor people of Boston, it is too probable will be employed to raise an army against the King."

VI. Conclusion

• Summarize Seabury’s main arguments: his belief in the legitimacy of British authority, his view that the revolutionaries were tyrannical, and his fear of the social and economic consequences of independence.

• Restate thesis: Seabury’s opposition to independence was based on his conviction that it would lead to tyranny, chaos, and the collapse of legitimate governance, rather than achieving true liberty for the colonies.

Samuel Seabury’s Argument against Independence (1775)

Samuel Seabury:

• Background:

  • Native of Connecticut; graduated from Yale College.

  • Anglican minister and devoted Loyalist.

  • Published pamphlets against the revolutionary movement in 1774 and 1775.

  • Jailed briefly for his views; took refuge in British-occupied New York City during the War of Independence.

  • Became the first Episcopal bishop of the United States after the war.

Main Argument Against Independence:

• Seabury addressed the “confused and distressed state” of the colonies, criticizing the revolutionary movement against Great Britain.

• Argued that the current contention with Great Britain would lead to numerous disadvantages and inconveniences, particularly due to the rejection of moderate and proper measures.

Critique of Revolutionary Actions:

• Accused the colonies of disregarding any attempts at peace, branding peaceful efforts as “slavery” and dissent as “sedition.”

• Highlighted that the colonial representatives had been ignored and their authority undermined.

• Criticized the formation of Committees that acted without legal authority, thus usurping power from the legislature.

Claims of Tyranny:

• Described the Grand Congress and local Committees as having established a system of oppressive tyranny over the colonies.

• Noted that people were threatened for supporting order, and printers were intimidated from publishing pro-government materials.

• Pointed out that radical pamphlets against the British were praised while moderate voices were silenced.

Conditions of Governance:

• Claimed that a foreign power (the Continental Congress) was governing the province without legitimate consent.

• Criticized the imposition of laws by factions from various colonies without representation.

• Expressed concerns about money being levied without consent, which could be used against the King.

Understanding of Freedom:

• Seabury differed from independence advocates in viewing freedom as rooted in law and representation rather than rebellion and sedition.

• Emphasized that true liberty is maintained through respect for established government and lawful authority, rather than through tumultuous actions.