John Dickinson Writes First “Farmer” Letter, November 10, 1767

In 1767 a bill was passed by Parliament which affirmed its right “to bind the Colonies in all cases whatsoever” and levied duties on tea, paper, glass and painters’ colors imported into the Colonies from Great Britain, payable in America. This act, with several others, rekindled the opposition of the Colonies. Again associations were formed to prevent the importation of British goods and meetings called to resolve, petition and remonstrate.

The first of the “Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania to the Inhabitants of the British Colonies,” appeared November 10, 1767, the authorship of which gave John Dickinson, of Philadelphia, so much of his celebrity.

They were published in every colony, also in London, and afterwards translated into French in Paris.

Dr. Benjamin Franklin, who had formerly been an enemy of Dickinson wrote the preface to the London edition; while the people of Boston, assembled in a town meeting, voted Dickinson their thanks.

Letter No. 1 began: “My Dear Countrymen: I am a farmer, settled, after a variety of fortunes, near the banks of the Delaware, in the Province of Pennsylvania. I received a liberal education, and have been engaged in busy scenes of life; but am now convinced that a man may be as happy without bustle as with it.

“My farm is small; my servants few and good; I have a little money at interest; I wish for no more; my employment in my own affairs is easy; and with a contented, grateful mind, undisturbed by worldly hopes or fears, relating to myself, I am completing the number of days allotted to me by Divine goodness.”

Every man ought to espouse the sacred cause of liberty to the extent of his powers and “The Farmer” offered some thoughts on late transactions, praying that his lines might be read with the same zeal for the happiness of British America with which they had been written.

He had observed that little notice had been taken of the Act of Parliament for suspending the legislation of New York. This was 787punishment for noncompliance by the Assembly of that Province with a former act requiring certain provisions to be made for the troops. To compel the colonies to furnish certain articles for the troops was, he proceeded to show, taxation in another form and New York was being punished for resisting such taxation.

In Letter No. 2, the “Farmer” took up the Act imposing duties on paper, glass, etc., which he deemed a most dangerous innovation upon the old practice of imposing duties merely for the regulation of trade.

Parliament had a right to regulate the trade of the colonies; but here it was vowing the design of raising revenues from America; a right, which, America felt, was inherent in her own representatives. This taxation was attempted by the device of levying duties on certain articles imported to the colonies. The effect of this was clearly pointed out.

Great Britain had prohibited certain manufactures in the colonies, and had prohibited the purchase of such manufactured goods except from the mother country.

“If you once admit that Great Britain may lay duties upon her exportations to us, for the purpose of levying money on us only,” he wrote, “she will then have nothing to do but to lay those duties on the articles, which she prohibits us to manufacture—and the tragedy of American liberty is finished.”

In Letter No. 3 the “Farmer” explained there were other modes of resistance to oppression than any breach of peace and deprecated, as Dickinson did ever afterward, any attempt to make the colonies independent.

“If once we are separated from our mother country,” he said, “what new form of government shall we adopt, or where shall we find another Britain to supply our loss? Torn from the body to which we are united by religion, liberty, laws, affections, relation, language and commerce, we must bleed at every vein.”

In the subsequent letters, the dangers to American liberty were expiated, objections answered and the people urged to make a stand for themselves and their posterity peaceably, prudently, firmly, jointly. “You are assigned by Divine Providence, in the appointed orders of things the protectors of unborn ages, whose fate depends upon your virtue,” he said. “Whether they shall arise the generous and indisputable heirs of the noblest patrimonies or the dastardly and hereditary drudges of imperious taskmasters, you must determine.”

The effect of the Farmer’s letters was tremendous. About this time a letter to Governor Penn arrived from the Earl of Hillsborough, dated April 21, 1768, informing him that King George III considered the circular letter from the Massachusetts Legislature, calling upon the other colonies to send commissioners to New York City to consider a united representation to the King and Parliament to be of a most dangerous and factious tendency, and that Governor Penn should exert 788his influence to prevail upon the Assembly of Pennsylvania to take no notice of it, and to prorogue or dissolve that body.

The Assembly, September 16, resolved that the Governor had no authority to prorogue or dissolve and that it was the undoubted right of the Assembly to correspond with any of the American colonies to obtain by decent petitions to the King and Parliament redress of any grievances.

Four days later the Assembly addressed a petition to the King, the following day one to the House of Lords and another to the House of Commons. Each of these paraphrased in softer language and adapted to Pennsylvania the latter from Massachusetts.

The petition to the King referred to the settlement of the province when it was only a wilderness with a view of enjoying that liberty, civil and religious, of which the petitioners’ ancestors were in a great measure deprived in their native land, and also to extend the British empire, increase its commerce and promote its wealth and power.

With inexpressible labor, toil and expense, and without assistance from the mother country, that wilderness had been peopled, planted and improved.

It was conceived that by no act had the people surrendered up or forfeited their rights and liberties as natural-born subjects of the British Government; but those rights had been brought over and were vested by inheritance.

The duties and taxes for the sole purpose of raising revenue imposed by parliament upon the Americans, they not being represented in that body, and being taxable only by themselves or their representatives, were destructive of those rights and without precedent until the passage of the Stamp Act.

Whenever the King had had occasion for aid to defend and secure the colonies, requisitions had been made upon the Pennsylvania Assemblies, who with cheerfulness granted them, and “often so liberally as to exceed the abilities and circumstances of the people.”

It was essential to the liberties of Englishmen that no laws be made which would take away their property without their consent, and even if this taxation had been constitutional the present law was injurious to the mother country as well as America. And lastly, the revenue was to be applied in such colonies as it should be thought proper. Thus Pennsylvania would pay, without their consent, taxes which might be applied to the use of other colonies.

789