History ETDs

Publication Date

6-5-1967

Abstract

Throughout this dissertation the reader will notice the author frequently uses the term “conservative” and “radical”. While the author realizes that these terms are often used and misused, it is impossible to avoid them in a discussion of the political climate of Virginia during the years before the American Revolution. One reason which compels the author to employ them is that the Virginians found the same means helpful to describe the varying political viewpoints of their contemporaries. Whenever the terms conservative and radical appear they refer exclusively to members of the Whig faction. The term conservative should never be mistaken a mean Tory. The Whigs all supported American rights and were critical of the colonial policy of the Crown and Parliament. Furthermore, the Whigs agreed it was their duty to unite in opposition to the new colonial policy, especially against the Intolerable Acts of 1774, and to assist in defining colonial America’s future relationship with Great Britain. Beyond this point, however, the agreement among the Virginian Whigs ended. As a result of this lack of complete agreement among the Virginia Whigs, the author carefully uses the labels of conservative and radical to distinguish between the two rival groups. The conservatives differed from the radicals on some fundamental points. Conservatives generally favored a restoration of conditions to what they were prior to the French and Indian War. Moreover, the conservatives believed that cautious methods should be used to accomplish such a restoration. Radicals, on the other hand, took a more controversial position. Generally speaking, radicals favored independence or a more formalized dominion status for British America. The latter viewpoint began to disappear as the crisis worsened in 1775 and 1776. Radicals also were prone to advocate more direct and vigorous action to reach their goals. So the difference between the conservatives and the radicals was basically a dispute over what the end of political agitation in Virginia was to be. Since the Whigs did not agree on what the desirable conclusion was to be, they constantly skirmished over the means each side advanced as the method to resolve the dispute with Great Britain. Herein lies the main theme of this dissertation. The Continental Association itself was not a drastic departure from the forms of resistance employed prior to 1774. However, both the conservatives and radicals saw that the Continental Association, and its utilization, could be the vehicle through which they might promote their ambitions. As a result, a struggle developed between the two factions as each tried to use the boycott, and the machinery created to enforce it, in a manner each deemed fit and proper. Therefore, from the beginning, a division among the Whigs was evident. The conservatives constantly tried to restrain the more vigorous radicals to hold the door open for a settlement with Great Britain which would allow a return to things as they were in the pre-war years. During 1774, 1775 and into 1776, the conservatives were able to exercise a moderating influence on Virginia through the Continental Association. Consequently, the Association was basically a conservative episode in Virginia’s history. Eventually most of the conservatives were forced to alter their views, due to the conservatives were forced to alter their views, due to circumstances beyond Virginia’s control, and to accept revolution as a last resort. Even so, throughout its operation in Virginia, the Continental Association bore the imprint of the conservative Whigs. As most conservatives gradually surrendered their hope of reconciliation, they struggled to make the transition from resistance to rebellion on orderly, humane and just movement for the people of Virginia. It is this aspect of Virginia’s history concerning the Continental Association upon which the author hopes to enlarge.

Level of Degree

Doctoral

Degree Name

History

Department Name

History

First Committee Member (Chair)

William Miner Dabney

Second Committee Member

Gunther Eric Rothenberg

Third Committee Member

Charles Burnet Judah

Language

English

Document Type

Dissertation

Download

Included in

History Commons

Share

COinS