Which figure argued that the colonies were legally under Parliament's authority, resisting British laws was unlawful, and that economic protests would hurt the colonies?

• A. Samuel Seabury / Daniel Leonard
• B. John Dickinson
• C. James Otis
• D. Jonathan Mayhew

Answer: (A)

This question tests understanding of the Loyalist position that Parliament had legitimate authority over the colonies and that resisting British laws was unlawful, with protests risking harm to colonial interests. Samuel Seabury and Daniel Leonard were prominent Loyalist writers who argued exactly that: Parliament’s sovereignty extended over the colonies, colonists were bound by imperial law, and actions like boycotts or other economic protests would damage the colonies rather than help them. They emphasized obedience to Parliament and warned that unlawful resistance could bring harsher measures and economic harm.

Other figures in this period advocated different approaches. For example, Dickinson argued for reconciling with Britain and using organized economic protests to pressure Parliament while still asserting colonial rights, Otis stressed colonial rights but through a different, more radical constitutional argument, and Mayhew focused on moral suasion and caution rather than wholesale acceptance of Parliament’s sovereignty. The Loyalist stance described aligns with Seabury and Leonard’s writings.