Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
July 8, 1663. King Charles II issued a royal charter to the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.
Each colony had a royal charter from the King of England that established its government and rights and responsibilities, independent of Parliament. Today we underestimate the importance of these charters to the colonists and often dismiss their reliance on the charters as pretextual in their struggle with Parliament, starting in 1765. But the colonists had governments that had been completely separate from the British parliament for over a century. Let's look at the Rhode Island Royal Charter of 1663 as an example.
Roger Williams was a Puritan minister who arrived in Massachusetts in 1631. He quickly fell out with the leadership of the Massachusetts Bay and Plymouth colonies because he opposed the state enforcing the first five of the Ten Commandments and taking land from the Indians without payment. He was convicted of heresy and sedition and expelled from Massachusetts in 1636, and he fled south, where he founded Providence Plantations on land purchased from the Narragansett Indians. The new colony welcomed religious dissenters such as Quakers, Jews, and Baptists, and insisted that land be purchased rather than seized from the Indians.
In 1663, King Charles II issued a royal charter to the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations that gave its freemen important rights. They had the right to elect their governor and other officials, and to make any laws that did not contravene the laws of England. It provided that they must not "disquiet" any person for an opinion on matters of religion, and for free travel by citizens of other colonies through Rhode Island. Finally, it required that they purchase land from the Indians. Importantly, Parliament had no right to interfere in Rhode Island's affairs.
Rhode Islanders took the culture of freedom that coalesced around this charter seriously. They were the first colony to take up arms against the British Crown, burning the revenue schooner HMS Gaspee in June 1772, eighteen months before the Boston Tea Party. And they were the first colony to declare independence from Great Britain on May 4, 1776.
Rhode Island prized its independence against the new United States as well. It was an enthusiastic supporter of the Articles of Confederation, which gave each state a veto on measures in the Confederation Congress. They boycotted the Constitutional Convention and did not participate in the presidential or congressional elections of 1788 under the new constitution. Although a dozen ratification conventions were called in the state, each one rejected the new federal constitution, with one voting it down by 92%. Only when the US Congress passed a bill in May 1790 that would close all trade with Rhode Island did the state finally ratify the US Constitution. Even then, it was ratified by the state's General Assembly and not by a special ratification convention as mandated by the Constitution, because a convention of the citizens would likely have rejected it.
While the other colonies replaced their royal charters quickly after independence, Rhode Island's royal charter remained in effect as the constitution of the State of Rhode Island until 1843, when it was replaced by a new state constitution that extended rights to all adult males (not just white freemen), including blacks.
Rhode Island's long attachment to its royal charter demonstrates the colonists' view that their rights originated from the King and not from Parliament. Its opposition to Parliament's laws was not merely a pretext but a vital concern. Their liberties were a cause worth fighting and dying for.
Discussion (8)
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Thanks, Steve.
The way the establishment taught subjects, including history, raised questions in the mind of every curious child that had no rational answers. Nothing made sense to an intelligent young person with a natural desire to know the truth.
I wish that these history lessons you are posting had been around then!
Knowing what actually happened before the Revolution started explains why the Revolution started.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
I had thought myself pretty well versed in the history of the American Revolution. But only in the last year or so have I begun to understand how central it was to the Colonists that their Charters were from the King, and not from Parliament. And how that affected the brewing controversies. So thank you for helping me further along my recent understanding.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Same here.
Same here.
That’s what I say, too!
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
I knew Rhode Island proved to be a bit rebellious toward the new Constitution, but I didn't know the specifics. Thanks for filling in the picture, Steve!
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Once again, @SteveFast, your posts on this subject continue to be first rate!
It is a little known aspect of the American War of Independence that the sovereign authority to govern the colonies was derived directly from the king and not from Parliament. When the Virginia and New England colonies were established (1607 and 1620, respectively) Parliament had not yet seized sovereign authority from the king as it would later in the English Civil Wars, culminating in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. (Perhaps the founding of Georgia in 1732 might be an exception, but I tend to think it’s establishment charter likely matches the other colonies.)
It may seem like a “cheap lawyer’s trick” to argue that based on their specific establishing charters, Parliament had no direct authority to legislate the colonies, particularly in light of George III’s undeniable subordination to the authority of Parliament. But there it is, nonetheless. If written contracts have any force of law upon the constituted governments that recognize them, (i.e. “rule of law”) then the Colonies petitions to King George seeking relief from the unjust assertions of Parliamentary power then being made were 100% righteous and true. George III was thus really and truly stuck on the horns of a dilemma: he hadn’t had anything to do with the establishment of any of the colonies, and was King of Great Britain only because Parliament had selected his Grandfather George (Elector of Hanover) as successor to the childless Queen Anne. But the authority to govern the colonies was, by charter, derived from his authority, and NOT Parliament’s. Thus, the conditions were set that would result in open warfare.
You're seeing five of eight comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.