One of the lingering "what ifs" of American history has to do with an idea presented at the First Continental Congress, meeting in Philadelphia's Carpenters' Hall, in September and October of 1774. At this meeting, Pennsylvania's Joseph Galloway brought forth a plan to establish an American Parliament. According to Galloway's idea, this Parliament would have functioned as the third house of Parliament—alongside Britain's House of Commons and House of Lords—on matters pertaining to America. That is, all laws applicable to the American colonies would have had to be approved by all three houses.
In the years of crisis between 1763 and the outbreak of the American War of Independence in 1775, this was a rare instance of a proposal to reshape the relationship between the American colonies and the mother country and address grievances on both sides.
What if the Continental Congress had backed Galloway's idea? What if the British Parliament embraced the plan? Would the American Revolution been averted? Would the United States now be a part of the British Commonwealth?
Limits to Parliament's Authority
In proposing this plan, Galloway hoped to address the main issue dividing America and Britain: the limits, if any, of Parliament's authority. Under Galloway's plan, both sides would have had to give ground. Americans would have had to concede that the British Parliament had some authority. Parliament would have had to agree to hand over some authority to the American Parliament.
The plan, however, was stillborn. The Continental Congress discussed the plan, but ultimately discarded it. It was never presented to the British Parliament.
Boston Port Closed as Punishment for Tea Party
The First Continental Congress took place after Britain had closed the port of Boston to punish that town for the Boston Tea Party. Every colony except Georgia sent delegates to the Congress to consider how best to respond, if at all, to the port closing.
Most delegates favored some sort of boycott—a ban on imports or a ban on both imports and exports—to pressure Britain into reopening Boston's port and repealing other harsh measures against Massachusetts.
Opposition to Any Stoppage of Trade
Some delegates, however, opposed any stoppage of trade. Galloway was the leader of this faction. He said Britain had been pushed to the point where any move by Americans to block trade would result in war. Such a war would likely turn out badly for Americans, who had no trained army and a poor record of cooperating with one another. To win, Americans would likely need help from France or Spain. Thus, in victory Americans might wind up under the thumb of despots far worse than George III. Meanwhile, defeat would likely precede some harsh retaliation on the part of London.
What if America somehow cut its ties with Britain without provoking war? Even this possibility had its risks. Galloway suggested that without backing of established British authority, order in the colonies might break down with mobs in the streets looting houses of the well to do.
Plan of Union
With a trade stoppage certain to lead to disaster, an alternative was called for. Galloway thus presented his "Plan of Union." Under this plan, each colony every three years would send delegates to a Grand Council. Meanwhile the king would appoint a president-general for America. All matters concerning two or more colonies and all matters concerning the colonies and Britain would be handled jointly by the Grand Council, the president-general, and the British Parliament. Through this Grand Council, Americans would thus have a veto over any acts of the British Parliament that applied to America.
The reaction to the plan at the Congress was mixed. Virginia's Patrick Henry was against it. He thought such a Council would be just as corrupt at the British Parliament. On the other hand, South Carolina's Edward Rutledge called it "almost a perfect plan." But Galloway's plan was shunted aside. Had the plan been devised years before, it might have gotten traction. But at this point, Americans had little enthusiasm for a scheme that would seem to tighten the bonds with Britain.
Franklin Saw Mischief in Plan
Benjamin Franklin, in London at the time, got around to commenting on Galloway's idea: "When I consider the extreme corruption prevalent among all orders of men in this old rotten state, and the glorious public virtue so predominant in our rising country, I cannot but apprehend more mischief than benefit from a closer union."
Ultimately, the Continental Congress pushed for a trade boycott—a ban on imports to begin almost immediately, and a ban on exports to begin later. The Congress adjourned at the end of October. The war began the following April.
Galloway remained loyal to Britain and sided with the British during the War of Independence.
Sources:
Christie, Ian R., Labaree, Benjamin W. Empire or Independence: 1760-1776. New York, W. W. Norton & Co., 1976.
Ferling, John. A Leap in the Dark: The Struggle to Create the American Republic. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2003.
Smith, Page. John Adams. Garden City, New York, Doubleday & Co., Inc. 1962.
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