Among the many events in and around Boston leading to the American War of Independence, the Convention of 1768 in Faneuil Hall is rarely remembered today. No wonder. It turned out to be something of an embarrassment for the patriot cause and was later overshadowed by the drama and violence of other events, such as the Boston Massacre in 1770, the Boston Tea Party in 1773, and the Battle of Lexington and Concord in 1775.
Though not often recalled today, the convention was a significant act of rebellion: It was, in effect, a gathering of the Massachusetts House of Representatives in defiance of orders from the royally appointed governor. Some at the time called it treason. Some feared it would touch off war.
Custom House Workers Forced to Flee to Island in Harbor
The convention took place amid rising tensions between Great Britain and the American colonies as Britain tried to collect taxes from Americans, who sputtered they should not be forced to pay taxes never approved by their representatives. Much of the American anger was centered in Boston, where townspeople were making life miserable for the officials at the Custom House in the town, headquarters of British tax-collection efforts in North America. Riots in 1768 forced Custom House workers and their families to flee to an island in Boston Harbor for safety.
To help enforce tax collection and protect customs workers, British authorities in 1768 directed the navy to bring thousands of soldiers to Boston. Townspeople were furious. At a town meeting, some people favored armed resistance to the coming force. Cooler heads tamped down talk of fighting, but the town meeting voted to invite representative from all towns in Massachusetts to attend a "convention" at Faneuil Hall, Boston's town hall.
This was provocative. Just the term convention was alarming. Today, the word is benign. But back then, it suggested upheaval. The term had been used in England for meetings at crucial historical turning points.
Only Royally Appointed Governor Could Call House of Representatives into Session
Was this convention legal? This would be, in effect, a gathering of the Massachusetts House of Representatives and supposedly only the royally appointed governor could call the House into session.
The stated purpose of the convention was phony: to discuss preparations for a possible "French" invasion. The notion was absurd. Britain and France were at peace. The real reason was to plan how best to resist or protest the coming occupation by British troops.
Not every town in Massachusetts sent representatives. Hatfield, far to the west, spurned the invitation, calling Boston’s ideas "unconstitutional, illegal and wholly unjustifiable . . . subversive of government, destructive of that peace and good order which is the cement of Society, and have a direct tendency to rivet our chains, and deprive us of our charter rights and privileges." Hatfield also saw through the stated reason for the convention. Hatfield townsmen said that, if Boston feared a French invasion, the town should welcome British soldiers.
Ninety-two other towns did send delegates, but most of them were sent off with strict orders to be moderate. The country towns were not going to feed Boston’s fire.
Cushing as Chairman, Adams and Secretary
The convention came together as planned, ignoring messages from the governor that the gathering was illegal and should disperse. For six days they met, with Thomas Cushing, former speaker of the House, as chairman, and Sam Adams, clerk of the House, as secretary. In the end, the meeting produced nothing of consequence.
About the time reports reached Boston of the approaching British military flotilla, the delegates, in the words of a Tory editor, “broke up and rushed out of Town like herd of scalded hogs.”
The convention did little to affect events in Massachusetts, but it did further harden attitudes in London. Some in Britain asserted that conventioneers, just by gathering, committed “high crimes and misdemeanors, if not treason.”
The convention also gave authorities in London good reason to believe that Boston was alone in this quarrel, and that the Massachusetts countryside was solidly loyal. This was true enough then. By 1775, however, attitudes in the countryside would be vastly different.
Willingness to Defy Royal Authority
While failing to generate any meaningful action, the now-forgotten convention demonstrated the willingness of most towns at the time—even those in the conservative countryside—to meet in defiance of royal authority. Thomas Hutchinson, one of the last royal governors, later wrote a history of the province. In it he said the convention represented “a greater tendency towards a revolution in government, than any preceding measures in any of the colonies.”
Soon after the convention broke up, the British soldiers arrived and landed in Boston unopposed. But tensions between the soldiers and the townspeople eventually led more than a year later to the Boston Massacre, the killing of several civilians by soldiers in front of the Custom House.
Sources:
Frothingham, Richard. Life and Times of Joseph Warren. Boston, Little, Brown & Co., 1865.
Miller, John C. “The Massachusetts Convention 1768.” The New England Quarterly. Vol. 7, No. 3 (Sep. 1934).
Warden, G.B., “Boston: 1689-1776,” Boston, Little, Brown and Company, 1970.
Winsor, Justin, Editor. Memorial History of Boston. Vol. III. Boston, Ticknor and Company, 1881.
Brian Deming - Brian Deming has a master’s degree in American history from Northwestern University. He has taught U.S. history and media history at ...
Join the Conversation