In 1774 and 1775, a series of essays was published in Massachusetts newspapers, primarily the Boston Gazette, from two authors, known as Novanglus and Massachusettensis. Massachusettensis supported British rule of the colonies and defended the royal government against the colonial rebelliousness. Novanglus responded by insisting that the colonies should govern themselves.

Hopefully those…interesting names were meant to be, you know, interesting.

Novanglus in real life was none other than our good friend John Adams—he believed he was responding to his former BFF Jonathan Sewall, but Massachusettensis was actually a lawyer named Daniel Leonard (whoops). This essay is an example of Massachusettensis' writing, which eloquently argues against the fight for independence.

Massachusettensis claims that, like with previous examples throughout history, people who normally have little interest in government have been inspired into a frenzy, by others, who have misled them into thinking that they're under a state of tyranny:

They begin by reminding the people of the elevated rank they hold in the universe, as men; that all men by nature are equal; that kings are but the ministers of the people; that their authority is delegated to them by the people for their good…Doubtless there have been instances where these principles have been inculcated to obtain a redress of real grievances, but they have been much oftener perverted to the worst of purposes…A small mistake, in point of policy, often furnishes a pretence [sic] to libel government, and persuade the people that their rulers are tyrants, and the whole government a system of oppression… the people are led to sacrifice real liberty to licentiousness, which gradually ripens into rebellion and civil war. (Source)

Leonard argues that the unfortunate followers will eventually find themselves under a new form of real tyranny, brought about by the same people who are leading their revolt.

Massachusettensis continues by discussing how the Whigs (anti-British congressmen) had been essentially holding congressmen hostage by punishing those didn't agree with them. Without naming names, he presents examples of men who lost their careers because they didn't go with the flow.

The author writes that, "If a councellor [sic] opposed the violent measures of the whigs with any spirit, he lost his election the next May," and very capable politicians devoted to the colonies "were tumbled from their seats in disgrace. Thus…the political balance of the province was destroyed." (Source)

In other words, anyone who disagrees risks losing his job, which means the government has become pretty insanely one-sided.

Massachusettensis continues by defending royal governor Thomas Hutchinson (who Benjamin Franklin accidentally condemned around this time), by saying that the man was just doing his duty, and if the people had just followed his guidance and not put up a fight, everyone would have been happy.

The author claims that judges were coerced into supporting the anti-British leaders, because those leaders controlled the judges' meager salaries. In addition, Massachusettensis brings up a vivid example of violence by recounting the tar and feathering of a Loyalist, a crazy-brutal event that was apparently watched by "thousands of spectators." (Source)

The crux of the essay's argument is this:

Those very persons that had made you believe that every attempt to strengthen government and save our charter was an infringement of your privileges, by little and little destroyed your real liberty, subverted your charter constitution, abridged the freedom of the house…They engrossed all the power of the province into their own hands. (Source)

The way the author sees it, those colonial leaders stirring up hate against the British government are just attempting to consolidate power for themselves, by convincing the public that the current government is despotic and must be violently expelled. The people will find themselves under a real tyranny after the rabble-rousers succeed in separating the colonies from British rule. Given that movements like the American Revolution had failed more than they had succeeded until this point in history, can you blame him for being incredulous?

The decision to declare independence in the 1770s wasn't universally supported, not only in the years leading up to the official Declaration, but even at the time of the Declaration itself. Up to the final vote there were delegates who thought it was too rash and quick of a decision. There were a number of people in the colonies who remained loyal to Britain, and found the passionate rhetoric and sometimes violent actions of the anti-British colonists to be extreme and unjust.

Imagine that you're one of the people who still feel that the colonies are truly a part of Britain—how would you feel seeing people you know tarred and feathered? Or tea dumped into the ocean for spite? Although the Loyalists by 1774 were essentially fighting a losing battle, in public opinion if not yet on the battlefield, writers like Massachusettensis illustrate that Loyalists were around and could present convincing arguments of their own.