Was the Continental Congress justified in issuing a secret authorization to kidnap or seize royal officers and private citizens suspected of being unfriendly to the American cause?

The Continental Congress issued "a secret authorization for the rebel governments in each colony…to kidnap or seize royal officials or private citizens whom they suspect are unfriendly to the American cause." What did you think of this edict? Do you think it was justified?

Under the circumstances, with British ships and soldiers on their way, I think there was justification. There was too great a risk of sabotage and assassination to allow them to move freely.

Yes, it was war - all is fair in war.

I think it was fair. The loyalists were a threat to America gaining its freedom from England. They were saboteurs to the cause.

To not do so would have been a detriment to success, especially with the British just offshore and the prior Governor pulling so many strings.

I can present an argument in support of this action, but as I look at the course of American history I see it as a precedent for some unfortunate government actions - the Alien and Sedition Acts after independence, the Sedition Act during the World War I and II eras, the McCarthy years, and even contemporary political conspiracy theorizing. The actions authorized seem inconsistent with the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution that were soon to follow. They may have been “justified” but they were also hypocritical and unwise.

To do otherwise would have ensured failure, the probable arrest and execution of the leaders of the Revolution. Extreme times call for extreme measures. The colonials were fighting the greatest military in the world at that time. Royalists would have given the British strategic information and ratted out rebels. It was necessary.

Yes. What options were there? To say the least we were out manned, out gunned, out financed, with no navy. This reminds me of Lincoln in April and May of 1861 when he suspended habeas corpus. Later, during the war Lincoln and his commanders authorized arrests considered "preventative" against thousands of people and suspended many anti war newspapers. There was backlash to this and it certainly made Lincoln aware he may lose the election. However, he felt this and many of his unpopular policies were necessary to win the war.

Yes, when one is at war, you must do all you can to win. Both sides know what their options are.

Yes, you have to do your best not to have enemies hiding in your midst during times of war.

This action disturbed me. While I assume it would have been common by the Crown, I do believe the precedent was unwise. I understand that the Continental Congress was desperate to root out those opposed to their cause, that time was of the essence, etc. But, I’m not entirely sure that the outcome would have been different without these laws. Too often politicians have used this and other special circumstances to take actions contrary to our stated principles.

I also have to mention I was personally appalled that Isaac Ketchum’s six children were left completely on their own while he was in jail. While I’m sure this wasn’t uncommon at that time, that there was no such thing as social services, it was still disturbing.