Back More
Salem Press

Table of Contents

Continental Congresses

The Olive Branch Petition

O

The Olive Branch Petition

The Olive Branch Petition by John Hancock and 45 other Continental Congress members sought a reconciliation with England before bloodshed broke out. Officially titled “To the King’s Most Excellent Majesty,” it was perhaps the last chance for a peaceful end to the conflict that was to become the American Revolution.

Since the dawn of mankind, conciliatory attempts have been made to try to head off the threat or outbreak of warfare. The meaning of an “olive branch” is an allusion to the story of Noah in the Bible, in Genesis 8:2, which noted that after the great flood, Noah “sent forth a dove, which returned the first time with no good news, but probably wet and dirty; but, the second time, she brought an olive-leaf in her bill, which appeared to be first plucked off, a plain indication that now the trees, the fruit-trees, began to appear above water.” This was seen as a sign from God as a symbol of peace and reconciliation with Man, and has been taken as such a sign since that time.

In those heady days when the First Continental Congress debated on how to try to pressure England to repeal its series of harsh economic measures and military movements aimed at making the colonies bow to the British government’s will, those who believed that “reconciliation” was possible ruled the day, led by John Dickinson of Pennsylvania. Even though fighting had broken out between England and America the previous April, in the end, the Olive Branch Petition was the work of two minds: John Dickinson and John Jay, both attempting to thread a narrow path that both praised the King’s leadership while demanding that his government retract the series of economic measures enacted against the colonies that were causing so much controversy. Historian Jane Calvert explained:

On the eve of the Revolution, Dickinson continued his efforts at reconciliation. The best known of these is the Olive Branch Petition of 5 July 1775. A reluctant and impatient Congress appointed a committee to draft a final plea to the crown to reconcile. John Jay produced a draft with harsh language and threats of rebellion, but it was Dickinson’s version, proclaiming the colonies’ suffering, their loyalty to the king, and placing the blame for the controversy with the king’s ministers that was adopted and submitted. The king, of course, dismissed the petition and the war proceeded. The next day, after approving the Olive Branch Petition, Congress issued A Declaration on the Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms. Various drafts were produced in a tense collaboration between Thomas Jefferson and Dickinson. One added fiery and aggressive tones, promising a formidable threat from America and a prolonged war. The other used language that was mild and conciliatory. [1]

Strangely, other historians claim that Thomas Jefferson wrote the first draft of the Olive Branch Petition, and that it was his “inflammatory language”—not that of John Jay—which precipitated Dickinson to pen the instrument that would become the final document. [2]

John Adams of Massachusetts was a believer in taking two paths: reconciliation and preparedness for war. He wrote to Moses Gill, the chairman of the “committee of supplies” at Cambridge, Massachusetts, on 10 June 1775, “It would be a Relief to my Mind, if I could write freely to you concerning the Sentiments Principles, Facts and Arguments which are laid before us, in Congress: But Injunctions, and Engagements of Honour render this impossible. What I learn out of Doors among Citizens, Gentlemen, and Persons of all Denominations is not so sacred. I find that the general Sense abroad is to prepare for a vigorous defensive War, but at the Same Time to keep open the Door of Reconciliation—to hold the sword in one Hand and the Olive Branch in the other—to proceed with Warlike Measures, and conciliatory Measures Pari Passu.” [3]

The Olive Branch Petition was a listing of grievances held by the colonies towards England. The document stated, “We shall decline the ungrateful task of describing the irksome variety of artifices practised [sic] by many of your Majesty’s Ministers, the delusive pretences [sic], fruitless terrours [sic], and unavailing severities, that have, from time to time, been dealt out by them, in their attempts to execute this impolitick [sic] plan, or of tracing through a series of years past the progress of the unhappy differences between Great Britain and these Colonies, that have flowed from this fatal source.” And while the language was harsh, one historian wrote that “[t]his [was] practically the last official effort of the United Colonies to head off the American Revolution. Lexington, Concord and Bunker Hill had already been fought.” [4]

The British were panicked that a potential decision to declare independence might come out of the Continental Congress. Some of their Tory brethren in the colonies also shared London’s concern, especially when letters from John Adams were intercepted, which talked openly of war, making the British side believe that the Olive Branch Petition was a feint, or a way to get England to ignore a potential move towards independence. Historian Julie Flavell noted:

The interceptions that came to hand during August must have intensified the dilemma, as colonial correspondents related the impending Olive Branch Petition to the idea of a peace commission. Faced with the grim realities of war, colonists wrote of the necessity for a panel of commissioners to be appointed by the government to negotiate with the colonies and settle a definitive line. Otherwise, wrote Jonathan Bayard, “while we remain at 3000 Miles Distance, in their present Tempers, I am fearful nothing will be done.” James Tilghman wrote with respect to the Olive Branch Petition, “we hope that this may produce a Parliamentary Commission to some Persons of weight, who may come over & treat under their own View of our situation, & upon their own knowledge of our Circumstances & Temper.” [5]

Although not known at the time, Gilbert Barkly, a Scot, was sent to Philadelphia by the British to act as a spy. In one of his letters back to London, he recounted being on the ship on which John Penn, a member of the Continental Congress, sailed on, to England, to deliver in person the signed Olive Branch Petition:

I was in the Country when the ship by which Mr. Penn went [as] passenger to England sailed,” Barkly wrote, “which is the reason for not doing myself the honour of writting [sic] you, and inclosing the Pamphlets here with sent, they confirm the inteligence [sic], I did myself the honour of giving you since my arrival in this Country: The Clergy of all denominations has catched [sic] the flame which you will see by the inclosed [sic] sermon, which in my Oppinnion [sic] is worth your reading as it will in some degree explain the plan the people adopts. I find the Congress has sent by Mr. Penn a Petition to be presented to his Majesty, wherein I understand they Humbly Pray his Majesty to direct a mode by which the United Application of his faithful Colonists, may be improved into a happy and permanent reconciliation, being willing to treat on such terms as can alone render an accomodation [sic] lasting. [6]

Historian Julie Flavell noted here that “[t]he fact was that equitable negotiations with an extra-legal assembly such as the Continental Congress in themselves constituted a major concession in the eyes of most British politicians, and one which, threatening as it did fundamentally to change the nature of Britain’s relationship to her colonies, laid bare the whole conflict. [Lord] Dartmouth asserted in the House of Lords in late 1775 that to recognize the Olive Branch petition would mean ‘at the same instant relinquishing the sovereignty of the British parliament’, and this argument applied still more strongly to the prospect of negotiating with the Congress itself.” [7]

The colonies soon realized that the conciliatory language in the Olive Branch Petition was seen by London not as a gesture to try to fix the relationship, but as a direct threat to England’s control, and that it would be dismissed without debate. In Virginia, noted historian Michael D. Pierce, this was especially evident. He explained, “Moreover, the Virginians had what they considered ample evidence that England would not compromise. Part of this evidence was the reaction of both the King and Parliament to the Olive Branch Petition. On 23 August 1775, the King issued a proclamation declaring the colonies to be in a state of rebellion and branding all who participated in it as traitors. Parliament followed up the King’s action with the passage of the Prohibitory Bill which established a blockade of American ports and provided for other actions to hinder American war efforts.” [8]

On 23 August 1775, King George III, without ever reading the petition and rejecting it out of hand, issued a proclamation that labeled all who opposed British rule in America as seditious, and subject to arrest, trial for treason, and hanging. Titled “A Proclamation, by the King, for Suppressing Rebellion and Sedition,” it stated, in part, “[W]e have thought fit, by and with the advice of our Privy Council, to issue our Royal Proclamation, hereby declaring, that not only all our Officers, civil and military, are obliged to exert their utmost endeavours [sic] to suppress such rebellion, and to bring the traitors to justice, but that all our subjects of this Realm, and the dominions thereunto belonging, are bound by law to be aiding and assisting in the suppression of such rebellion . . . ” [9]

A little more than a year after the Olive Branch Petition was signed, 25 of the 46 men who signed it would place their names on the Declaration of Independence.

[1] [1] Calvert, Jane E., “Liberty without Tumult: Understanding the Politics of John Dickinson,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, CXXXI:3 (July 2007), 256.

[2] [2] For instance, see Walle, J. Michael, “Founding Political Warfare Documents of the United States” (Washington, DC: The Crossbow Press, 2009), 226.

[3] [3] John Adams to Moses Gill, 10 June 1775, in John Quincy Adams, ed., “The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States: With a Life of the Author, Notes and Illustrates” (Boston: Little, Brown and Company; 10 volumes, 1850-56), IX:356. “Pari Passu” is Latin for “at an equal rate or pace, or an equal step.”

[4] [4] Adams, Randolph Greenfield, “The ‘Olive Branch Petition to King George III of England From the Second Continental Congress, Signed by Forty-Six of its Members. The Property of George C. With. Fitzwilliam. Milton, Peterborough, England; Sold by His Order. Thursday evening, January 28” (New York: American Art Association, 1932).

[5] [5] Flavell, Julie M., “Government Interception of Letters from America and the Quest for Colonial Opinion in 1775,” The William and Mary Quarterly, LVIII:2 (April 2001), 418.

[6] [6] Gilbert Barkly to Grey Cooper, 17 July 1775, in Seed, Geoffrey, ed., “A British Spy in Philadelphia: 1775-1777,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, LXXXV:1 (January 1961), 14.

[7] [7] Flavell, Julie M., “Lord North’s Conciliatory Proposal and the Patriots in London,” The English Historical Review, CVII:423 (April 1992), 319.

[8] [8] Pierce, Michael D., “The Independence Movement in Virginia, 1775-1776,” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, LXXX:4 (October 1972), 445.

[9] [9] “A Proclamation, by the King, for Suppressing Rebellion and Sedition,” in Peter Force, ed., “American Archives: Consisting of a Collection of Authentick Records, State Papers, Debates, and Letters and Other Notices of Publick Affairs, the Whole Forming a Documentary History of the Origin and Progress of the North America Colonies; of the Causes and Accomplishment of the American Revolution; and of the Constitution of Government for the United States, to the Final Ratification Thereof. In Six Series” (Washington, DC: Published by M. St. Clair Clarke and Peter Force; ten volumes, 1837-53), IV:III:240.

Citation Types

MLA 9th
"The Olive Branch Petition." Continental Congresses, edited by Mark Grossman, Salem Press, 2016. Salem Online, online.salempress.com/articleDetails.do?articleName=Cong_0318.
APA 7th
The Olive Branch Petition. Continental Congresses, In M. Grossman (Ed.), Salem Press, 2016. Salem Online, online.salempress.com/articleDetails.do?articleName=Cong_0318.
CMOS 17th
"The Olive Branch Petition." Continental Congresses, Edited by Mark Grossman. Salem Press, 2016. Salem Online, online.salempress.com/articleDetails.do?articleName=Cong_0318.