The American Revolution
by John Fiske · English · Gutenberg #41266 · 1,132,288 chars · public domain (US)
The Project Gutenberg eBook of The American Revolution
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: The American Revolution
Author: John Fiske
Release date: November 2, 2012 [eBook #41266]
Most recently updated: October 23, 2024
Language: English
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/41266
Credits: Charlene Taylor, KD Weeks, Charles Franks and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION ***
Transcriber's Note
The text version of this volume cannot reproduce the many illustrations
it contains. Please see the Note at the end of this text for a brief
discussion of the conventions adopted. All illustrations can be seen by
consulting the HTML version of this text at Project Gutenberg.
Very few corrections were made, and were due to obvious printer's errors,
and are cataloged in a note at the end of this text. A few instances of
missing punctuation have been silently added, where space for it can be
seen on the printed page.
Footnotes have been re-numbered sequentially and moved to the end of
their respective chapters.
All sidenotes (paragraph descriptions) have been gathered at the
beginning of each paragraph, and can be considered as an outline.
Italics are rendered using the '_' character as _italics_. Text printed
in a bold font is rendered using the '=' character as =bold=. The oe
ligatures in the original text have been replaced by the separate
letters oe in this version, e.g. manoeuvres. Superscripts have been
denoted as, for example, B^{ar}.
[Illustration: WASHINGTON AT TRENTON By John Trumbull]
THE
AMERICAN REVOLUTION
BY
JOHN FISKE
_With Many Illustrations_
TWO VOLUMES IN ONE
[Publisher's Logo]
_Published for_
THE EDUCATIONAL PRESS
_By_
HOUGHTON MIFFLIN COMPANY
BOSTON
COPYRIGHT, 1891, BY JOHN FISKE
COPYRIGHT, 1896, BY HOUGHTON, MIFFLIN AND COMPANY
COPYRIGHT, 1919, BY ABBY M. FISKE
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO REPRODUCE
THIS BOOK OR PARTS THEREOF IN ANY FORM
TO
MRS. MARY HEMENWAY
IN RECOGNITION OF THE RARE FORESIGHT AND PUBLIC SPIRIT
WHICH SAVED FROM DESTRUCTION ONE OF THE NOBLEST
HISTORIC BUILDINGS IN AMERICA, AND MADE IT A
CENTRE FOR THE TEACHING OF AMERICAN
HISTORY AND THE PRINCIPLES OF
GOOD CITIZENSHIP
_I DEDICATE THIS BOOK_
[DECORATION]
CONTENTS
CHAPTER I
THE BEGINNINGS
PAGE
Relations between the American colonies and the British government
in the first half of the eighteenth century 1
The Lords of Trade 2
The governors' salaries 3
Sir Robert Walpole 4
Views of the Lords of Trade as to the need for a union of the
colonies 5
Weakness of the sentiment of union 6
The Albany Congress 6
Franklin's plan for a federal union (1754) 7, 8
Rejection of Franklin's plan 9
Shirley recommends a stamp act 10
The writs of assistance 11
The chief justice of New York 12
Otis's "Vindication" 13
Expenses of the French War 14
Grenville's resolves 15
Reply of the colonies 16
Passage of the Stamp Act 17
Patrick Henry and the Parsons' Cause 18
Resolutions of Virginia concerning the Stamp Act 19, 20
The Stamp Act Congress 20-22
Declaration of the Massachusetts assembly 22
Resistance to the Stamp Act in Boston 23
And in New York 24
Debate in the House of Commons 25, 26
Repeal of the Stamp Act 26, 27
The Duke of Grafton's ministry 28
Charles Townshend and his revenue acts 29-31
Attack upon the New York assembly 32
Parliament did not properly represent the British people 32, 33
Difficulty of the problem 34
Representation of Americans in Parliament 35
Mr. Gladstone and the Boers 36
Death of Townshend 37
His political legacy to George III. 37
Character of George III. 38, 39
English parties between 1760 and 1784 40, 41
George III. as a politician 42
His chief reason for quarrelling with the Americans 42, 43
CHAPTER II
THE CRISIS
Character of Lord North 44
John Dickinson and the "Farmer's Letters" 45
The Massachusetts circular letter 46, 47
Lord Hillsborough's instructions to Bernard 48
The "Illustrious Ninety-Two" 48
Impressment of citizens 49
Affair of the sloop Liberty 49-51
Statute of Henry VIII. concerning "treason committed abroad" 52
Samuel Adams makes up his mind (1768) 53-56
Arrival of troops in Boston 56, 57
Letters of "Vindex" 58
Debate in Parliament 59, 60
All the Townshend acts, except the one imposing a duty upon tea,
to be repealed 61
Recall of Governor Bernard 61
Character of Thomas Hutchinson 61, 62
Resolutions of Virginia concerning the Townshend acts 63
Conduct of the troops in Boston 64
Assault on James Otis 64
The "Boston Massacre" 65-68
Some of its lessons 69-72
Lord North becomes prime minister 72
Action of the New York merchants 73
Assemblies convened in strange places 74
Taxes in Maryland 74
The "Regulators" in North Carolina 74
Affair of the schooner Gaspee 75, 76
The salaries of the Massachusetts judges 76
Jonathan Mayhew's suggestion (1766) 77
The committees of correspondence in Massachusetts 78
Intercolonial committees of correspondence 79
Revival of the question of taxation 80
The king's ingenious scheme for tricking the Americans into
buying the East India Company's tea 81
How Boston became the battle-ground 82
Advice solemnly sought and given by the Massachusetts towns 82-84
Arrival of the tea; meeting at the Old South 84, 85
The tea-ships placed under guard 85
Rotch's dilatory man[oe]uvres 86
Great town meeting at the Old South 87, 88
The tea thrown into the harbour 88, 89
Moral grandeur of the scene 90, 91
How Parliament received the news 91-93
The Boston Port Bill 93
The Regulating Act 93-95
Act relating to the shooting of citizens 96
The quartering of troops in towns 96
The Quebec Act 96
General Gage sent to Boston 97, 98
CHAPTER III
THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS
Protest of the Whig Lords 99
Belief that the Americans would not fight 100
Belief that Massachusetts would not be supported by the other
colonies 101
News of the Port Bill 101, 102
Samuel Adams at Salem 103, 104
Massachusetts nullifies the Regulating Act 105
John Hancock and Joseph Warren 106, 107
The Suffolk County Resolves 108
Provincial Congress in Massachusetts 109
First meeting of the Continental Congress (September 5,
1774) 110, 111
Debates in Parliament 112, 113
William Howe appointed commander-in-chief of the forces in
America 113
Richard, Lord Howe, appointed admiral of the fleet 114
Franklin returns to America 115
State of feeling in the middle colonies 116
Lord North's mistaken hopes of securing New York 117
Affairs in Massachusetts 118
Dr. Warren's oration at the Old South 119
Attempt to corrupt Samuel Adams 120
Orders to arrest Adams and Hancock 121
Paul Revere's ride 122, 123
Pitcairn fires upon the yeomanry at Lexington 124, 125
The troops repulsed at Concord; their dangerous situation 126, 127
The retreating troops rescued by Lord Percy 128
Retreat continued from Lexington to Charlestown 129
Rising of the country; the British besieged in Boston 130
Effects of the news in England and in America 130-133
Mecklenburg County Resolves 133
Legend of the Mecklenburg "Declaration of Independence" 133-135
Benedict Arnold and Ethan Allen 135
Capture of Ticonderoga and Crown Point 136-140
Second meeting of the Continental Congress 141
Appointment of George Washington to command the Continental
army 142-144
The siege of Boston 145
Gage's proclamation 145
The Americans occupy Bunker's and Breed's hills 146
Arrival of Putnam, Stark, and Warren 147
Gage decides to try an assault 148, 149
First assault repulsed 149
Second assault repulsed 150
Prescott's powder gives out 150
Third assault succeeds; the British take the hill 151
British and American losses 151, 152
Excessive slaughter; significance of the battle 153
Its moral effects 154
CHAPTER IV
INDEPENDENCE
Washington's arrival in Cambridge 155
Continental officers: Daniel Morgan 156
Benedict Arnold, John Stark, John Sullivan 157
Nathanael Greene, Henry Knox 158
Israel Putnam 159
Horatio Gates and Charles Lee 160
Lee's personal peculiarities 161, 162
Dr. Benjamin Church 163
Difficult work for Washington 164
Absence of governmental organization 165
New government of Massachusetts (July, 1775) 166
Congress sends a last petition to the king 167
The king issues a proclamation, and tries to hire troops
from Russia 168-170
Catherine refuses; the king hires German troops 170
Indignation in Germany 171
Burning of Falmouth (Portland) 171
Effects of all this upon Congress 172, 173
Montgomery's invasion of Canada and capture of Montreal 174, 175
Arnold's march through the wilderness of Maine 176
Assault upon Quebec (December 31, 1775) 177
Total failure of the attempt upon Canada 178
The siege of Boston 179
Washington seizes Dorchester Heights (March 4, 1776) 180, 181
The British troops evacuate Boston (March 17) 182, 183
Movement toward independence; a provisional flag (January 1,
1776) 184
Effect of the hiring of "myrmidons" 185
Thomas Paine 185
His pamphlet entitled "Common Sense" 186, 187
Fulminations and counter-fulminations 188
The Scots in North Carolina 188
Sir Henry Clinton sails for the Carolinas 189
The fight at Moore's Creek; North Carolina declares for
independence 189
Action of South Carolina and Georgia 190
Affairs in Virginia; Lord Dunmore's proclamation 190
Skirmish at the Great Bridge, and burning of Norfolk 191
Virginia declares for independence 192
Action of Rhode Island and Massachusetts 192
Resolution adopted in Congress May 15 193
Instructions from the Boston town meeting 194
Richard Henry Lee's motion in Congress 194
Debate on Lee's 195, 196
Action of the other colonies; Connecticut and New Hampshire 196
New Jersey 197
Pennsylvania and Delaware 197-199
Maryland 199
The situation in New York 200
The Tryon plot 201
Final debate on Lee's motion 202
Vote on Lee's motion 203
Form of the Declaration of Independence 204
Thomas Jefferson 204, 205
The declaration was a deliberate expression of the sober
thought of the American people 206, 207
CHAPTER V
FIRST BLOW AT THE CENTRE
Lord Cornwallis arrives upon the scene 208
Battle of Fort Moultrie (June 28, 1776) 209-211
British plan for conquering the valley of the Hudson, and
cutting the United Colonies in twain 212
Lord Howe's futile attempt to negotiate with Washington
unofficially 213, 214
The military problem at New York 214-216
Importance of Brooklyn Heights 217
Battle of Long Island (August 27, 1776) 218-220
Howe prepares to besiege the Heights 220
But Washington slips away with his army 221
And robs the British of the most golden opportunity ever
offered them 221-223
The conference at Staten Island 223, 224
General Howe takes the city of New York September 15 224
But Mrs. Lindley Murray saves the garrison 225
Attack upon Harlem Heights 225
The new problem before Howe 225, 226
He moves upon Throg's Neck, but Washington changes base 227
Baffled at White Plans, Howe tries a new plan 228
Washington's orders in view of the emergency 228
Congress meddles with the situation and muddles it 229
Howe takes Fort Washington by storm (November 16) 230
Washington and Greene 231
Outrageous conduct of Charles Lee 231, 232
Greene barely escapes from Fort Lee (November 20) 233
Lee intrigues against Washington 233, 234
Washington retreats into Pennsylvania 234
Reinforcements come from Schuyler 235
Fortunately for the Americans, the British capture Charles Lee
(December 13) 235-238
The times that tried men's souls 238, 239
Washington prepares to strike back 239
He crosses the Delaware, and pierces the British centre at
Trenton (December 26) 240, 241
Cornwallis comes up to retrieve the disaster 242
And thinks he has run down the "old fox" at the Assunpink
(January 2, 1777) 242
But Washington prepares a checkmate 243
And again severs the British line at Princeton (January 3) 244
General retreat of the British upon New York 245
The tables completely turned 246
Washington's superb generalship 247
Effects in England 248
And in France 249
Franklin's arrival in France 250
Secret aid from France 251
Lafayette goes to America 252
Efforts toward remodelling the Continental army 252-255
Services of Robert Morris 255
Ill feeling between the states 256
Extraordinary powers conferred upon Washington 257-258
CHAPTER VI
SECOND BLOW AT THE CENTRE
Invasion of New York by Sir Guy Carleton 259
Arnold's preparations 260
Battle of Valcour Island (October 11, 1776) 260-262
Congress promotes five junior brigadiers over Arnold (February
19, 1777) 262
Character of Philip Schuyler 263
Horatio Gates 264
Gates intrigues against Schuyler 265
His unseemly behaviour before Congress 266
Charges against Arnold 267, 268
Arnold defeats Tryon at Ridgefield (April 27, 1777) 269
Preparations for the summer campaign 269
The military centre of the United States was the state of New
York 270
A second blow was to be struck at the centre; the plan of
campaign 271
The plan was unsound; it separated the British forces too
widely, and gave the Americans the advantage of interior
lines 272-274
Germain's fatal error; he overestimated the strength of the
Tories 274
Too many unknown quantities 275
Danger from New England ignored 276
Germain's negligence; the dispatch that was never sent 277
Burgoyne advances upon Ticonderoga 277, 278
Phillips seizes Mount Defiance 279
Evacuation of Ticonderoga 279
Battle of Hubbardton (July 7) 280
One swallow does not make a summer 280-282
The king's glee; wrath of John Adams 282
Gates was chiefly to blame 282
Burgoyne's difficulties beginning 283
Schuyler wisely evacuates Fort Edward 284
Enemies gathering in Burgoyne's rear 285
Use of Indian auxiliaries 285
Burgoyne's address to the chiefs 286
Burke ridicules the address 286
The story of Jane McCrea 287, 288
The Indians desert Burgoyne 289
Importance of Bennington; Burgoyne sends a German force
against it 290
Stark prepares to receive the Germans 291
Battle of Bennington (August 16); nearly the whole German
army captured on the field 292, 293
Effect of the news; Burgoyne's enemies multiply 294
Advance of St. Leger upon Fort Stanwix 294, 295
Herkimer marches against him; Herkimer's plan 296
Failure of the plan 297
Thayendanegea prepares an ambuscade 298
Battle of Oriskany (August 6) 298-300
Colonel Willett's sortie; first hoisting of the stars and
stripes 300-301
Death of Herkimer 301
Arnold arrives at Schuyler's camp 302
And volunteers to retrieve Fort Stanwix 303
Yan Yost Cuyler and his stratagem 304
Flight of St. Leger (August 22) 305
Burgoyne's dangerous situation 306
Schuyler superseded by Gates 306
Position of the two armies (August 19-September 12) 307
CHAPTER VII
SARATOGA
Why Sir William Howe went to Chesapeake Bay 308
Charles Lee in captivity 308-310
Treason of Charles Lee 311-314
Folly of moving upon Philadelphia as the "rebel capital" 314, 315
Effect of Lee's advice 315
Washington's masterly campaign in New Jersey (June, 1777) 316, 317
Uncertainty as to Howe's next movements 317, 318
Howe's letter to Burgoyne 318
Comments of Washington and Greene 319, 320
Howe's alleged reason trumped up and worthless 320
Burgoyne's fate was practically decided when Howe arrived at
Elkton 321
Washington's reasons for offering battle 321
He chooses a very strong position 322
Battle of the Brandywine (September 11) 322-326
Washington's skill in detaining the enemy 326
The British enter Philadelphia (September 26) 326
Significance of Forts Mercer and Mifflin 327
The situation at Germantown 327, 328
Washington's audacious plan 328
Battle of Germantown (October 4) 329-332
Howe captures Forts Mercer and Mifflin 333
Burgoyne recognizes the fatal error of Germain 333
Nevertheless he crosses the Hudson River 334
First battle at Freeman's Farm (September 19) 335
Quarrel between Gates and Arnold 336-337
Burgoyne's supplies cut off 338
Second battle at Freeman's Farm (October 7); the British
totally defeated by Arnold 338-340
The British army is surrounded 341
Sir Henry Clinton comes up the river, but it is too late 342
The silver bullet 343
Burgoyne surrenders (October 17) 343, 344
Schuyler's magnanimity 345
Bad faith of Congress 346-349
The behaviour of Congress was simply inexcusable 350
What became of the captured army 350, 351
THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION
CHAPTER I
THE BEGINNINGS
[Sidenote: The Lords of Trade]
[Sidenote: The governor's salary]
During the seventy years which elapsed between the overthrow of the
Stuart dynasty and the victory of Wolfe on the Heights of Abraham, the
relations between the American colonies and the British government were,
on the whole, peaceful; and the history of the colonies, except for the
great and romantic struggle with New France, would have been almost
destitute of striking incidents. In view of the perpetual menace from
France, it was clearly unwise for the British government to irritate the
colonies, or do anything to weaken their loyalty; and they were
accordingly left very much to themselves. Still, they were not likely to
be treated with any great liberality,--for such was not then, as it is
hardly even yet, the way of governments,--and if their attachment to
England still continued strong, it was in spite of the general demeanour
of the mother-country. Since 1675 the general supervision of the
colonies had been in the hands of a standing committee of the Privy
Council, styled the "Lords of the Committee of Trade and Plantations,"
and familiarly known as the "Lords of Trade." To this board the
governors sent frequent and full reports of the proceedings in the
colonial legislatures, of the state of agriculture and trade, of the
revenues of the colonies, and of the way in which the public money was
spent. In private letters, too, the governors poured forth their
complaints into the ears of the Lords of Trade, and these complaints
were many and loud. Except in Pennsylvania and Maryland, which were like
hereditary monarchies, and in Connecticut and Rhode Island, where the
governors were elected by the people, the colonial governors were now
invariably appointed by the Crown. In most cases they were inclined to
take high views regarding the royal prerogative, and in nearly all cases
they were unable to understand the political attitude of the colonists,
who on the one hand gloried in their connection with England, and on the
other hand, precisely because they were Englishmen, were unwilling to
yield on any occasion whatsoever one jot or tittle of their ancient
liberties. Moreover, through the ubiquity of the popular assemblies and
the directness of their control over the administration of public
affairs, the political life of America was both really and ostensibly
freer than that of England was at that time; and the ancient liberties
of Englishmen, if not better preserved, were at least more conspicuously
asserted. As a natural consequence, the royal governors were continually
trying to do things which the people would not let them do, they were in
a chronic state of angry warfare with their assemblies, and they were
incessant in their complaints to the Lords of Trade. They represented
the Americans as a factious and turbulent people, with their heads
turned by queer political crotchets, unwilling to obey the laws and
eager to break off their connection with the British Empire. In this way
they did much to arouse an unfriendly feeling toward the colonies,
although eminent Englishmen were not wanting who understood American
affairs too well to let their opinions be thus lightly influenced. Upon
the Lords of Trade these misrepresentations wrought with so much effect
that now and then they would send out instructions to suspend the writ
of _habeas corpus_, or to abridge the freedom of the press. Sometimes
their acts were absurdly arbitrary. In New Hampshire, the people
maintained that as free-born Englishmen they had the right to choose
their representatives; but the governor held, on the contrary, that
this was no right, but only a privilege, which the Crown might withhold,
or grant, or revoke, all at its own good pleasure. To uphold the royal
prerogative, the governor was instructed to issue writs for elections to
some of the towns, while withholding them from others; but the
resistance of the people to this piece of tyranny was so determined that
the Lords of Trade thought it best to yield. In Massachusetts, for more
than thirty years, there went on an unceasing controversy between the
General Court and the successive royal governors, Shute, Burnet, and
Belcher, with reference to the governor's salary. The Lords of Trade
insisted that the governor should be paid a fixed salary; but lest this
should make the governor too independent, the General Court obstinately
refused to establish a salary, but made grants to the governor from year
to year, in imitation of the time-honoured usage of Parliament. This
method was, no doubt, inconvenient for the governors; but the colonists
rightly valued it as one of the safeguards of popular liberty, and to
their persistent refusal the Crown was obliged to give way. Similar
controversies, in New York and South Carolina, were attended with
similar results; while in Virginia the assembly more than once refused
to vote supplies, on the ground that the liberties of the colony were in
danger.
[Portrait: SIR ROBERT WALPOLE]
[Sidenote: Sir Robert Walpole]
Such grievances as these, reported year by year to the Lords of Trade,
and losing nothing in the manner in which they were told, went far to
create in England an opinion that America was a lawless country, and
sorely in need of a strong government. From time to time various schemes
were proposed for limiting the powers of the colonial assemblies, for
increasing the power of the governors, for introducing a titled
nobility, for taxing the colonists by act of Parliament, or for
weakening the feeling of local independence by uniting several colonies
into one. Until after the French troubles had been disposed of, little
came of any of these schemes. A plan for taxing the colonies was once
proposed to Sir Robert Walpole, but the sagacious old statesman
dismissed it with a laugh. "What!" said he. "I have half of Old England
set against me already, and do you think I will have all New England
likewise?" From time to time the liberal charters of Rhode Island and
Connecticut were threatened, but nothing came of this. But in one
direction the Lords of Trade were more active. One of their most
cherished plans was to bring about a union of all the colonies under a
single head; but this was not to be a union of the kind which the
Americans, with consummate statesmanship, afterward wrought out for
themselves. It was not to be a union based upon the idea of the
sacredness of local self-government, but it was a union to be achieved,
as far as possible, at the expense of local self-government. To bring
all the colonies together under a single viceroy would, it was thought,
diminish seriously the power of each local assembly, while at the same
time such a union would no doubt make the military strength of the
colonies much more available in case of war. In 1764, Francis Bernard,
Governor of Massachusetts, wrote that "to settle the American
governments to the greatest possible advantage, it will be necessary to
reduce the number of them; in some places to unite and consolidate; in
others to separate and transfer; and in general to divide by natural
boundaries instead of imaginary lines. If there should be but one form
of government established for the North American provinces, it would
greatly facilitate the reformation of them." As long ago as 1701, Robert
Livingston of New York had made similar suggestions; and in 1752,
Dinwiddie of Virginia recommended that the Northern and Southern
colonies be united respectively into two great confederacies.
[Signature: R Walpole]
[Sidenote: Weakness of the sentiment of union]
The desirableness of bringing about a union of the colonies was also
recognized by all the most liberal-minded American statesmen, though
from a very different point of view. They agreed with the royal
governors and with the Lords of Trade as to the urgent need for
concentrating the military strength of the colonies, and they thought
that this end could best be subserved by some kind of federal union. But
at the same time they held that the integrity of the local
self-government of each colony was of the first importance, and that no
system of federation would be practicable which should in any degree
essentially impair that integrity. To bring about a federal union on
such terms was no easy matter; it was a task fitted to tax the greatest
of statesmen at any time. At that time it was undoubtedly a hopeless
task. The need for union was not generally felt by the people. The
sympathies between the different colonies were weak and liable to be
overborne by prejudices arising from rivalry or from differences in
social structure. To the merchant of Boston, the Virginian planter was
still almost a foreigner, though both the one and the other were
pure-blooded Englishmen. Commercial jealousies were very keen. Disputes
about boundaries were not uncommon. In 1756, Georgia and South Carolina
actually came to blows over the navigation of the Savannah river.
Jeremiah Dummer, in his famous "Defence of the New England Charters,"
said that it was impossible that the colonies should ever be brought to
unite; and Burnaby thought that if the hand of Great Britain were once
taken off, there would be chronic civil war all the way from Maine to
Georgia.
[Sidenote: The Albany Congress]
In 1754, the prospect of immediate war with the French led several of
the royal governors to call for a congress of all the colonies, to be
held at Albany. The primary purpose of the meeting was to make sure of
the friendship of the Six Nations, and to organize a general scheme of
operations against the French. The secondary purpose was to prepare some
plan of confederation which all the colonies might be persuaded to
adopt. New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New
York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland--only seven colonies of the
thirteen--sent commissioners to this congress. The people showed little
interest in the movement. It does not appear that any public meetings
were held in favour of it. Among the newspapers, the only one which
warmly approved of it seems to have been the "Pennsylvania Gazette,"
edited by Benjamin Franklin, which appeared with a union device and the
motto "Unite or Die!"
[Illustration: Unite or Die]
[Sidenote: Franklin's plan of union, 1754]
The circumstances of Franklin's life, no less than the wide sweep of his
intelligence, had fitted him for sounder views of the political needs of
the time than were taken by most of his contemporaries. As a native of
Massachusetts who dwelt in Pennsylvania, he may be said to have belonged
to two very different colonies; and he had spent time enough in London
to become well acquainted with British ideas. During the session of the
Albany Congress, a first attempt was made to establish a permanent union
of the thirteen colonies. It was to Franklin that the plan was chiefly
due. The legislative assembly of each colony was to choose, once in
three years, representatives to attend a federal Grand Council; which
was to meet every year at Philadelphia, a town which could be reached by
a twenty days' journey either from South Carolina or from New Hampshire.
This Grand Council was to choose its own speaker, and could neither be
dissolved nor prorogued, nor kept sitting longer than six weeks at any
one time, except by its own consent or by especial order of the Crown.
The Grand Council was to make treaties with the Indians and to regulate
the Indian trade; and it was to have sole power of legislation on all
matters concerning the colonies as a whole. To these ends, it could levy
taxes, enlist soldiers, build forts, and nominate all civil officers.
Its laws were to be submitted to the king for approval, and the royal
veto, in order to be of effect, must be exercised within three years.
To this Grand Council each colony was to send a number of
representatives, proportioned to its contributions to the continental
military service; yet no colony was to send less than two or more than
seven representatives. With the exception of such matters of general
concern as were to be managed by the Grand Council, each colony was to
retain its powers of legislation intact. On an emergency, any colony
might singly defend itself against foreign attack, and the federal
government was prohibited from impressing soldiers or seamen without the
consent of the local legislature.
The supreme executive power was to be vested in a president or
governor-general, appointed and paid by the Crown. He was to nominate
all military officers, subject to the approval of the Grand Council,
and was to have a veto on all the acts of the Grand Council. No money
could be issued save by joint order of the governor-general and the
council.
This plan, said Franklin, "is not altogether to my mind, but it is as I
could get it." It should be observed, to the credit of its author, that
this scheme, long afterward known as the "Albany Plan," contemplated the
formation of a self-sustaining federal government, and not of a mere
league. As Frothingham well says, "It designed to confer on the
representatives of the people the power of making laws acting directly
on individuals, and appointing officers to execute them, and yet not to
interfere with the execution of the laws operating on the same
individuals by the local officers." It would have erected "a public
authority as obligatory in its sphere as the local governments were in
their spheres." In this respect it was much more complete than the
scheme of confederation agreed on in Congress in 1777, and it afforded a
valuable precedent for the more elaborate and perfect Federal
Constitution of 1787. It was in its main features a noble scheme, and
the great statesman who devised it was already looking forward to the
immense growth of the American Union, though he had not yet foreseen the
separation of the colonies from the mother-country. In less than a
century, he said, the great country behind the Alleghanies must become
"a populous and powerful dominion;" and he recommended that two new
colonies should at once be founded in the West,--the one on Lake Erie,
the other in the valley of the Ohio,--with free chartered governments
like those of Rhode Island and Connecticut.
[Portrait: W Shirley]
[Sidenote: Rejection of the plan]
[Sidenote: Shirley recommends a stamp act]
But public opinion was not yet ripe for the adoption of Franklin's bold
and comprehensive ideas. Of the royal governors who were anxious to see
the colonies united on any terms, none opposed the plan except Delancey
of New York, who wished to reserve to the governors a veto upon all
elections of representatives to the Grand Council. To this it was
rightly objected that such a veto power would virtually destroy the
freedom of elections, and make the Grand Council an assembly of
creatures of the governors. On the popular side the objections were
many. The New England delegates, on the whole, were the least
disinclined to union; yet Connecticut urged that the veto power of the
governor-general might prove ruinous to the whole scheme; that the
concentration of all the military forces in his hands would be fraught
with dangers to liberty; and that even the power of taxation, lodged in
the hands of an assembly so remote from local interests, was hardly
compatible with the preservation of the ancient rights of Englishmen.
After long debate, the assembly at Albany decided to adopt Franklin's
plan, and copies of it were sent to all the colonies for their
consideration. But nowhere did it meet with approval. The mere fact that
the royal governors were all in favour of it--though their advocacy was
at present, no doubt, determined mainly by sound military reasons--was
quite enough to create an insuperable prejudice against it on the part
of the people. The Massachusetts legislature seems to have been the only
one which gave it a respectful consideration, albeit a large town
meeting in Boston denounced it as subversive of liberty. Pennsylvania
rejected it without a word of discussion. None of the assemblies
favoured it. On the other hand, when sent over to England to be
inspected by the Lords of Trade, it only irritated and disgusted them.
As they truly said, it was a scheme of union "complete in itself;" and
ever since the days of the New England confederacy the Crown had looked
with extreme jealousy upon all attempts at concerted action among the
colonies which did not originate with itself. Besides this, the Lords of
Trade were now considering a plan of their own for remodelling the
governments of the colonies, establishing a standing army, enforcing the
navigation acts, and levying taxes by authority of Parliament.
Accordingly little heed was paid to Franklin's ideas. Though the royal
governors had approved the Albany plan, in default of any scheme of
union more to their minds, they had no real sympathy with it. In 1756,
Shirley wrote to the Lords of Trade, urging upon them the paramount
necessity for a union of the American colonies, in order to withstand
the French; while at the same time he disparaged Franklin's scheme, as
containing principles of government unfit even for a single colony like
Rhode Island, and much more unfit for a great American confederacy. The
union, he urged, should be effected by act of Parliament, and by the
same authority a general fund should be raised to meet the expenses of
the war,--an end which Shirley thought might be most speedily and
quietly attained by means of a "stamp duty." As Shirley had been for
fifteen years governor of Massachusetts, and was now commander-in-chief
of all the troops in America, his opinion had great weight with the
Lords of Trade; and the same views being reiterated by Dinwiddie of
Virginia, Sharpe of Maryland, Hardy of New York, and other governors,
the notion that Parliament must tax the Americans became deeply rooted
in the British official mind.
[Sidenote: Writs of assistance]
Nothing was done, however, until the work of the French war had been
accomplished. In 1761, it was decided to enforce the Navigation Act, and
one of the revenue officers at Boston applied to the superior court for
a "writ of assistance," or general search-warrant, to enable him to
enter private houses and search for smuggled goods, but without
specifying either houses or goods. Such general warrants had been
allowed by a statute of the bad reign of Charles II., and a statute of
William III., in general terms, had granted to revenue officers in
America like powers to those they possessed in England. But James Otis
showed that the issue of such writs was contrary to the whole spirit of
the British constitution. To issue such universal warrants allowing the
menials of the custom house, on mere suspicion, and perhaps from motives
of personal enmity, to invade the home of any citizen, without being
held responsible for any rudeness they might commit there,--such, he
said, was "a kind of power, the exercise of which cost one king of
England his head and another his throne;" and he plainly declared that
even an act of Parliament which should sanction so gross an infringement
of the immemorial rights of Englishmen would be treated as null and
void. Chief Justice Hutchinson granted the writs of assistance, and as
an interpreter of the law he was doubtless right in so doing; but Otis's
argument suggested the question whether Americans were bound to obey
laws which they had no share in making, and his passionate eloquence
made so great an impression upon the people that this scene in the court
room has been since remembered--and not unjustly--as the opening scene
of the American Revolution.
[Portrait: James Otis]
[Sidenote: The chief justice of New York]
In the same year the arbitrary temper of the government was exhibited in
New York. Down to this time the chief justice of the colony had held
office only during good behaviour, and had been liable to dismissal at
the hands of the colonial assembly. The chief justice was now made
removable only by the Crown, a measure which struck directly at the
independent administration of justice in the colony. The assembly tried
to protect itself by refusing to assign a fixed salary to the chief
justice, whereupon the king ordered that the salary should be paid out
of the quit-rents for the public lands. At the same time instructions
were sent to all the royal governors to grant no judicial commissions
for any other period than "during the king's pleasure;" and to show that
this was meant in earnest, the governor of New Jersey was next year
peremptorily dismissed for commissioning a judge "during good
behaviour."
[Sidenote: Otis's "Vindication"]
In 1762, a question distinctly involving the right of the people to
control the expenditure of their own money came up in Massachusetts.
Governor Bernard, without authority from the assembly, had sent a couple
of ships to the northward, to protect the fisheries against French
privateers, and an expense of some £400 had been thus incurred. The
assembly was now ordered to pay this sum, but it refused to do so. "It
would be of little consequence to the people," said Otis, in the debate
on the question, "whether they were subject to George or Louis, the king
of Great Britain or the French king, if both were arbitrary, as both
would be, if both could levy taxes without Parliament." A cry of
"Treason!" from one of the less clear-headed members greeted this bold
statement; and Otis, being afterward taken to task for his language,
published a "Vindication," in which he maintained that the rights of a
colonial assembly, as regarded the expenditure of public money, were as
sacred as the rights of the House of Commons.
[Portrait: George Grenville]
[Sidenote: Expenses of the French war]
[Sidenote: Grenville's Resolves]
In April, 1763, just three years after the accession of George III.,
George Grenville became Prime Minister of England, while at the same
time Charles Townshend was First Lord of Trade. Townshend had paid
considerable attention to American affairs, and was supposed to know
more about them than any other man in England. But his studies had led
him to the conclusion that the colonies ought to be deprived of their
self-government, and that a standing army ought to be maintained in
America by means of taxes arbitrarily assessed upon the people by
Parliament. Grenville was far from approving of such extreme measures
as these, but he thought that a tax ought to be imposed upon the
colonies, in order to help defray the expenses of the French war. Yet in
point of fact, as Franklin truly said, the colonies had "raised, paid,
and clothed nearly twenty-five thousand men during the last war,--a
number equal to those sent from Great Britain, and far beyond their
proportion. They went deeply into debt in doing this; and all their
estates and taxes are mortgaged for many years to come for discharging
that debt." That the colonies had contributed more than an equitable
share toward the expenses of the war, that their contributions had even
been in excess of their ability, had been freely acknowledged by
Parliament, which, on several occasions between 1756 and 1763, had voted
large sums to be paid over to the colonies, in partial compensation for
their excessive outlay. Parliament was therefore clearly estopped from
making the defrayal of the war debt the occasion for imposing upon the
colonies a tax of a new and strange character, and under circumstances
which made the payment of such a tax seem equivalent to a surrender of
their rights as free English communities. In March, 1764, Grenville
introduced in the House of Commons a series of Declaratory Resolves,
announcing the intention of the government to raise a revenue in America
by requiring various commercial and legal documents, newspapers, etc.,
to bear stamps, varying in price from threepence to ten pounds. A year
was to elapse, however, before these resolutions should take effect in a
formal enactment.
It marks the inferiority of the mother-country to the colonies in
political development, at that time, that the only solicitude as yet
entertained by the British official mind, with regard to this measure,
seems to have been concerned with the question how far the Americans
would be willing to part with their money. With the Americans it was as
far as possible from being a question of pounds, shillings, and pence;
but this was by no means correctly understood in England. The good
Shirley, although he had lived so long in Massachusetts, had thought
that a revenue might be most easily and quietly raised by means of a
stamp duty. Of all kinds of direct tax, none, perhaps, is less annoying.
But the position taken by the Americans had little to do with mere
convenience; it rested from the outset upon the deepest foundations of
political justice, and from this foothold neither threatening nor
coaxing could stir it.
[Illustration: A Stamp]
[Sidenote: Reply of the colonies]
The first deliberate action with reference to the proposed Stamp Act was
taken in the Boston town meeting in May, 1764. In this memorable town
meeting Samuel Adams drew up a series of resolutions, which contained
the first formal and public denial of the right of Parliament to tax
the colonies without their consent; and while these resolutions were
adopted by the Massachusetts assembly, a circular letter was at the same
time sent to all the other colonies, setting forth the need for
concerted and harmonious action in respect of so grave a matter. In
response, the assemblies of Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania,
Virginia, and South Carolina joined with Massachusetts in remonstrating
against the proposed Stamp Act. All these memorials were remarkable for
clearness of argument and simple dignity of language. They all took
their stand on the principle that, as free-born Englishmen, they could
not rightfully be taxed by the House of Commons unless they were
represented in that body. But the proviso was added, that if a letter
from the secretary of state, coming in the king's name, should be
presented to the colonial assemblies, asking them to contribute
something from their general resources to the needs of the British
Empire, they would cheerfully, as heretofore, grant liberal sums of
money, in token of their loyalty and of their interest in all that
concerned the welfare of the mighty empire to which they belonged. These
able and temperate memorials were sent to England; and in order to
reinforce them by personal tact and address, Franklin went over to
London as agent for the colony of Pennsylvania.
[Portrait: Cha Thomson]
[Sidenote: The Stamp Act]
The alternative proposed by the colonies was virtually the same as the
system of requisitions already in use, and the inefficiency of which, in
securing a revenue, had been abundantly proved by the French war.
Parliament therefore rejected it, and early in 1765 the Stamp Act was
passed. It is worthy of remark that the idea that the Americans would
resist its execution did not at once occur to Franklin. Acquiescence
seemed to him, for the present, the only safe policy. In writing to his
friend Charles Thomson, he said that he could no more have hindered the
passing of the Stamp Act than he could have hindered the sun's setting.
"That," he says, "we could not do. But since it is down, my friend, and
it may be long before it rises again, let us make as good a night of it
as we can. We may still light candles. Frugality and industry will go a
great way towards indemnifying us." But Thomson, in his answer, with
truer foresight, observed, "I much fear, instead of the candles you
mentioned being lighted, you will hear of the works of darkness!" The
news of the passage of the Stamp Act was greeted in America with a burst
of indignation. In New York, the act was reprinted with a death's-head
upon it in place of the royal arms, and it was hawked about the streets
under the title of "The Folly of England and the Ruin of America." In
Boston, the church-bells were tolled, and the flags on the shipping put
at half-mast.
[Illustration: SPEAKER'S CHAIR, HOUSE OF BURGESSES]
[Sidenote: The Parson's Cause]
But formal defiance came first from Virginia. A year and a half before,
a famous lawsuit, known as the "Parsons' Cause," had brought into public
notice a young man who was destined to take high rank among modern
orators. The lawsuit which made Patrick Henry's reputation was one of
the straws which showed how the stream of tendency in America was then
strongly setting toward independence. Tobacco had not yet ceased to be a
legal currency in Virginia, and by virtue of an old statute each
clergyman of the Established Church was entitled to sixteen thousand
pounds of tobacco as his yearly salary. In 1755 and 1758, under the
severe pressure of the French war, the assembly had passed relief acts,
allowing all public dues, including the salaries of the clergy, to be
paid either in kind or in money, at a fixed rate of twopence for a pound
of tobacco. The policy of these acts was thoroughly unsound, as they
involved a partial repudiation of debts; but the extreme distress of the
community was pleaded in excuse, and every one, clergy as well as
laymen, at first acquiesced in them. But in 1759 tobacco was worth
sixpence per pound, and the clergy became dissatisfied. Their complaints
reached the ears of Sherlock, the Bishop of London, and the act of 1758
was summarily vetoed by the king in council. The clergy brought suits to
recover the unpaid portions of their salaries; in the test case of Rev.
James Maury, the court decided the point of the law in their favour, on
the ground of the royal veto, and nothing remained but to settle before
a jury the amount of the damages. On this occasion, Henry appeared for
the first time in court, and after a few timid and awkward sentences
burst forth with an eloquent speech, in which he asserted the
indefeasible right of Virginia to make laws for herself, and declared
that in annulling a salutary ordinance at the request of a favoured
class in the community "a king, from being the father of his people,
degenerates into a tyrant, and forfeits all right to obedience." Cries
of "Treason!" were heard in the court room, but the jury immediately
returned a verdict of one penny in damages, and Henry became the popular
idol of Virginia. The clergy tried in vain to have him indicted for
treason, alleging that his crime was hardly less heinous than that which
had brought old Lord Lovat to the block. But the people of Louisa county
replied, in 1765, by choosing him to represent them in the colonial
assembly.
[Illustration: PATRICK HENRY MAKING HIS TARQUIN AND CÆSAR SPEECH]
[Sidenote: Patrick Henry's resolutions]
Hardly had Henry taken his seat in the assembly when the news of the
Stamp Act arrived. In a committee of the whole house, he drew up a
series of resolutions, declaring that the colonists were entitled to all
the liberties and privileges of natural-born subjects, and that "the
taxation of the people by themselves, or by persons chosen by themselves
to represent them, ... is the distinguishing characteristic of British
freedom, without which the ancient constitution cannot exist." It was
further declared that any attempt to vest the power of taxation in any
other body than the colonial assembly was a menace to British no less
than to American freedom; that the people of Virginia were not bound to
obey any law enacted in disregard of these fundamental principles; and
that any one who should maintain the contrary should be regarded as a
public enemy. It was in the lively debate which ensued upon these
resolutions, that Henry uttered those memorable words commending the
example of Tarquin and Cæsar and Charles I. to the attention of George
III. Before the vote had been taken upon all the resolutions, Governor
Fauquier dissolved the assembly; but the resolutions were printed in the
newspapers, and hailed with approval all over the country.
=STAMP-OFFICE=,
_Lincoln's-Inn_, 1765.
A
=TABLE=
Of the Prices of Parchment and Paper for the Service of _America_.
Parchment.
Skins 18 Inch by 13, at Fourpence }
22 ---- by 16, at Six-pence }
26 ---- by 20, at Eight-pence } each.
28 ---- by 23, at Ten-pence }
31 ---- by 26, at Thirteen-pence }
Paper.
Horn at Seven-pence }
Fools Cap at Nine-pence }
D^o with printed Notices } at }
for Indentures } 1 s. }
Folio Post at One Shilling } each Quire.
Demy ---- at Two Shillings }
Medium at Three Shillings }
Royal ---- at Four Shillings }
Super Royal at Six Shillings }
Paper for Printing
News.
Double Crown at 14s. } each Ream
Double Demy at 19s. }
Almanacks.
Book--Crown Paper at 10s. 6d. }
Book----Fools Cap at 6s. 6d. } each Ream.
Pocket----Folio Post at 20s. }
Sheet----Demy at 13s. }
[Sidenote: The Stamp Act Congress]
Meanwhile, the Massachusetts legislature, at the suggestion of Otis, had
issued a circular letter to all the colonies, calling for a general
congress, in order to concert measures of resistance to the Stamp Act.
The first cordial response came from South Carolina, at the instance of
Christopher Gadsden, a wealthy merchant of Charleston and a scholar
learned in Oriental languages, a man of rare sagacity and most liberal
spirit. On the 7th of October, the proposed congress assembled at New
York, comprising delegates from Massachusetts, South Carolina,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey,
and New York, in all nine colonies, which are here mentioned in the
order of the dates at which they chose their delegates. In Virginia, the
governor succeeded in preventing the meeting of the legislature, so that
this great colony did not send delegates; and, for various reasons, New
Hampshire, North Carolina, and Georgia were likewise unrepresented at
the congress. But the sentiment of all the thirteen colonies was none
the less unanimous, and those which did not attend lost no time in
declaring their full concurrence with what was done at New York. At this
memorable meeting, held under the very guns of the British fleet and
hard by the headquarters of General Gage, the commander-in-chief of the
regular forces in America, a series of resolutions were adopted, echoing
the spirit of Patrick Henry's resolves, though couched in language
somewhat more conciliatory, and memorials were addressed to the king and
to both Houses of Parliament. Of all the delegates present, Gadsden took
the broadest ground, in behalf both of liberty and of united action
among the colonies. He objected to sending petitions to Parliament, lest
thereby its paramount authority should implicitly and unwittingly be
acknowledged. "A confirmation of our essential and common rights as
Englishmen," said he, "may be pleaded from charters safely enough; but
any further dependence on them may be fatal. We should stand upon the
broad common ground of those natural rights that we all feel and know as
men and as descendants of Englishmen. I wish the charters may not
ensnare us at last, by drawing different colonies to act differently in
this great cause. Whenever that is the case, all will be over with the
whole. There ought to be no New England man, no New Yorker, known on the
continent; but all of us Americans." So thought and said this
broad-minded South Carolinian.
[Sidenote: Declaration of the Massachusetts assembly]
While these things were going on at New York, the Massachusetts
assembly, under the lead of Samuel Adams, who had just taken his seat in
it, drew up a very able state paper, in which it was declared, among
other things, that "the Stamp Act wholly cancels the very conditions
upon which our ancestors, with much toil and blood and at their sole
expense, settled this country and enlarged his majesty's dominions. It
tends to destroy that mutual confidence and affection, as well as that
equality, which ought ever to subsist among all his majesty's subjects
in this wide and extended empire; and what is the worst of all evils, if
his majesty's American subjects are not to be governed according to the
known and stated rules of the constitution, their minds may in time
become disaffected." This moderate and dignified statement was applauded
by many in England and by others derided as the "raving of a parcel of
wild enthusiasts," but from the position here taken Massachusetts never
afterward receded.
[Illustration: Stamp]
[Sidenote: Resistance to the Stamp Act in Boston]
[Sidenote: and in New York]
But it was not only in these formal and decorous proceedings that the
spirit of resistance was exhibited. The first announcement of the Stamp
Act had called into existence a group of secret societies of workingmen
known as "Sons of Liberty," in allusion to a famous phrase in one of
Colonel Barré's speeches. These societies were solemnly pledged to
resist the execution of the obnoxious law. On the 14th of August, the
quiet town of Boston witnessed some extraordinary proceedings. At
daybreak, the effigy of the stamp officer, Oliver, was seen hanging from
a great elm-tree, while near it was suspended a boot, to represent the
late prime minister, Lord Bute; and from the top of the boot-leg there
issued a grotesque head, garnished with horns, to represent the devil.
At nightfall the Sons of Liberty cut down these figures, and bore them
on a bier through the streets until they reached King Street, where they
demolished the frame of a house which was supposed to be erecting for a
stamp office. Thence, carrying the beams of this frame to Fort Hill,
where Oliver lived, they made a bonfire of them in front of his house,
and in the bonfire they burned up the effigies. Twelve days after, a mob
sacked the splendid house of Chief Justice Hutchinson, threw his plate
into the street, and destroyed the valuable library which he had been
thirty years in collecting, and which contained many manuscripts, the
loss of which was quite irreparable. As usual with mobs, the vengeance
fell in the wrong place, for Hutchinson had done his best to prevent the
passage of the Stamp Act. In most of the colonies, the stamp officers
were compelled to resign their posts. Boxes of stamps arriving by ship
were burned or thrown into the sea. Leading merchants agreed to import
no more goods from England, and wealthy citizens set the example of
dressing in homespun garments. Lawyers agreed to overlook the absence of
the stamp on legal documents, while editors derisively issued their
newspapers with a death's-head in the place where the stamp was required
to be put. In New York, the presence of the troops for a moment
encouraged the lieutenant-governor, Colden, to take a bold stand in
behalf of the law. He talked of firing upon the people, but was warned
that if he did so he would be speedily hanged on a lamp-post, like
Captain Porteous of Edinburgh. A torchlight procession, carrying images
of Colden and of the devil, broke into the governor's coach-house, and,
seizing his best chariot, paraded it about town with the images upon it,
and finally burned up chariot and images on the Bowling Green, in full
sight of Colden and the garrison, who looked on from the Battery,
speechless with rage, but afraid to interfere. Gage did not dare to have
the troops used, for fear of bringing on a civil war; and the next day
the discomfited Colden was obliged to surrender all the stamps to the
common council of New York, by whom they were at once locked up in the
City Hall.
[Sidenote: Debate in the House of Commons]
[Sidenote: Repeal of the Stamp Act]
Nothing more was needed to prove the impossibility of carrying the Stamp
Act into effect. An act which could be thus rudely defied under the very
eyes of the commander-in-chief plainly could never be enforced without a
war. But nobody wanted a war, and the matter began to be reconsidered in
England. In July, the Grenville ministry had gone out of office, and the
Marquis of Rockingham was now prime minister, while Conway, who had been
one of the most energetic opponents of the Stamp Act, was secretary of
state for the colonies. The new ministry would perhaps have been glad to
let the question of taxing America remain in abeyance, but that was no
longer possible. The debate on the proposed repeal of the Stamp Act was
one of the keenest that has ever been heard in the House of Commons.
Grenville and his friends, now in opposition, maintained in all
sincerity that no demand could ever be more just, or more honourably
intended, than that which had lately been made upon the Americans. Of
the honest conviction of Grenville and his supporters that they were
entirely in the right, and that the Americans were governed by purely
sordid and vulgar motives in resisting the Stamp Act, there cannot be
the slightest doubt. To refute this gross misconception of the American
position, Pitt hastened from a sick-bed to the House of Commons, and
delivered those speeches in which he avowed that he rejoiced in the
resistance of the Americans, and declared that, had they submitted
tamely to the measures of Grenville, they would have shown themselves
only fit to be slaves. He pointed out distinctly that the Americans were
upholding those eternal principles of political justice which should be
to all Englishmen most dear, and that a victory over the colonies would
be of ill-omen for English liberty, whether in the Old World or in the
New. Beware, he said, how you persist in this ill-considered policy. "In
such a cause your success would be hazardous. America, if she fell,
would fall like the strong man with his arms around the pillars of the
Constitution." There could be no sounder political philosophy than was
contained in these burning sentences of Pitt. From all the history of
the European world since the later days of the Roman Republic, there is
no more important lesson to be learned than this,--that it is impossible
for a free people to govern a dependent people despotically without
endangering its own freedom. Pitt therefore urged that the Stamp Act
should instantly be repealed, and that the reason for the repeal should
be explicitly stated to be because the act "was founded on an erroneous
principle." At the same time he recommended the passage of a Declaratory
Act, in which the sovereign authority of Parliament over the colonies
should be strongly asserted with respect to everything except direct
taxation. Similar views were set forth in the House of Lords, with great
learning and ability, by Lord Camden; but he was vehemently opposed by
Lord Mansfield, and when the question came to a decision, the only peers
who supported Camden were Lords Shelburne, Cornwallis, Paulet, and
Torrington. The result finally reached was the unconditional repeal of
the Stamp Act, and the simultaneous passage of a Declaratory Act, in
which the views of Pitt and Camden were ignored and Parliament asserted
its right to make laws binding on the colonies "in all cases
whatsoever." By the people of London the repeal was received with
enthusiastic delight, and Pitt and Conway, as they appeared on the
street, were loudly cheered, while Grenville was greeted with a storm of
hisses. In America the effect of the news was electric. There were
bonfires in every town, while addresses of thanks to the king were voted
in all the legislatures. Little heed was paid to the Declaratory Act,
which was regarded merely as an artifice for saving the pride of the
British government. There was a unanimous outburst of loyalty all over
the country, and never did the people seem less in a mood for rebellion
than at that moment.
The quarrel had now been made up. On the question of principle, the
British had the last word. The government had got out of its dilemma
remarkably well, and the plain and obvious course for British
statesmanship was not to allow another such direct issue to come up
between the colonies and the mother-country. To force on another such
issue while the memory of this one was fresh in everybody's mind was
sheer madness. To raise the question wantonly, as Charles Townshend did
in the course of the very next year, was one of those blunders that are
worse than crimes.
[Illustration: FUNERAL PROCESSION OF THE STAMP ACT]
[Signature: Grafton]
[Portrait: CTownshend]
[Sidenote: The Duke of Grafton's ministry]
[Sidenote: The Townshend Acts]
In July, 1766,--less than six months after the repeal of the Stamp
Act,--the Rockingham ministry fell, and the formation of a new ministry
was entrusted to Pitt, the man who best appreciated the value of the
American colonies. But the state of Pitt's health was not such as to
warrant his taking upon himself the arduous duties of prime minister. He
took the great seal, and, accepting the earldom of Chatham, passed into
the House of Lords. The Duke of Grafton became prime minister, under
Pitt's guidance; Conway and Lord Shelburne were secretaries of state,
and Camden became Lord Chancellor,--all three of them warm friends of
America, and adopting the extreme American view of the constitutional
questions lately at issue; and along with these was Charles Townshend,
the evil spirit of the administration, as chancellor of the exchequer.
From such a ministry, it might at first sight seem strange that a fresh
quarrel with America should have proceeded. But Chatham's illness soon
overpowered him, so that he was kept at home suffering excruciating
pain, and could neither guide nor even pay due attention to the
proceedings of his colleagues. Of the rest of the ministry, only Conway
and Townshend were in the House of Commons, where the real direction of
affairs rested; and when Lord Chatham was out of the way, as the Duke of
Grafton counted for nothing, the strongest man in the cabinet was
unquestionably Townshend. Now when an act for raising an American
revenue was proposed by Townshend, a prejudice against it was sure to be
excited at once, simply because every American knew well what
Townshend's views were. It would have been difficult for such a man even
to assume a conciliatory attitude without having his motives suspected;
and if the question with Great Britain had been simply that of raising a
revenue on statesmanlike principles, it would have been well to entrust
the business to some one like Lord Shelburne, in whom the Americans had
confidence. In 1767, Townshend ventured to do what in any English
ministry of the present day would be impossible. In flat opposition to
the policy of Chatham and the rest of his colleagues, trusting in the
favour of the king and in his own ability to coax or browbeat the House
of Commons, he brought in a series of new measures for taxing America.
"I expect to be dismissed for my pains," he said in the House, with
flippant defiance; and indeed he came very near it. As soon as he heard
what was going on, Chatham mustered up strength enough to go to London
and insist upon Townshend's dismissal. But Lord North was the only
person that could be thought of to take Townshend's place, and Lord
North, who never liked to offend the king, declined the appointment.
Before Chatham could devise a way out of his quandary, his malady again
laid him prostrate, and Townshend was not only not turned out, but was
left practically supreme in the cabinet. The new measures for taxing
America were soon passed. In the debates on the Stamp Act, it had been
argued that while Parliament had no right to impose a direct tax upon
the Americans, it might still properly regulate American trade by port
duties. The distinction had been insisted upon by Pitt, and had been
virtually acknowledged by the Americans; who had from time to time
submitted to acts of Parliament imposing duties upon merchandise
imported into the colonies. Nay, more, when charged with inconsistency
for submitting to such acts while resisting the Stamp Act, several
leading Americans had explicitly adopted the distinction between
internal and external taxation, and declared themselves ready to submit
to the latter while determined to resist the former. Townshend was now
ready, as he declared, to take them at their word. By way of doing so,
he began by laughing to scorn the distinction between internal and
external taxation, and declaring that Parliament possessed the undoubted
right of taxing the Americans without their own consent; but since
objections had been raised to a direct tax, he was willing to resort to
port duties,--a measure to which the Americans were logically bound to
assent. Duties were accordingly imposed on wine, oil, and fruits, if
carried directly to America from Spain or Portugal; on glass, paper,
lead, and painters' colours; and lastly on tea. The revenue to be
derived from these duties was to be devoted to paying a fixed salary to
the royal governors and to the justices appointed at the king's
pleasure. The Crown was also empowered to create a general civil list in
every colony, and to grant salaries and pensions at its arbitrary will.
A board of revenue commissioners for the whole country was to be
established at Boston, armed with extraordinary powers; and general
writs of assistance were expressly legalized and permitted.
[Illustration: HOUSE OF COMMONS]
[Sidenote: Attack on the New York assembly]
Such was the way in which Townshend proceeded to take the Americans at
their word. His course was a distinct warning to the Americans that, if
they yielded now, they might expect some new Stamp Act or other measures
of direct taxation to follow; and so it simply invited resistance. That
no doubt might be left on this point, the purpose for which the revenue
was to be used showed clearly that the object of the legislation was not
to regulate trade, but to assert British supremacy over the colonies at
the expense of their political freedom. By providing for a civil list
in each colony, to be responsible only to the Crown, it aimed at
American self-government even a more deadly blow than had been aimed at
it by the Stamp Act. It meddled with the "internal police" of every
colony, and would thus have introduced a most vexatious form of tyranny
as soon as it had taken effect. A special act by which the Townshend
revenue acts were accompanied still further revealed the temper and
purposes of the British government. The colony of New York had been
required to provide certain supplies for the regular troops quartered in
the city, under command of General Gage; and the colonial assembly had
insisted upon providing these supplies in its own way, and in disregard
of special instructions from England. For this offence, Parliament now
passed an act suspending the New York assembly from its legislative
functions until it should have complied with the instructions regarding
the supplies to the army. It need not be said that the precedent
involved in this act, if once admitted, would have virtually annulled
the legislative independence of every one of the colonial assemblies.
[Illustration: HOUSE OF LORDS]
[Sidenote: Parliament did not properly represent the British people]
[Sidenote: Difficulty of the problem]
We may perhaps wonder that a British Parliament should have been
prevailed on to pass such audacious acts as these, and by large
majorities. But we must remember that in those days the English system
of representation was so imperfect, and had come to be so overgrown with
abuses, that an act of Parliament was by no means sure to represent the
average judgment of the people. The House of Commons was so far under
the corrupt influence of the aristocracy, and was so inadequately
controlled by popular opinion, that at almost any time it was possible
for an eloquent, determined, and unscrupulous minister to carry measures
through it such as could never have been carried through any of the
reformed Parliaments since 1832. It is not easy, perhaps, to say with
confidence what the popular feeling in England was in 1767 with
reference to the policy of Charles Townshend. The rural population was
much more ignorant than it is to-day, and its political opinions were
strongly influenced by the country squires,--a worthy set of men, but
not generally distinguished for the flexibility of their minds or the
breadth of their views. But as a sample of the most intelligent popular
feeling in England at that time, it will probably not be unfair to cite
that of the city of London, which was usually found arrayed on the side
of free government. No wiser advice was heard in Parliament, on the
subject of the New York dispute, than was given by Alderman Beckford,
father of the illustrious author of Vathek, when he said, "Do like the
best of physicians, and heal the disease by doing nothing." On many
other important occasions in the course of this unfortunate quarrel, the
city of London gave expression to opinions which the king and Parliament
would have done well to heed. But even if the House of Commons had
reflected popular feeling in 1767 as clearly as it has done since 1832,
it is by no means sure that it would have known how to deal successfully
with the American question. The problem was really a new one in
political history; and there was no adequate precedent to guide the
statesmen in dealing with the peculiar combination of considerations it
involved. As far as concerned the relations of Englishmen in England to
the Crown and to Parliament, the British Constitution had at last
reached a point where it worked quite smoothly. All contingencies likely
to arise seemed to have been provided for. But when it came to the
relations of Englishmen in America to the Crown and to Parliament, the
case was very different. The case had its peculiar conditions, which the
British Constitution in skilful hands would no doubt have proved elastic
enough to satisfy; but just at this time the British Constitution
happened to be in very unskilful hands, and wholly failed to meet the
exigencies of the occasion. The chief difficulty lay in the fact that
while on the one hand the American principle of no taxation without
representation was unquestionably sound and just, on the other hand the
exemption of any part of the British Empire from the jurisdiction of
Parliament seemed equivalent to destroying the political unity of the
empire. This could not but seem to any English statesman a most
lamentable result, and no English statesman felt this more strongly than
Lord Chatham.
[Sidenote: Representation of Americans in Parliament]
[Sidenote: Mr. Gladstone and the Boers]
There were only two possible ways in which the difference could be
accommodated. Either the American colonies must elect representatives to
the Parliament at Westminster; or else the right of levying taxes must
be left where it already resided, in their own legislative bodies. The
first alternative was seriously considered by eminent political
thinkers, both in England and America. In England it was favourably
regarded by Adam Smith, and in America by Benjamin Franklin and James
Otis. In 1774, some of the loyalists in the first Continental Congress
recommended such a scheme. In 1778, after the overthrow of Burgoyne, the
king himself began to think favourably of such a way out of the quarrel.
But this alternative was doubtless from the first quite visionary and
unpractical. The difficulties in the way of securing anything like
equality of representation would probably have been insuperable; and
the difficulty in dividing jurisdiction fairly between the local
colonial legislature and the American contingent in the Parliament at
Westminster would far have exceeded any of the difficulties that have
arisen in the attempt to adjust the relations of the several States to
the general government in our Federal Union. Mere distance, too, which
even to-day would go far toward rendering such a scheme impracticable,
would have been a still more fatal obstacle in the days of Chatham and
Townshend. If, even with the vast enlargement of the political horizon
which our hundred years' experience of federalism has effected, the
difficulty of such a union still seems so great, we may be sure it would
have proved quite insuperable then. The only practicable solution would
have been the frank and cordial admission, by the British government, of
the essential soundness of the American position, that, in accordance
with the entire spirit of the English Constitution, the right of levying
taxes in America resided only in the colonial legislatures, in which
alone could American freemen be adequately represented. Nor was there
really any reason to fear that such a step would imperil the unity of
the empire. How mistaken this fear was, on the part of English
statesmen, is best shown by the fact that, in her liberal and
enlightened dealings with her colonies at the present day, England has
consistently adopted the very course of action which alone would have
conciliated such men as Samuel Adams in the days of the Stamp Act. By
pursuing such a policy, the British government has to-day a genuine hold
upon the affections of its pioneers in Australia and New Zealand and
Africa. If such a statesman as Gladstone could have dealt freely with
the American question during the twelve years following the Peace of
Paris, the history of that time need not have been the pitiable story of
a blind and obstinate effort to enforce submission to an ill-considered
and arbitrary policy on the part of the king and his ministers. The
feeling by which the king's party was guided, in the treatment of the
American question, was very much the same as the feeling which lately
inspired the Tory criticisms upon Gladstone's policy in South Africa.
Lord Beaconsfield, a man in some respects not unlike Charles Townshend,
bequeathed to his successor a miserable quarrel with the Dutch farmers
of the Transvaal; and Mr. Gladstone, after examining the case on its
merits, had the moral courage to acknowledge that England was wrong, and
to concede the demands of the Boers, even after serious military defeat
at their hands. Perhaps no other public act of England in the nineteenth
century has done her greater honour than this. But said the Jingoes, All
the world will now laugh at Englishmen, and call them cowards. In order
to vindicate the military prestige of England, the true policy would be,
forsooth, to prolong the war until the Boers had been once thoroughly
defeated, and then acknowledge the soundness of their position. Just as
if the whole world did not know, as well as it can possibly know
anything, that whatever qualities the English nation may lack, it
certainly does not lack courage, or the ability to win victories in a
good cause! All honour to the Christian statesman who dares to leave
England's military prestige to be vindicated by the glorious records of
a thousand years, and even in the hour of well-merited defeat sets a
higher value on political justice than on a reputation for dealing hard
blows! Such incidents as this are big with hope for the future. They
show us what sort of political morality our children's children may
expect to see, when mankind shall have come somewhat nearer toward being
truly civilized.
[Sidenote: Death of Townshend]
In the eighteenth century, no such exhibition of good sense and good
feeling, in the interest of political justice, could have been expected
from any European statesman, unless from a Turgot or a Chatham. But
Charles Townshend was not even called upon to exercise any such
self-control. Had he simply taken Alderman Beckford's advice, and done
nothing, all would have been well; but his meddling had now put the
government into a position which it was ruinous to maintain, but from
which it was difficult to retreat. American tradition rightly lays the
chief blame for the troubles which brought on the Revolutionary War to
George III.; but, in fairness, it is well to remember that he did not
suggest Townshend's measures, though he zealously adopted and cherished
them when once propounded. The blame for wantonly throwing the apple of
discord belongs to Townshend more than to any one else. After doing
this, within three months from the time his bill had passed the House of
Commons, Townshend was seized with a fever and died at the age of
forty-one. A man of extraordinary gifts, but without a trace of earnest
moral conviction, he had entered upon a splendid career; but his
insincere nature, which turned everything into jest, had stamped itself
upon his work. He bequeathed to his country nothing but the quarrel
which was soon to deprive her of the grandest part of that empire upon
which the sun shall never set.
[Illustration: George III]
[Signature: George R]
[Sidenote: His political legacy to George III.]
[Sidenote: Character of George III.]
If Townshend's immediate object in originating these measures was to
curry favour with George III., and get the lion's share in the disposal
of the king's ample corruption-fund, he had doubtless gone to work in
the right way. The king was delighted with Townshend's measures, and
after the sudden death of his minister he made them his own, and staked
his whole political career as a monarch upon their success. These
measures were the fatal legacy which the brighter political charlatan
left to the duller political fanatic. The fierce persistency with which
George now sought to force Townshend's measures upon the Americans
partook of the nature of fanaticism, and we shall not understand it
unless we bear in mind the state of political parties in England between
1760 and 1784. When George III. came to the throne, in 1760, England had
been governed for more than half a century by the great Whig families
which had been brought into the foreground by the revolution of 1688.
The Tories had been utterly discredited and cast out of political life
by reason of their willingness to conspire with the Stuart pretenders
in disturbing the peace of the country. Cabinet government, in its
modern form, had begun to grow up during the long and prosperous
administration of Sir Robert Walpole, who was the first English prime
minister in the full sense. Under Walpole's wise and powerful sway, the
first two Georges had possessed scarcely more than the shadow of
sovereignty. It was the third George's ambition to become a real king,
like the king of France or the king of Spain. From earliest babyhood,
his mother had forever been impressing upon him the precept, "George, be
king!" and this simple lesson had constituted pretty much the whole of
his education. Popular tradition regards him as the most ignorant king
that ever sat upon the English throne; and so far as general culture is
concerned, this opinion is undoubtedly correct. He used to wonder what
people could find to admire in such a wretched driveller as
Shakespeare, and he never was capable of understanding any problem which
required the slightest trace of imagination or of generalizing power.
Nevertheless, the popular American tradition undoubtedly errs in
exaggerating his stupidity and laying too little stress upon the worst
side of his character. George III. was not destitute of a certain kind
of ability, which often gets highly rated in this not too clear-sighted
world. He could see an immediate end very distinctly, and acquired
considerable power from the dogged industry with which he pursued it. In
an age when some of the noblest English statesmen drank their gallon of
strong wine daily, or sat late at the gambling-table, or lived in
scarcely hidden concubinage, George III. was decorous in personal habits
and pure in domestic relations, and no banker's clerk in London applied
himself to the details of business more industriously than he. He had a
genuine talent for administration, and he devoted this talent most
assiduously to selfish ends. Scantily endowed with human sympathy, and
almost boorishly stiff in his ordinary unstudied manner, he could be
smooth as oil whenever he liked. He was an adept in gaining men's
confidence by a show of interest, and securing their aid by dint of fair
promises; and when he found them of no further use, he could turn them
adrift with wanton insult. Any one who dared to disagree with him upon
even the slightest point of policy he straightway regarded as a natural
enemy, and pursued him ever afterward with vindictive hatred. As a
natural consequence, he surrounded himself with weak and short-sighted
advisers, and toward all statesmen of broad views and independent
character he nursed the bitterest rancour. He had little faith in human
honour or rectitude, and in pursuing an end he was seldom deterred by
scruples.
[Sidenote: English parties between 1760 and 1784]
Such was the man who, on coming to the throne in 1760, had it for his
first and chiefest thought to break down the growing system of cabinet
government in England. For the moment circumstances seemed to favour
him. The ascendancy of the great Whig families was endangered on two
sides. On the one hand, the Tory party had outlived that idle, romantic
love for the Stuarts upon which it found it impossible to thrive. The
Tories began coming to court again, and they gave the new king all the
benefit of their superstitious theories of high prerogative and divine
right. On the other hand, a strong popular feeling was beginning to grow
up against parliamentary government as conducted by the old Whig
families. The House of Commons no longer fairly represented the people.
Ancient boroughs, which possessed but a handful of population, or, like
Old Sarum, had no inhabitants at all, still sent their representatives
to Parliament, while great cities of recent growth, such as Birmingham
and Leeds, were unrepresented. To a great extent, it was the most
progressive parts of the kingdom which were thus excluded from a share
in the government, while the rotten boroughs were disposed of by secret
lobbying, or even by open bargain and sale. A few Whig families, the
heads of which sat in the House of Lords, thus virtually owned a
considerable part of the House of Commons; and, under such
circumstances, it was not at all strange that Parliament should
sometimes, as in the Wilkes case, array itself in flat opposition to the
will of the people. The only wonder is that there were not more such
scandals. The party of "Old Whigs," numbering in its ranks some of the
ablest and most patriotic men in England, was contented with this state
of things, upon which it had thrived for two generations, and could not
be made to understand the iniquity of it,--any more than an old
cut-and-dried American politician in our time can be made to understand
the iniquity of the "spoils system." Of this party the Marquis of
Rockingham was the political leader, and Edmund Burke was the great
representative statesman. In strong opposition to the Old Whig policy
there had grown up the party of New Whigs, bent upon bringing about some
measure of parliamentary reform, whereby the House of Commons might
truly represent the people of Great Britain. In Parliament this party
was small in numbers, but weighty in character, and at its head was the
greatest Englishman of the eighteenth century, the elder William Pitt,
under whose guidance England had won her Indian empire and established
her dominion over the seas, while she had driven the French from
America, and enabled Frederick the Great to lay the foundations of
modern Germany.
[Portrait: Edmund Burke.]
[Sidenote: George III. as a politician]
Now when George III. came to the throne, he took advantage of this
division in the two parties in order to break down the power of the Old
Whig families, which so long had ruled the country. To this end he used
the revived Tory party with great effect, and bid against the Old Whigs
for the rotten boroughs; and in playing off one set of prejudices and
interests against another, he displayed in the highest degree the
cunning and craft of a self-seeking politician. His ordinary methods
would have aroused the envy of Tammany. While engaged in such work, he
had sense enough to see that the party from which he had most to fear
was that of the New Whigs, whose scheme of parliamentary reform, if ever
successful, would deprive him of the machinery of corruption upon which
he relied. Much as he hated the Old Whig families, he hated Pitt and his
followers still more heartily. He was perpetually denouncing Pitt as a
"trumpeter of sedition," and often vehemently declared in public, and in
the most offensive manner, that he wished that great man were dead. Such
had been his eagerness to cast discredit upon Pitt's policy that he had
utterly lost sight of the imperial interests of England, which indeed
his narrow intelligence was incapable of comprehending. One of the first
acts of his reign had been to throw away Cuba and the Philippine
Islands, which Pitt had just conquered from Spain; while at the same
time, by leaving Prussia in the lurch before the Seven Years' War had
fairly closed, he converted the great Frederick from one of England's
warmest friends into one of her bitterest enemies.
[Sidenote: His chief reason for quarrelling with the Americans]
This political attitude of George III. toward the Whigs in general, and
toward Pitt in particular, explains the fierce obstinacy with which he
took up and carried on Townshend's quarrel with the American colonies.
For if the American position, that there should be no taxation without
representation, were once to be granted, then it would straightway
become necessary to admit the principles of parliamentary reform. The
same principle that applied to such commonwealths as Massachusetts and
Virginia would be forthwith applied to such towns as Birmingham and
Leeds. The system of rotten boroughs would be swept away; the chief
engine of kingly corruption would thus be destroyed; a reformed House of
Commons, with the people at its back, would curb forever the pretensions
of the Crown; and the detested Lord Chatham would become the real ruler
of a renovated England, in which George III. would be a personage of
very little political importance.
In these considerations we find the explanation of the acts of George
III. which brought on the American Revolution, and we see why it is
historically correct to regard him as the person chiefly responsible for
the quarrel. The obstinacy with which he refused to listen to a word of
reason from America was largely due to the exigencies of the political
situation in which he found himself. For him, as well as for the
colonies, it was a desperate struggle for political existence. He was
glad to force on the issue in America rather than in England, because it
would be comparatively easy to enlist British local feeling against the
Americans as a remote set of "rebels," with whom Englishmen had no
interests in common, and thus obscure the real nature of the issue.
Herein he showed himself a cunning politician, though an ignoble
statesman. By playing off against each other the two sections of the
Whig party, he continued for a while to carry his point; and had he
succeeded in overcoming the American resistance and calling into England
a well-trained army of victorious mercenaries, the political quarrel
there could hardly have failed to develop into a civil war. A new
rebellion would perhaps have overthrown George III. as James II. had
been overthrown a century before. As it was, the victory of the
Americans put an end to the personal government of the king in 1784, so
quietly that the people scarcely realized the change.[1] A peaceful
election accomplished what otherwise could hardly have been effected
without bloodshed. So while George III. lost the fairest portion of the
British Empire, it was the sturdy Americans who, fighting the battle of
freedom at once for the Old World and for the New, ended by overwhelming
his paltry schemes for personal aggrandizement in hopeless ruin, leaving
him for posterity to contemplate as one of the most instructive examples
of short-sighted folly that modern history affords.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] See my _Critical Period of American History_, chap. i.
CHAPTER II
THE CRISIS
[Illustration: LORD NORTH]
Townshend was succeeded in the exchequer by Lord North, eldest son of
the Earl of Guildford, a young man of sound judgment, wide knowledge,
and rare sweetness of temper, but wholly lacking in sympathy with
popular government. As leader of the House of Commons, he was
sufficiently able in debate to hold his ground against the fiercest
attacks of Burke and Fox, but he had no strength of will. His lazy
good-nature and his Tory principles made him a great favourite with the
king, who, through his influence over Lord North, began now to exercise
the power of a cabinet minister, and to take a more important part than
hitherto in the direction of affairs. Soon after North entered the
cabinet, colonial affairs were taken from Lord Shelburne and put in
charge of Lord Hillsborough, a man after the king's own heart. Conway
was dismissed from the cabinet, and his place was taken by Lord
Weymouth, who had voted against the repeal of the Stamp Act. The Earl of
Sandwich, who never spoke of the Americans but in terms of abuse, was
at the same time made postmaster-general; and in the following year Lord
Chatham resigned the privy seal.
[Signature: North]
[Sidenote: John Dickinson]
While the ministry, by these important changes, was becoming more and
more hostile to the just claims of the Americans, those claims were
powerfully urged in America, both in popular literature and in
well-considered state papers. John Dickinson, at once a devoted friend
of England and an ardent American patriot, published his celebrated
Farmer's Letters, which were greatly admired in both countries for their
temperateness of tone and elegance of expression. In these letters,
Dickinson held a position quite similar to that occupied by Burke.
Recognizing that the constitutional relations of the colonies to the
mother-country had always been extremely vague and ill-defined, he urged
that the same state of things be kept up forever through a genuine
English feeling of compromise, which should refrain from pushing any
abstract theory of sovereignty to its extreme logical conclusions. At
the same time, he declared that the Townshend revenue acts were "a most
dangerous innovation" upon the liberties of the people, and
significantly hinted, that, should the ministry persevere in its
tyrannical policy, "English history affords examples of resistance by
force."
[Portrait: John Dickinson]
[Sidenote: The Massachusetts circular letter]
While Dickinson was publishing these letters, Samuel Adams wrote for the
Massachusetts assembly a series of addresses to the ministry, a petition
to the king, and a circular letter to the assemblies of the other
colonies. In these very able state papers, Adams declared that a proper
representation of American interests in the British Parliament was
impracticable, and that, in accordance with the spirit of the English
Constitution, no taxes could be levied in America except by the colonial
legislatures. He argued that the Townshend acts were unconstitutional,
and asked that they should be repealed, and that the colonies should
resume the position which they had occupied before the beginning of the
present troubles. The petition to the king was couched in beautiful and
touching language, but the author seems to have understood very well how
little effect it was likely to produce. His daughter, Mrs. Wells, used
to tell how one evening, as her father had just finished writing this
petition, and had taken up his hat to go out, she observed that the
paper would soon be touched by the royal hand. "More likely, my dear,"
he replied, "it will be spurned by the royal foot!" Adams rightly
expected much more from the circular letter to the other colonies, in
which he invited them to coöperate with Massachusetts in resisting the
Townshend acts, and in petitioning for their repeal. The assembly,
having adopted all these papers by a large majority, was forthwith
prorogued by Governor Bernard, who, in a violent speech, called them
demagogues to whose happiness "everlasting contention was necessary."
But the work was done. The circular letter brought encouraging replies
from the other colonies. The condemnation of the Townshend acts was
unanimous, and leading merchants in most of the towns entered into
agreements not to import any more English goods until the acts should be
repealed. Ladies formed associations, under the name of Daughters of
Liberty, pledging themselves to wear homespun clothes and to abstain
from drinking tea. The feeling of the country was thus plainly enough
expressed, but nowhere as yet was there any riot or disorder, and no one
as yet, except, perhaps, Samuel Adams, had begun to think of a
political separation from England. Even he did not look upon such a
course as desirable, but the treatment of his remonstrances by the king
and the ministry soon led him to change his opinion.
[Illustration: A List of Names of _those_ who AUDACIOUSLY continue
to counteract the UNITED SENTIMENTS of the BODY of Merchants thro' out
NORTH-AMERICA; by importing British Goods contrary to the Agreement.]
[Sidenote: Lord Hillsborough's instructions to Bernard]
The petition of the Massachusetts assembly was received by the king with
silent contempt, but the circular letter threw him into a rage. In
cabinet meeting, it was pronounced to be little better than an overt act
of rebellion, and the ministers were encouraged in this opinion by
letters from Bernard, who represented the whole affair as the wicked
attempt of a few vile demagogues to sow the seeds of dissension
broadcast over the continent. We have before had occasion to observe the
extreme jealousy with which the Crown had always regarded any attempt at
concerted action among the colonies which did not originate with itself.
But here was an attempt at concerted action in flagrant opposition to
the royal will. Lord Hillsborough instructed Bernard to command the
assembly to rescind their circular letter, and, in case of their
refusal, to send them home about their business. This was to be repeated
year after year, so that, until Massachusetts should see fit to declare
herself humbled and penitent, she must go without a legislature. At the
same time, Hillsborough ordered the assemblies in all the other colonies
to treat the Massachusetts circular with contempt,--and this, too, under
penalty of instant dissolution. From a constitutional point of view,
these arrogant orders deserve to be ranked among the curiosities of
political history. They serve to mark the rapid progress the ministry
was making in the art of misgovernment. A year before, Townshend had
suspended the New York legislature by an act of Parliament. Now, a
secretary of state, by a simple royal order, threatened to suspend all
the legislative bodies of America unless they should vote according to
his dictation.
[Sidenote: The "Illustrious Ninety-Two"]
When Hillsborough's orders were laid before the Massachusetts assembly,
they were greeted with scorn. "We are asked to rescind," said Otis. "Let
Britain rescind her measures, or the colonies are lost to her forever."
Nevertheless, it was only after nine days of discussion that the
question was put, when the assembly decided, by a vote of ninety-two to
seventeen, that it would not rescind its circular letter. Bernard
immediately dissolved the assembly, but its vote was hailed with delight
throughout the country, and the "Illustrious Ninety-Two" became the
favourite toast on all convivial occasions. Nor were the other colonial
assemblies at all readier than that of Massachusetts to yield to the
secretary's dictation. They all expressed the most cordial sympathy
with the recommendations of the circular letter; and in several
instances they were dissolved by the governors, according to
Hillsborough's instructions.
[Illustration: FANEUIL HALL, "THE CRADLE OF LIBERTY"]
[Sidenote: Impressment of citizens]
While these fruitless remonstrances against the Townshend acts had been
preparing, the commissioners of the customs, in enforcing the acts, had
not taken sufficient pains to avoid irritating the people. In the spring
of 1768, the fifty-gun frigate Romney had been sent to mount guard in
the harbour of Boston, and while she lay there several of the citizens
were seized and impressed as seamen,--a lawless practice long afterward
common in the British navy, but already stigmatized as barbarous by
public opinion in America. As long ago as 1747, when the relations
between the colonies and the home government were quite harmonious,
resistance to the press-gang had resulted in a riot in the streets of
Boston. Now while the town was very indignant over this lawless
kidnapping of its citizens, on the 10th of June, 1768, John Hancock's
sloop Liberty was seized at the wharf by a boat's crew from the Romney,
for an alleged violation of the revenue laws, though without official
warrant. Insults and recriminations ensued between the officers and the
citizens assembled on the wharf, until after a while the excitement grew
into a mild form of riot, in which a few windows were broken, some of
the officers were pelted, and finally a pleasure boat, belonging to the
collector, was pulled up out of the water, carried to the Common, and
burned there, when Hancock and Adams, arriving upon the scene, put a
stop to the commotion. A few days afterward, a town meeting was held in
Faneuil Hall; but as the crowd was too great to be contained in the
building, it was adjourned to the Old South Meeting-House, where Otis
addressed the people from the pulpit. A petition to the governor was
prepared, in which it was set forth that the impressment of peaceful
citizens was an illegal act, and that the state of the town was as if
war had been declared against it; and the governor was requested to
order the instant removal of the frigate from the harbour. A committee
of twenty-one leading citizens was appointed to deliver this petition to
the governor at his house in Jamaica Plain. In his letters to the
secretary of state Bernard professed to live in constant fear of
assassination, and was always begging for troops to protect him against
the incendiary and blackguard mob of Boston. Yet as he looked down the
beautiful road from his open window, that summer afternoon, what he saw
was not a ragged mob, armed with knives and bludgeons, shouting
"Liberty, or death!" and bearing the head of a revenue collector aloft
on the point of a pike, but a quiet procession of eleven chaises, from
which there alighted at his door twenty-one gentlemen, as sedate and
stately in demeanour as those old Roman senators at whom the Gaulish
chief so marvelled. There followed a very affable interview, during
which wine was passed around. The next day the governor's answer was
read in town meeting, declining to remove the frigate, but promising
that in future there should be no impressment of Massachusetts citizens;
and with this compromise the wrath of the people was for a moment
assuaged.
[Portrait: Fra. Bernard]
Affairs of this sort, reported with gross exaggeration by the governor
and revenue commissioners to the ministry, produced in England the
impression that Boston was a lawless and riotous town, full of
cutthroats and blacklegs, whose violence could be held in check only by
martial law. Of all the misconceptions of America by England which
brought about the American Revolution, perhaps this notion of the
turbulence of Boston was the most ludicrous. During the ten years of
excitement which preceded the War of Independence there was one
disgraceful riot in Boston,--that in which Hutchinson's house was
sacked; but in all this time not a drop of blood was shed by the people,
nor was anybody's life for a moment in danger at their hands. The
episode of the sloop Liberty, as here described, was a fair sample of
the disorders which occurred at Boston at periods of extreme excitement;
and in any European town in the eighteenth century it would hardly have
been deemed worthy of mention.
[Sidenote: Statute of Henry VIII. concerning "treason committed abroad"]
Even before the affair of the Liberty, the government had made up its
mind to send troops to Boston, in order to overawe the popular party and
show them that the king and Lord Hillsborough were in earnest. The news
of the Liberty affair, however, served to remove any hesitation that
might hitherto have been felt. Vengeance was denounced against the
insolent town of Boston. The most seditious spirits, such as Otis and
Adams, must be made an example of, and thus the others might be
frightened into submission. With such intent, Lord Hillsborough sent
over to inquire "if any person had committed any acts which, under the
statutes of Henry VIII. against treason committed abroad, might justify
their being brought to England for trial." This raking-up of an obsolete
statute, enacted at one of the worst periods of English history, and
before England had any colonies at all, was extremely injudicious. But
besides all this, continued Hillsborough, the town meeting, that nursery
of sedition, must be put down or overawed; and in pursuance of this
scheme, two regiments of soldiers and a frigate were to be sent over to
Boston at the ministry's earliest convenience. To make an example of
Boston, it was thought, would have a wholesome effect upon the temper of
the Americans.
[Illustration: LANDING OF THE TROOPS IN BOSTON, 1768]
[Illustration: CASTLE WILLIAM, BOSTON HARBOUR]
[Sidenote: Samuel Adams makes up his mind, 1768]
It was now, in the summer of 1768, that Samuel Adams made up his mind
that there was no hope of redress from the British government, and that
the only remedy was to be found in the assertion of political
independence by the American colonies. The courteous petitions and
temperate remonstrances of the American assemblies had been met, not by
rational arguments, but by insulting and illegal royal orders; and now
at last an army was on the way from England to enforce the tyrannical
measures of government, and to terrify the people into submission.
Accordingly, Adams came to the conclusion that the only proper course
for the colonies was to declare themselves independent of Great Britain,
to unite together in a permanent confederation, and to invite European
alliances. We have his own word for the fact that from this moment until
the Declaration of Independence, in 1776, he consecrated all his
energies, with burning enthusiasm, upon the attainment of that great
object. Yet in 1768 no one knew better than Samuel Adams that the time
had not yet come when his bold policy could be safely adopted, and that
any premature attempt at armed resistance on the part of Massachusetts
might prove fatal. At this time, probably no other American statesman
had thought the matter out so far as to reach Adams's conclusions. No
American had as yet felt any desire to terminate the political
connection with England. Even those who most thoroughly condemned the
measures of the government did not consider the case hopeless, but
believed that in one way or another a peaceful solution was still
attainable. For a long time this attitude was sincerely and patiently
maintained. Even Washington, when he came to take command of the army at
Cambridge, after the battle of Bunker Hill, had not made up his mind
that the object of the war was to be the independence of the colonies.
In the same month of July, 1775, Jefferson said expressly, "We have not
raised armies with designs of separating from Great Britain and
establishing independent states. Necessity has not yet driven us into
that desperate measure." The Declaration of Independence was at last
brought about only with difficulty and after prolonged discussion. Our
great-great-grandfathers looked upon themselves as Englishmen, and felt
proud of their connection with England. Their determination to resist
arbitrary measures was at first in no way associated in their minds with
disaffection toward the mother-country. Besides this, the task of
effecting a separation by military measures seemed to most persons quite
hopeless. It was not until after Bunker Hill had shown that American
soldiers were a match for British soldiers in the field, and after
Washington's capture of Boston had shown that the enemy really could be
dislodged from a whole section of the country, that the more hopeful
patriots began to feel confident of the ultimate success of a war for
independence. It is hard for us now to realize how terrible the
difficulties seemed to the men who surmounted them. Throughout the war,
beside the Tories who openly sympathized with the enemy, there were many
worthy people who thought we were "going too far," and who magnified our
losses and depreciated our gains,--quite like the people who, in the War
of Secession, used to be called "croakers." The depression of even the
boldest, after such defeats as that of Long Island, was dreadful. How
inadequate was the general sense of our real strength, how dim the
general comprehension of the great events that were happening, may best
be seen in the satirical writings of some of the loyalists. At the time
of the French alliance, there were many who predicted that the result of
this step would be to undo the work of the Seven Years' War, to
reinstate the French in America with full control over the thirteen
colonies, and to establish despotism and popery all over the continent.
A satirical pamphlet, published in 1779, just ten years before the
Bastille was torn down in Paris, drew an imaginary picture of a Bastille
which ten years later was to stand in New York, and, with still further
license of fantasy, portrayed Samuel Adams in the garb of a Dominican
friar. Such nonsense is of course no index to the sentiments or the
beliefs of the patriotic American people, but the mere fact that it
could occur to anybody shows how hard it was for people to realize how
competent America was to take care of herself. The more we reflect upon
the slowness with which the country came to the full consciousness of
its power and importance, the more fully we bring ourselves to realize
how unwilling America was to tear herself asunder from England, and how
the Declaration of Independence was only at last resorted to when it had
become evident that no other course was compatible with the preservation
of our self-respect; the more thoroughly we realize all this, the nearer
we shall come toward duly estimating the fact that in 1768, seven years
before the battle of Lexington, the master mind of Samuel Adams had
fully grasped the conception of a confederation of American states
independent of British control. The clearness with which he saw this, as
the inevitable outcome of the political conditions of the time, gave to
his views and his acts, in every emergency that arose, a commanding
influence throughout the land.
[Sidenote: Arrival of troops in Boston]
In September, 1768, it was announced in Boston that the troops were on
their way, and would soon be landed. There happened to be a legal
obstacle, unforeseen by the ministry, to their being quartered in the
town. In accordance with the general act of Parliament for quartering
troops, the regular barracks at Castle William in the harbour would have
to be filled before the town could be required to find quarters for any
troops. Another clause of the act provided that if any military officer
should take upon himself to quarter soldiers in any of his Majesty's
dominions otherwise than as allowed by the act, he should be straightway
dismissed the service. At the news that the troops were about to arrive,
the governor was asked to convene the assembly, that it might be decided
how to receive them. On Bernard's refusal, the selectmen of Boston
issued a circular, inviting all the towns of Massachusetts to send
delegates to a general convention, in order that deliberate action might
be taken upon this important matter. In answer to the circular,
delegates from ninety-six towns assembled in Faneuil Hall, and, laughing
at the governor's order to "disperse," proceeded to show how, in the
exercise of the undoubted right of public meeting, the colony could
virtually legislate for itself, in the absence of its regular
legislature. The convention, finding that nothing was necessary for
Boston to do but insist upon strict compliance with the letter of the
law, adjourned. In October, two regiments arrived, and were allowed to
land without opposition, but no lodging was provided for them. Bernard,
in fear of an affray, had gone out into the country; but nothing could
have been farther from the thoughts of the people. The commander,
Colonel Dalrymple, requested shelter for his men, but was told that he
must quarter them in the barracks at Castle William. As the night was
frosty, however, the Sons of Liberty allowed them to sleep in Faneuil
Hall. Next day, the governor, finding everything quiet, came back, and
heard Dalrymple's complaint. But in vain did he apply in turn to the
council, to the selectmen, and to the justices of the peace, to grant
quarters for the troops; he was told that the law was plain, and that
the Castle must first be occupied. The governor then tried to get
possession of an old dilapidated building which belonged to the colony;
but the tenants had taken legal advice, and told him to turn them out if
he dared. Nothing could be more provoking. General Gage was obliged to
come on from his headquarters at New York; but not even he, the
commander-in-chief of his Majesty's forces in America, could quarter the
troops in violation of the statute without running the risk of being
cashiered, on conviction before two justices of the peace. So the
soldiers stayed at night in tents on the Common, until the weather grew
so cold that Dalrymple was obliged to hire some buildings for them at
exorbitant rates, and at the expense of the Crown. By way of insult to
the people, two cannon were planted on King Street, with their muzzles
pointing toward the Town House. But as the troops could do nothing
without a requisition from a civil magistrate, and as the usual strict
decorum was preserved throughout the town, there was nothing in the
world for them to do. In case of an insurrection, the force was too
small to be of any use; and so far as the policy of overawing the town
was concerned, no doubt the soldiers were more afraid of the people than
the people of the soldiers.
[Sidenote: Letters of "Vindex"]
No sooner were the soldiers thus established in Boston than Samuel Adams
published a series of letters signed "Vindex," in which he argued that
to keep up "a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, without
the consent of Parliament, was against the law; that the consent of
Parliament necessarily implied the consent of the people, who were
always present in Parliament, either by themselves or by their
representatives; and that the Americans, as they were not and could not
be represented in Parliament, were therefore suffering under military
tyranny over which they were allowed to exercise no control." The only
notice taken of this argument by Bernard and Hillsborough was an attempt
to collect evidence upon the strength of which its author might be
indicted for treason, and sent over to London to be tried; but Adams had
been so wary in all his proceedings that it was impossible to charge him
with any technical offence, and to have seized him otherwise than by due
process of law would have been to precipitate rebellion in
Massachusetts.
[Portrait: GENERAL HENRY CONWAY]
[Portrait: Isaac Barré]
[Sidenote: Debate in Parliament]
[Sidenote: Colonel Barré's speech]
In Parliament, the proposal to extend the act of Henry VIII. to America
was bitterly opposed by Burke, Barré, Pownall, and Dowdeswell, as well
as by Grenville, who characterized it as sheer madness; but the measure
was carried, nevertheless. Burke further maintained, in an eloquent
speech, that the royal order requiring Massachusetts to rescind her
circular letter was unconstitutional; and here again Grenville agreed
with him. The attention of Parliament, during the spring of 1769, was
occupied chiefly with American affairs. Pownall moved that the Townshend
acts should be repealed, and in this he was earnestly seconded by a
petition of the London merchants; for the non-importation policy of
Americans had begun to bear hard upon business in London. After much
debate, Lord North proposed a compromise, repealing all the Townshend
acts except that which laid duty on tea. The more clear-headed members
saw that such a compromise, which yielded nothing in the matter of
principle, would do no good. Beckford pointed out the fact that the
tea-duty did not bring in £300 to the government; and Lord Beauchamp
pertinently asked whether it were worth while, for such a paltry
revenue, to make enemies of three millions of people. Grafton, Camden,
Conway, Burke, Barré, and Dowdeswell wished to have the tea-duty
repealed also, and the whole principle of parliamentary taxation given
up; and Lord North agreed with them in his secret heart, but could not
bring himself to act contrary to the king's wishes. "America must fear
you before she can love you," said Lord North.... "I am against
repealing the last act of Parliament, securing to us a revenue out of
America; I will never think of repealing it until I see America
prostrate at my feet." "To effect this," said Barré, "is not so easy as
some imagine; the Americans are a numerous, a respectable, a hardy, a
free people. But were it ever so easy, does any friend to his country
really wish to see America thus humbled? In such a situation, she would
serve only as a monument of your arrogance and your folly. For my part,
the America I wish to see is America increasing and prosperous, raising
her head in graceful dignity, with freedom and firmness asserting her
rights at your bar, vindicating her liberties, pleading her services,
and conscious of her merit. This is the America that will have spirit to
fight your battles, to sustain you when hard pushed by some prevailing
foe, and by her industry will be able to consume your manufactures,
support your trade, and pour wealth and splendour into your towns and
cities. If we do not change our conduct towards her, America will be
torn from our side.... Unless you repeal this law, you run the risk of
losing America." But the ministers were deaf to Barré's sweet
reasonableness. "We shall grant nothing to the Americans," said Lord
Hillsborough, "except what they may ask with a halter round their
necks." "They are a race of convicted felons," echoed poor old Dr.
Johnson,--who had probably been reading Moll Flanders,--"and they ought
to be thankful for anything we allow them short of hanging."
[Portrait: Thos. Hutchinson]
[Sidenote: Thomas Hutchinson]
As the result of the discussion, Lord North's so-called compromise was
adopted, and a circular was sent to America, promising that all the
obnoxious acts, except the tea duty, should be repealed. At the same
time, Bernard was recalled from Massachusetts to appease the indignation
of the people, and made a baronet to show that the ministry approved of
his conduct as governor. His place was filled by the
lieutenant-governor, Thomas Hutchinson, a man of great learning and
brilliant talent, whose "History of Massachusetts Bay" entitles him to a
high rank among the worthies of early American literature. The next year
Hutchinson was appointed governor. As a native of Massachusetts, it was
supposed by Lord North that he would be less likely to irritate the
people than his somewhat arrogant predecessor. But in this the
government turned out to be mistaken. As to Hutchinson's sincere
patriotism there can now be no doubt whatever. There was something
pathetic in the intensity of his love for New England, which to him was
the goodliest of all lands, the paradise of this world. He had been
greatly admired for his learning and accomplishments, and the people of
Massachusetts had elected him to one office after another, and shown him
every mark of esteem until the evil days of the Stamp Act. It then began
to appear that he was a Tory on principle, and a thorough believer in
the British doctrine of the absolute supremacy of Parliament, and
popular feeling presently turned against him. He was called a turncoat
and traitor, and a thankless dog withal, whose ruling passion was
avarice. His conduct and his motives were alike misjudged. He had tried
to dissuade the Grenville ministry from passing the Stamp Act; but when
once the obnoxious measure had become law, he thought it his duty to
enforce it like other laws. For this he was charged with being recreant
to his own convictions, and in the shameful riot of August, 1765, he was
the worst sufferer. No public man in America has ever been the object of
more virulent hatred. None has been more grossly misrepresented by
historians. His appointment as governor, however well meant, turned out
to be anything but a wise measure.
[Illustration: CAPITOL AT WILLIAMSBURGH, VIRGINIA]
[Sidenote: Virginia resolutions, 1769]
While these things were going on, a strong word of sympathy came from
Virginia. When Hillsborough made up his mind to browbeat Boston, he
thought it worth while to cajole the Virginians, and try to win them
from the cause which Massachusetts was so boldly defending. So Lord
Botetourt, a genial and conciliatory man, was sent over to be governor
of Virginia, to beguile the people with his affable manner and sweet
discourse. But between a quarrelsome Bernard and a gracious Botetourt
the practical difference was little, where grave questions of
constitutional right were involved. In May, 1769, the House of Burgesses
assembled at Williamsburgh. Among its members were Patrick Henry,
Washington, and Jefferson. The assembly condemned the Townshend acts,
asserted that the people of Virginia could be taxed only by their own
representatives, declared that it was both lawful and expedient for all
the colonies to join in a protest against any violation of the rights of
Americans, and especially warned the king of the dangers that might
ensue if any American citizen were to be carried beyond sea for trial.
Finally, it sent copies of these resolutions to all the other colonial
assemblies, inviting their concurrence. At this point Lord Botetourt
dissolved the assembly; but the members straightway met again in
convention at the famous Apollo room of the Raleigh tavern, and adopted
a series of resolutions prepared by Washington, in which they pledged
themselves to continue the policy of non-importation until all the
obnoxious acts of 1767 should be repealed. These resolutions were
adopted by all the southern colonies.
[Illustration: APOLLO ROOM IN THE RALEIGH TAVERN]
[Illustration: STOVE USED IN THE HOUSE OF BURGESSES]
[Sidenote: Assault on James Otis]
All through the year 1769, the British troops remained quartered in
Boston at the king's expense. According to Samuel Adams, their principal
employment seemed to be to parade in the streets, and by their
merry-andrew tricks to excite the contempt of women and children. But
the soldiers did much to annoy the people, to whom their very presence
was an insult. They led brawling, riotous lives, and made the quiet
streets hideous by night with their drunken shouts. Scores of loose
women, who had followed the regiments across the ocean, came to
scandalize the town for a while, and then to encumber the almshouse. On
Sundays the soldiers would race horses on the Common, or play Yankee
Doodle just outside the church-doors during the services. Now and then
oaths, or fisticuffs, or blows with sticks, were exchanged between
soldiers and citizens, and once or twice a more serious affair occurred.
One evening in September, a dastardly assault was made upon James Otis,
in the British Coffee House, by one Robinson, a commissioner of customs,
assisted by half a dozen army officers. It reminds one of the assault
upon Charles Sumner by Brooks of South Carolina, shortly before the War
of Secession. Otis was savagely beaten, and received a blow on the head
with a sword, from the effects of which he never recovered, but finally
lost his reason. The popular wrath at this outrage was intense, but
there was no disturbance. Otis brought suit against Robinson, and
recovered £2,000 in damages, but refused to accept a penny of it when
Robinson confessed himself in the wrong, and humbly asked pardon for
his irreparable offence.
[Illustration: OLD BRICK MEETING-HOUSE]
[Illustration: PAUL REVERE'S PLAN OF KING STREET IN 1770
(_Used in the trial of the soldiers_)]
[Sidenote: The "Boston Massacre"]
On the 22d of February, 1770, an informer named Richardson, being pelted
by a party of schoolboys, withdrew into his house, opened a window, and
fired at random into the crowd, killing one little boy and severely
wounding another. He was found guilty of murder, but was pardoned. At
last, on the 2d of March, an angry quarrel occurred between a party of
soldiers and some of the workmen at a ropewalk, and for two or three
days there was considerable excitement in the town, and people talked
together, standing about the streets in groups; but Hutchinson did not
even take the precaution of ordering the soldiers to be kept within
their barracks, for he did not believe that the people intended a riot,
nor that the troops would dare to fire on the citizens without express
permission from himself. On the evening of March 5th, at about eight
o'clock, a large crowd collected near the barracks, on Brattle Street,
and from bandying abusive epithets with the soldiers began pelting them
with snow-balls and striking at them with sticks, while the soldiers now
and then dealt blows with their muskets. Presently Captain Goldfinch,
coming along, ordered the men into their barracks for the night, and
thus stopped the affray. But meanwhile some one had got into the Old
Brick Meeting-House, opposite the head of King Street, and rung the
bell; and this, being interpreted as an alarm of fire, brought out many
people into the moonlit streets. It was now a little past nine. The
sentinel who was pacing in front of the Custom House had a few minutes
before knocked down a barber's boy for calling names at the captain, as
he went up to stop the affray on Brattle Street. The crowd in King
Street now began to pelt the sentinel, and some shouted, "Kill him!"
when Captain Preston and seven privates from the twenty-ninth regiment
crossed the street to his aid: and thus the file of nine soldiers
confronted an angry crowd of fifty or sixty unarmed men, who pressed up
to the very muzzles of their guns, threw snow at their faces, and dared
them to fire. All at once, but quite unexpectedly and probably without
orders from Preston, seven of the levelled pieces were discharged,
instantly killing four men and wounding seven others, of whom two
afterwards died. Immediately the alarm was spread through the town, and
it might have gone hard with the soldiery, had not Hutchinson presently
arrived on the scene, and quieted the people by ordering the arrest of
Preston and his men. Next morning the council advised the removal of one
of the regiments, but in the afternoon an immense town meeting, called
at Faneuil Hall, adjourned to the Old South Meeting-House; and as they
passed by the Town House (or what we now call the Old State House), the
lieutenant-governor, looking out upon their march, judged "their spirit
to be as high as was the spirit of their ancestors when they imprisoned
Andros, while they were four times as numerous." All the way from the
church to the Town House the street was crowded with the people, while a
committee, headed by Samuel Adams, waited upon the governor, and
received his assurance that one regiment should be removed. As the
committee came out from the Town House, to carry the governor's reply to
the meeting in the church, the people pressed back on either side to let
them pass; and Adams, leading the way with uncovered head through the
lane thus formed, and bowing first to one side and then to the other,
passed along the watchword, "Both regiments, or none!" When, in the
church, the question was put to vote, three thousand voices shouted,
"Both regiments, or none!" and armed with this ultimatum the committee
returned to the Town House, where the governor was seated with Colonel
Dalrymple and the members of the council. Then Adams, in quiet but
earnest tones, stretching forth his arm and pointing his finger at
Hutchinson, said that if as acting governor of the province he had the
power to remove one regiment he had equally the power to remove both,
that the voice of three thousand freemen demanded that all soldiery be
forthwith removed from the town, and that if he failed to heed their
just demand, he did so at his peril. "I observed his knees to tremble,"
said the old hero afterward, "I saw his face grow pale,--and I enjoyed
the sight!" That Hutchinson was agitated we may well believe; not from
fear, but from a sudden sickening sense of the odium of his position as
king's representative at such a moment. He was a man of invincible
courage, and surely would never have yielded to Adams, had he not known
that the law was on the side of the people and that the soldiers were
illegal trespassers in Boston. Before sundown the order had gone forth
for the removal of both regiments to Castle William, and not until then
did the meeting in the church break up. From that day forth the
fourteenth and twenty-ninth regiments were known in Parliament as "the
Sam Adams regiments."
[Illustration: OLD STATE HOUSE, WEST FRONT]
[Sidenote: Some lessons of the "Massacre"]
Such was the famous Boston Massacre. All the mildness of New England
civilization is brought most strikingly before us in that truculent
phrase. The careless shooting of half a dozen townsmen is described by a
word which historians apply to such events as Cawnpore or the Sicilian
Vespers. Lord Sherbrooke, better known as Robert Lowe, declared a few
years ago, in a speech on the uses of a classical education, that the
battle of Marathon was really of less account than a modern colliery
explosion, because only one hundred and ninety-two of the Greek army
lost their lives! From such a point of view, one might argue that the
Boston Massacre was an event of far less importance than an ordinary
free fight among Colorado gamblers. It is needless to say that this is
not the historical point of view. Historical events are not to be
measured with a foot-rule. This story of the Boston Massacre is a very
trite one, but it has its lessons. It furnishes an instructive
illustration of the high state of civilization reached by the people
among whom it happened,--by the oppressors as well as those whom it was
sought to oppress. The quartering of troops in a peaceful town is
something that has in most ages been regarded with horror. Under the
senatorial government of Rome, it used to be said that the quartering of
troops, even upon a friendly province and for the purpose of protecting
it, was a visitation only less to be dreaded than an inroad of hostile
barbarians. When we reflect that the British regiments were encamped in
Boston during seventeen months, among a population to whom they were
thoroughly odious, the fact that only half a dozen persons lost their
lives, while otherwise no really grave crimes seem to have been
committed, is a fact quite as creditable to the discipline of the
soldiers as to the moderation of the people. In most ages and countries,
the shooting of half a dozen citizens under such circumstances would
either have produced but a slight impression, or, on the other hand,
would perhaps have resulted on the spot in a wholesale slaughter of the
offending soldiers. The fact that so profound an impression was made in
Boston and throughout the country, while at the same time the guilty
parties were left to be dealt with in the ordinary course of law, is a
striking commentary upon the general peacefulness and decorum of
American life, and it shows how high and severe was the standard by
which our forefathers judged all lawless proceedings. And here it may
not be irrelevant to add that, throughout the constitutional struggles
which led to the Revolution, the American standard of political right
and wrong was so high that contemporary European politicians found it
sometimes difficult to understand it. And for a like reason, even the
most fair-minded English historians sometimes fail to see why the
Americans should have been so quick to take offence at acts of the
British government which doubtless were not meant to be oppressive. If
George III. had been a bloodthirsty despot, like Philip II. of Spain; if
General Gage had been another Duke of Alva; if American citizens by the
hundred had been burned alive or broken on the wheel in New York and
Boston; if whole towns had been given up to the cruelty and lust of a
beastly soldiery, then no one--not even Dr. Johnson--would have found it
hard to understand why the Americans should have exhibited a rebellious
temper. But it is one signal characteristic of the progress of political
civilization that the part played by sheer brute force in a barbarous
age is fully equalled by the part played by a mere covert threat of
injustice in a more advanced age. The effect which a blow in the face
would produce upon a barbarian will be wrought upon a civilized man by
an assertion of some far-reaching legal principle, which only in a
subtle and ultimate analysis includes the possibility of a blow in the
face. From this point of view, the quickness with which such acts as
those of Charles Townshend were comprehended in their remotest bearings
is the must striking proof one could wish of the high grade of political
culture which our forefathers had reached through their system of
perpetual free discussion in town meeting. They had, moreover, reached a
point where any manifestation of brute force in the course of a
political dispute was exceedingly disgusting and shocking to them. To
their minds, the careless slaughter of six citizens conveyed as much
meaning as a St. Bartholomew massacre would have conveyed to the minds
of men in a lower stage of political development. It was not strange,
therefore, that Samuel Adams and his friends should have been ready to
make the Boston Massacre the occasion of a moral lesson to their
contemporaries. As far as the poor soldiers were concerned, the most
significant fact is that there was no attempt to wreak a paltry
vengeance on them. Brought to trial on a charge of murder, after a
judicious delay of seven months, they were ably defended by John Adams
and Josiah Quincy, and all were acquitted save two, who were convicted
of manslaughter, and let off with slight punishment. There were some
hotheads who grumbled at the verdict, but the people of Boston generally
acquiesced in it, as they showed by immediately choosing John Adams for
their representative in the assembly--a fact which Mr. Lecky calls very
remarkable. Such an event as the Boston Massacre could not fail for a
long time to point a moral among a people so unused to violence and
bloodshed. One of the earliest of American engravers, Paul Revere,
published a quaint coloured engraving of the scene in King Street, which
for a long time was widely circulated, though it has now become very
scarce. At the same time, it was decided that the fatal Fifth of March
should be solemnly commemorated each year by an oration to be delivered
in the Old South Meeting-House; and this custom was kept up until the
recognition of American independence in 1783, when the day for the
oration was changed to the Fourth of July.
[Sidenote: Lord North's ministry]
[Sidenote: The merchants of New York]
Five weeks before the Boston Massacre the Duke of Grafton had resigned,
and Lord North had become prime minister of England. The colonies were
kept under Hillsborough, and that great friend of arbitrary government,
Lord Thurlow, as solicitor-general, became the king's chief legal
adviser. George III was now, to all intents and purposes, his own prime
minister, and remained so until after the overthrow at Yorktown. The
colonial policy of the government soon became more vexatious than ever.
The promised repeal of all the Townshend acts, except the act imposing
the tea-duty, was carried through Parliament in April, and its first
effect in America, as Lord North had foreseen, was to weaken the spirit
of opposition, and to divide the more complaisant colonies from those
that were most staunch. The policy of non-importation had pressed with
special severity upon the commerce of New York, and the merchants there
complained that the fire-eating planters of Virginia and farmers of
Massachusetts were growing rich at the expense of their neighbours. In
July, the New York merchants broke the non-importation agreement, and
sent orders to England for all sorts of merchandise except tea. Such a
measure, on the part of so great a seaport, virtually overthrew the
non-importation policy, upon which the patriots mainly relied to force
the repeal of the Tea Act. The wrath of the other colonies was intense.
At the Boston town meeting the letter of the New York merchants was torn
in pieces. In New Jersey, the students of Princeton College, James
Madison being one of the number, assembled on the green in their black
gowns and solemnly burned the letter, while the church-bells were
tolled. The offending merchants were stigmatized as "Revolters," and in
Charleston their conduct was vehemently denounced. "You had better send
us your old liberty-pole," said Philadelphia to New York, with bitter
sarcasm, "for you clearly have no further use for it."
[Sidenote: Assemblies convened at strange places]
[Sidenote: Taxes in Maryland]
[Sidenote: The North Carolina "Regulators"]
This breaking of the non-importation agreement by New York left no
general issue upon which the colonies could be sure to unite unless the
ministry should proceed to force an issue upon the Tea Act. For the
present, Lord North saw the advantage he had gained, and was not
inclined to take any such step. Nevertheless, as just observed, the
policy of the government soon became more vexatious than ever. In the
summer of 1770, the king entered upon a series of local quarrels with
the different colonies, taking care not to raise any general issue.
Royal instructions were sent over to the different governments,
enjoining courses of action which were unconstitutional and sure to
offend the people. The assemblies were either dissolved, or convened at
strange places, as at Beaufort in South Carolina, more than seventy
miles from the capital, or at Cambridge in Massachusetts. The local
governments were as far as possible ignored, and local officers were
appointed, with salaries to be paid by the Crown. In Massachusetts,
these officers were illegally exempted from the payment of taxes. In
Maryland, where the charter had expressly provided that no taxes could
ever be levied by the British Crown, the governor was ordered to levy
taxes indirectly by reviving a law regulating officers' fees, which had
expired by lapse of time. In North Carolina, excessive fees were
extorted, and the sheriffs in many cases collected taxes of which they
rendered no account. The upper counties of both the Carolinas were
peopled by a hardy set of small farmers and herdsmen, Presbyterians, of
Scotch-Irish pedigree, who were known by the name of "Regulators,"
because, under the exigencies of their rough frontier life, they formed
voluntary associations for the regulation of their own police and the
condign punishment of horse-thieves and other criminals. In 1771, the
North Carolina Regulators, goaded by repeated acts of extortion and of
unlawful imprisonment, rose in rebellion. A battle was fought at
Alamance, near the headwaters of the Cape Fear river, in which the
Regulators were totally defeated by Governor Tryon, leaving more than a
hundred of their number dead and wounded upon the field: and six of
their leaders, taken prisoners, were summarily hanged for treason. After
this achievement Tryon was promoted to the governorship of New York,
where he left his name for a time upon the vaguely defined wilderness
beyond Schenectady, known in the literature of the Revolutionary War as
Tryon County.
[Signature: Wm Tryon]
[Portrait: Step Hopkins]
[Sidenote: Affair of the Gaspee]
In Rhode Island, the eight-gun schooner Gaspee, commanded by Lieutenant
Duddington, was commissioned to enforce the revenue acts along the
coasts of Narragansett Bay, and she set about the work with reckless and
indiscriminating zeal. "Thorough" was Duddington's motto, as it was Lord
Stafford's. He not only stopped and searched every vessel that entered
the bay, and seized whatever goods he pleased, whether there was any
evidence of their being contraband or not, but, besides this, he stole
the sheep and hogs of the farmers near the coast, cut down their trees,
fired upon market-boats, and behaved in general with unbearable
insolence. In March, 1772, the people of Rhode Island complained of
these outrages. The matter was referred to Rear-Admiral Montagu,
commanding the little fleet in Boston harbour. Montagu declared that the
lieutenant was only doing his duty, and threatened the Rhode Island
people in case they should presume to interfere. For three months longer
the Gaspee kept up her irritating behaviour, until one evening in June,
while chasing a swift American ship, she ran aground. The following
night she was attacked by a party of men in eight boats, and captured
after a short skirmish, in which Duddington was severely wounded. The
crew was set on shore, and the schooner was burned to the water's edge.
This act of reprisal was not relished by the government, and large
rewards were offered for the arrest of the men concerned in it; but
although probably everybody knew who they were, it was impossible to
obtain any evidence against them. By a royal order in council, the Rhode
Island government was commanded to arrest the offenders and deliver them
to Rear-Admiral Montagu, to be taken over to England for trial; but
Stephen Hopkins, the venerable chief justice of Rhode Island, flatly
refused to take cognizance of any such arrest if made within the colony.
[Portrait: Jonathan Mayhew]
[Sidenote: The salaries of the judges]
[Sidenote: Jonathan Mayhew's suggestion]
[Sidenote: The committees of correspondence in Massachusetts]
The black thunder clouds of war now gathered quickly. In August, 1772,
the king ventured upon an act which went further than anything that had
yet occurred toward hastening on the crisis. It was ordered that all the
Massachusetts judges, holding their places during the king's pleasure,
should henceforth have their salaries paid by the Crown, and not by the
colony. This act, which aimed directly at the independence of the
judiciary, aroused intense indignation. The people of Massachusetts were
furious, and Samuel Adams now took a step which contributed more than
anything that had yet been done toward organizing the opposition to the
king throughout the whole country. The idea of establishing committees
of correspondence was not wholly new. The great preacher Jonathan Mayhew
had recommended such a step to James Otis in 1766, and he was led to it
through his experience of church matters. Writing in haste, on a Sunday
morning, he said, "To a good man all time is holy enough; and none is
too holy to do good, or to think upon it. Cultivating a good
understanding and hearty friendship between these colonies appears to me
so necessary a part of prudence and good policy that no favourable
opportunity for that purpose should be omitted.... You have heard of the
_communion of churches_: ... while I was thinking of this in my bed, the
great use and importance of a _communion of colonies_ appeared to me in
a strong light, which led me immediately to set down these hints to
transmit to you." The plan which Mayhew had in mind was the
establishment of a regular system of correspondence whereby the colonies
could take combined action in defence of their liberties. In the grand
crisis of 1772, Samuel Adams saw how much might be effected through
committees of correspondence that could not well be effected through
the ordinary governmental machinery of the colonies. At the October town
meeting in Boston, a committee was appointed to ask the governor whether
the judges' salaries were to be paid in conformity to the royal order;
and he was furthermore requested to convoke the assembly, in order that
the people might have a chance to express their views on so important a
matter. But Hutchinson told the committee to mind its own business: he
refused to say what would be done about the salaries, and denied the
right of the town to petition for a meeting of the assembly.
Massachusetts was thus virtually without a general government at a
moment when the public mind was agitated by a question of supreme
importance. Samuel Adams thereupon in town meeting moved the appointment
of a committee of correspondence, "to consist of twenty-one persons, to
state the rights of the colonists and of this province in particular, as
men and Christians and as subjects; and to communicate and publish the
same to the several towns and to the world as the sense of this town,
with the infringements and violations thereof that have been, or from
time to time may be, made." The adoption of this measure at first
excited the scorn of Hutchinson, who described the committee as composed
of "deacons," "atheists," and "black-hearted fellows," whom one would
not care to meet in the dark. He predicted that they would only make
themselves ridiculous, but he soon found reason to change his mind. The
response to the statements of the Boston committee was prompt and
unanimous, and before the end of the year more than eighty towns had
already organized their committees of correspondence. Here was a new
legislative body, springing directly from the people, and competent, as
events soon showed, to manage great affairs. Its influence reached into
every remotest corner of Massachusetts, it was always virtually in
session, and no governor could dissolve or prorogue it. Though unknown
to the law, the creation of it involved no violation of law. The right
of the towns of Massachusetts to ask one another's advice could no more
be disputed than the right of the freemen of any single town to hold a
town meeting. The power thus created was omnipresent, but intangible.
"This," said Daniel Leonard, the great Tory pamphleteer, two years
afterwards, "is the foulest, subtlest, and most venomous serpent ever
issued from the egg of sedition. It is the source of the rebellion. I
saw the small seed when it was planted: it was a grain of mustard. I
have watched the plant until it has become a great tree. The vilest
reptiles that crawl upon the earth are concealed at the root; the
foulest birds of the air rest upon its branches. I would now induce you
to go to work immediately with axes and hatchets and cut it down, for a
twofold reason,--because it is a pest to society, and lest it be felled
suddenly by a stronger arm, and crush its thousands in its fall."
[Signature: Danl Leonard]
[Sidenote: Intercolonial committees of correspondence]
The system of committees of correspondence did indeed grow into a mighty
tree; for it was nothing less than the beginning of the American Union.
Adams himself by no means intended to confine his plan to Massachusetts,
for in the following April he wrote to Richard Henry Lee of Virginia
urging the establishment of similar committees in every colony. But
Virginia had already acted in the matter. When its assembly met in
March, 1773, the news of the refusal of Hopkins to obey the royal order,
of the attack upon the Massachusetts judiciary, and of the organization
of the committees of correspondence was the all-exciting subject of
conversation. The motion to establish a system of intercolonial
committees of correspondence was made by the youthful Dabney Carr, and
eloquently supported by Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee. It was
unanimously adopted, and very soon several other colonies elected
committees, in response to the invitation from Virginia.
[Sidenote: The question of taxation revived]
This was the most decided step toward revolution that had yet been taken
by the Americans. It only remained for the various intercolonial
committees to assemble together, and there would be a Congress speaking
in the name of the continent. To bring about such an act of union,
nothing more was needed than some fresh course of aggression on the part
of the British government which should raise a general issue in all the
colonies; and, with the rare genius for blundering which had possessed
it ever since the accession of George III., the government now went on
to provide such an issue. It was preëminently a moment when the question
of taxation should have been let alone. Throughout the American world
there was a strong feeling of irritation, which might still have been
allayed had the ministry shown a yielding temper. The grounds of
complaint had come to be different in the different colonies, and in
some cases, in which we can clearly see the good sense of Lord North
prevailing over the obstinacy of the king, the ministry had gained a
point by yielding. In the Rhode Island case, they had seized a
convenient opportunity and let the matter drop, to the manifest
advantage of their position. In Massachusetts, the discontent had come
to be alarming, and it was skilfully organized. The assembly had offered
the judges their salaries in the usual form, and had threatened to
impeach them if they should dare to accept a penny from the Crown. The
recent action of Virginia had shown that these two most powerful of the
colonies were in strong sympathy with one another. It was just this
moment that George III. chose for reviving the question of taxation,
upon which all the colonies would be sure to act as a unit, and sure to
withstand him to his face. The duty on tea had been retained simply as a
matter of principle. It did not bring three hundred pounds a year into
the British exchequer. But the king thought this a favourable time for
asserting the obnoxious principle which the tax involved.
[Signature: Dartmouth]
[Sidenote: The king's ingenious scheme]
Thus, as in Mrs. Gamp's case, a teapot became the cause or occasion of a
division between friends. The measures now taken by the government
brought matters at once to a crisis. None of the colonies would take
tea on its terms. Lord Hillsborough had lately been superseded as
colonial secretary by Lord Dartmouth, an amiable man like the prime
minister, but like him wholly under the influence of the king. Lord
Dartmouth's appointment was made the occasion of introducing a series of
new measures. The affairs of the East India Company were in a bad
condition, and it was thought that the trouble was partly due to the
loss of the American trade in tea. The Americans would not buy tea
shipped from England, but they smuggled it freely from Holland, and the
smuggling could not be stopped by mere force. The best way to obviate
the difficulty, it was thought, would be to make English tea cheaper in
America than foreign tea, while still retaining the duty of threepence
on a pound. If this could be achieved, it was supposed that the
Americans would be sure to buy English tea by reason of its cheapness,
and would thus be ensnared into admitting the principle involved in the
duty. This ingenious scheme shows how unable the king and his ministers
were to imagine that the Americans could take a higher view of the
matter than that of pounds, shillings, and pence. In order to enable the
East India Company to sell its tea cheap in America, a drawback was
allowed of all the duties which such tea had been wont to pay on
entering England on its way from China. In this way, the Americans would
now find it actually cheaper to buy the English tea with the duty on it
than to smuggle their tea from Holland. To this scheme, Lord North said,
it was of no use for any one to offer objections, for the king would
have it so. "The king meant to try the question with America." In
accordance with this policy, several ships loaded with tea set sail in
the autumn of 1773 for the four principal ports, Boston, New York,
Philadelphia, and Charleston. Agents or consignees of the East India
Company were appointed by letter to receive the tea in these four towns.
[Sidenote: How Boston became the battle-ground]
As soon as the details of this scheme were known in America, the whole
country was in a blaze, from Maine to Georgia. Nevertheless, only legal
measures of resistance were contemplated. In Philadelphia, a great
meeting was held in October at the State House, and it was voted that
whosoever should lend countenance to the receiving or unloading of the
tea would be regarded as an enemy to his country. The consignees were
then requested to resign their commissions, and did so. In New York and
Charleston, also, the consignees threw up their commissions. In Boston,
a similar demand was made, but the consignees doggedly refused to
resign; and thus the eyes of the whole country were directed toward
Boston as the battlefield on which the great issue was to be tried.
[Illustration: LORD NORTH POURING TEA DOWN COLUMBIA'S THROAT]
[Sidenote: The five towns ask advice]
During the month of November many town meetings were held in Faneuil
Hall. On the 17th, authentic intelligence was brought that the tea-ships
would soon arrive. The next day, a committee, headed by Samuel Adams,
waited upon the consignees, and again asked them to resign. Upon their
refusal, the town meeting instantly dissolved itself, without a word of
comment or debate; and at this ominous silence the consignees and the
governor were filled with a vague sense of alarm, as if some storm were
brewing whereof none could foresee the results. All felt that the
decision now rested with the committees of correspondence. Four days
afterward, the committees of Cambridge, Brookline, Roxbury, and
Dorchester met the Boston committee at Faneuil Hall, and it was
unanimously resolved that on no account should the tea be landed. The
five towns also sent a letter to all the other towns in the colony,
saying, "Brethren, we are reduced to this dilemma: either to sit down
quiet under this and every other burden that our enemies shall see fit
to lay upon us, or to rise up and resist this and every plan laid for
our destruction, as becomes wise freemen. In this extremity we
earnestly request your advice." There was nothing weak or doubtful in
the response. From Petersham and Lenox perched on their lofty hilltops,
from the valleys of the Connecticut and the Merrimack, from Chatham on
the bleak peninsula of Cape Cod, there came but one message,--to give up
life and all that makes life dear, rather than submit like slaves to
this great wrong. Similar words of encouragement came from other
colonies. In Philadelphia, at the news of the bold stand Massachusetts
was about to take, the church-bells were rung, and there was general
rejoicing about the streets. A letter from the men of Philadelphia to
the men of Boston said, "Our only fear is lest you may shrink. May God
give you virtue enough to save the liberties of your country."
[Sidenote: Arrival of the tea; meeting at the Old South]
On Sunday, the 28th, the Dartmouth, first of the tea-ships, arrived in
the harbour. The urgency of the business in hand overcame the
sabbatarian scruples of the people. The committee of correspondence met
at once, and obtained from Francis Rotch, the owner of the vessel, a
promise that the ship should not be entered before Tuesday. Samuel Adams
then invited the committees of the five towns, to which Charlestown was
now added, to hold a mass-meeting the next morning at Faneuil Hall. More
than five thousand people assembled, but as the Cradle of Liberty could
not hold so many, the meeting was adjourned to the Old South
Meeting-House. It was voted, without a single dissenting voice, that the
tea should be sent back to England in the ship which had brought it.
Rotch was forbidden to enter the ship at the Custom House, and Captain
Hall, the ship's master, was notified that "it was at his peril if he
suffered any of the tea brought by him to be landed." A night-watch of
twenty-five citizens was set to guard the vessel, and so the meeting
adjourned till next day, when it was understood that the consignees
would be ready to make some proposals in the matter. Next day, the
message was brought from the consignees that it was out of their power
to send back the tea; but if it should be landed, they declared
themselves willing to store it, and not expose any of it for sale until
word could be had from England. Before action could be taken upon this
message, the sheriff of Suffolk county entered the church and read a
proclamation from the governor, warning the people to disperse and
"surcease all further unlawful proceedings at their utmost peril." A
storm of hisses was the only reply, and the business of the meeting went
on. The proposal of the consignees was rejected, and Rotch and Hall,
being present, were made to promise that the tea should go back to
England in the Dartmouth, without being landed or paying duty.
Resolutions were then passed, forbidding all owners or masters of ships
to bring any tea from Great Britain to any part of Massachusetts, so
long as the act imposing a duty on it remained unrepealed. Whoever
should disregard this injunction would be treated as an enemy to his
country, his ships would be prevented from landing--by force, if
necessary--and his tea would be sent back to the place whence it came.
It was further voted that the citizens of Boston and the other towns
here assembled would see that these resolutions were carried into
effect, "at the risk of their lives and property." Notice of these
resolutions was sent to the owners of the other ships, now daily
expected. And, to crown all, a committee, of which Adams was chairman,
was appointed to send a printed copy of these proceedings to New York
and Philadelphia, to every seaport in Massachusetts, and to the British
government.
[Sidenote: The tea-ships placed under guard]
Two or three days after this meeting, the other two ships arrived, and,
under orders from the committee of correspondence, were anchored by the
side of the Dartmouth, at Griffin's Wharf, near the foot of Pearl
Street. A military watch was kept at the wharf day and night, sentinels
were placed in the church belfries, chosen post-riders, with horses
saddled and bridled, were ready to alarm the neighbouring towns,
beacon-fires were piled all ready for lighting upon every hilltop, and
any attempt to land the tea forcibly would have been the signal for an
instant uprising throughout at least four counties. Now, in accordance
with the laws providing for the entry and clearance of shipping at
custom houses, it was necessary that every ship should land its cargo
within twenty days from its arrival. In case this was not done, the
revenue officers were authorized to seize the ship and land its cargo
themselves. In the case of the Dartmouth, the captain had promised to
take her back to England without unloading; but still, before she could
legally start, she must obtain a clearance from the collector of
customs, or, in default of this, a pass from the governor. At sunrise of
Friday, the 17th of December, the twenty days would have expired.
[Illustration: THE OLD SOUTH MEETING-HOUSE]
On Saturday, the 11th, Rotch was summoned before the committee of
correspondence, and Samuel Adams asked him why he had not kept his
promise, and started his ship off for England. He sought to excuse
himself on the ground that he had not the power to do so, whereupon he
was told that he must apply to the collector for a clearance. Hearing of
these things, the governor gave strict orders at the Castle to fire upon
any vessel trying to get out to sea without a proper permit; and two
ships from Montagu's fleet, which had been laid up for the winter, were
stationed at the entrance of the harbour, to make sure against the
Dartmouth's going out. Tuesday came, and Rotch, having done nothing, was
summoned before the town meeting, and peremptorily ordered to apply for
a clearance. Samuel Adams and nine other gentlemen accompanied him to
the Custom House to witness the proceedings, but the collector refused
to give an answer until the next day. The meeting then adjourned till
Thursday, the last of the twenty days. On Wednesday morning, Rotch was
again escorted to the Custom House, and the collector refused to give a
clearance unless the tea should first be landed.
[Illustration: TABLE AND CHAIR FROM GOVERNOR HUTCHINSON'S HOUSE AT
MILTON]
[Sidenote: Town meeting at the Old South]
[Sidenote: The tea thrown into the harbour]
On the morning of Thursday, December 16th, the assembly which was
gathered in the Old South Meeting-House, and in the streets about it,
numbered more than seven thousand people. It was to be one of the most
momentous days in the history of the world. The clearance having been
refused, nothing now remained but to order Rotch to request a pass for
his ship from the governor. But the wary Hutchinson, well knowing what
was about to be required of him, had gone out to his country house at
Milton, so as to foil the proceedings by his absence. But the meeting
was not to be so trifled with. Rotch was enjoined, on his peril, to
repair to the governor at Milton, and ask for his pass; and while he was
gone, the meeting considered what was to be done in case of a refusal.
Without a pass it would be impossible for the ship to clear the harbour
under the guns of the Castle; and by sunrise, next morning, the revenue
officers would be empowered to seize the ship, and save by a violent
assault upon them it would be impossible to prevent the landing of the
tea. "Who knows," said John Rowe, "how tea will mingle with salt water?"
And great applause followed the suggestion. Yet the plan which was to
serve as a last resort had unquestionably been adopted in secret
committee long before this. It appears to have been worked out in detail
in a little back room at the office of the "Boston Gazette," and there
is no doubt that Samuel Adams, with some others of the popular leaders,
had a share in devising it. But among the thousands present at the town
meeting, it is probable that very few knew just what it was designed to
do. At five in the afternoon, it was unanimously voted that, come what
would, the tea should not be landed. It had now grown dark, and the
church was dimly lighted with candles. Determined not to act until the
last legal method of relief should have been tried and found wanting,
the great assembly was still waiting quietly in and about the church
when, an hour after nightfall, Rotch returned from Milton with the
governor's refusal. Then, amid profound stillness, Samuel Adams arose
and said, quietly but distinctly, "This meeting can do nothing more to
save the country." It was the declaration of war; the law had shown
itself unequal to the occasion, and nothing now remained but a direct
appeal to force. Scarcely had the watchword left his mouth when a
war-whoop answered from outside the door, and fifty men in the guise of
Mohawk Indians passed quickly by the entrance, and hastened to Griffin's
Wharf. Before the nine o'clock bell rang, the three hundred and
forty-two chests of tea laden upon the three ships had been cut open,
and their contents emptied into the sea. Not a person was harmed; no
other property was injured; and the vast crowd, looking upon the scene
from the wharf in the clear frosty moonlight, was so still that the
click of the hatchets could be distinctly heard. Next morning, the
salted tea, as driven by wind and wave, lay in long rows on Dorchester
beach, while Paul Revere, booted and spurred, was riding post-haste to
Philadelphia, with the glorious news that Boston had at last thrown down
the gauntlet for the king of England to pick up.
[Portrait: John Adams]
This heroic action of Boston was greeted with public rejoicing
throughout all the thirteen colonies, and the other principal seaports
were not slow to follow the example. A ship laden with two hundred and
fifty-seven chests of tea had arrived at Charleston on the 2d of
December; but the consignees had resigned, and after twenty days the
ship's cargo was seized and landed; and so, as there was no one to
receive it, or pay the duty, it was thrown into a damp cellar, where it
spoiled. In Philadelphia, on the 25th, a ship arrived with tea; but a
meeting of five thousand men forced the consignees to resign, and the
captain straightway set sail for England, the ship having been stopped
before it had come within the jurisdiction of the custom house.
[Sidenote: Grandeur of the Boston Tea Party]
In Massachusetts, the exultation knew no bounds. "This," said John
Adams, "is the most magnificent movement of all. There is a dignity, a
majesty, a sublimity, in this last effort of the patriots that I greatly
admire." Indeed, often as it has been cited and described, the Boston
Tea Party was an event so great that even American historians have
generally failed to do it justice. This supreme assertion by a New
England town meeting of the most fundamental principle of political
freedom has been curiously misunderstood by British writers, of whatever
party. The most recent Tory historian, Mr. Lecky,[2] speaks of "the
Tea-riot at Boston," and characterizes it as an "outrage." The most
recent Liberal historian, Mr. Green, alludes to it as "a trivial riot."
Such expressions betray most profound misapprehension alike of the
significance of this noble scene and of the political conditions in
which it originated. There is no difficulty in defining a riot. The
pages of history teem with accounts of popular tumults, wherein passion
breaks loose and wreaks its fell purpose, unguided and unrestrained by
reason. No definition could be further from describing the colossal
event which occurred in Boston on the 16th of December, 1773. Here
passion was guided and curbed by sound reason at every step, down to the
last moment, in the dim candle-light of the old church, when the noble
Puritan statesman quietly told his hearers that the moment for using
force had at last, and through no fault of theirs, arrived. They had
reached a point where the written law had failed them; and in their
effort to defend the eternal principles of natural justice, they were
now most reluctantly compelled to fall back upon the paramount law of
self-preservation. It was the one supreme moment in a controversy
supremely important to mankind, and in which the common-sense of the
world has since acknowledged that they were wholly in the right. It was
the one moment of all that troubled time in which no compromise was
possible. "Had the tea been landed," says the contemporary historian,
William Gordon, "the union of the colonies in opposing the ministerial
scheme would have been dissolved; and it would have been extremely
difficult ever after to have restored it." In view of the stupendous
issues at stake, the patience of the men of Boston was far more
remarkable than their boldness. For the quiet sublimity of reasonable
but dauntless moral purpose, the heroic annals of Greece and Rome can
show us no greater scene than that which the Old South Meeting-House
witnessed on the day when the tea was destroyed.
[Portrait: Geo. Germain]
[Sidenote: How Parliament received the news]
When the news of this affair reached England, it was quite naturally
pronounced by Lord North a fitting culmination to years of riot and
lawlessness. This, said Lord George Germain, is what comes of their
wretched old town meetings. The Americans have really no government.
These "are the proceedings of a tumultuous and riotous rabble, who
ought, if they had the least prudence, to follow their mercantile
employments, and not trouble themselves with politics and government,
which they do not understand. Some gentlemen say, 'Oh, don't break their
charter; don't take away rights granted them by the predecessors of the
Crown.' Whoever wishes to preserve such charters, I wish him no worse
than to govern such subjects." "These remarks," said Lord North, "are
worthy of a great mind." "If we take a determined stand now," said Lord
Mansfield, "Boston will submit, and all will end in victory without
carnage." "The town of Boston," said Mr. Venn, "ought to be knocked
about their ears and destroyed. You will never meet with proper
obedience to the laws of this country until you have destroyed that
nest of locusts." General Gage, who had just come home on a visit,
assured the king that the other colonies might speak fair words to
Massachusetts, but would do nothing to help her; and he offered with
four regiments to make a speedy end of the whole matter. "They will be
lions," said Gage, "while we are lambs; but if we take the resolute
part, they will prove very meek, I promise you." It was in this spirit
and under the influence of these ideas that the ministry took up the
business of dealing with the refractory colony of Massachusetts. Lord
North proposed a series of five measures, which from the king's point of
view would serve, not only to heal the wounded pride of Great Britain,
but also to prevent any more riotous outbreaks among this lawless
American people. Just at this moment, the opposition ventured upon a
bold stroke. Fox said truly that no plan for pacifying the colonies
would be worth a rush unless the unconditional repeal of the Tea Act
should form part of it. A bill for the repealing of the Tea Act was
brought in by Fuller, and a lively debate ensued, in the course of which
Edmund Burke made one of the weightiest speeches ever heard in the House
of Commons; setting forth in all the wealth of his knowledge the extreme
danger of the course upon which the ministry had entered, and showing
how little good fruit was to be expected from a coercive policy, even if
successful. Burke was ably supported by Fox, Conway, Barré, Savile,
Dowdeswell, Pownall, and Dunning. But the current had set too strongly
against conciliation. Lord North sounded the keynote of the whole
British policy when he said, "To repeal the tea-duty would stamp us with
timidity." Come what might, it would never do for the Americans to get
it into their heads that the government was not all-powerful. They must
be humbled first, that they might be reasoned with afterwards. The
tea-duty, accordingly, was not repealed, but Lord North's five acts for
the better regulation of American affairs were all passed by Parliament.
[Sidenote: The Boston Port Bill]
By the first act, known as the Boston Port Bill, no ships were to be
allowed to enter or clear the port of Boston until the rebellious town
should have indemnified the East India Company for the loss of its tea,
and should otherwise have made it appear to the king that it would
hereafter show a spirit of submission. Marblehead was made a port of
entry instead of Boston, and Salem was made the seat of government.
[Sidenote: The Regulating Act]
By the second act, known as the Regulating Act, the charter of
Massachusetts was annulled without preliminary notice, and her free
government was destroyed. Under the charter, the members of the council
for each year were chosen in a convention consisting of the council of
the preceding year and the assembly. Each councillor held office for a
year, and was paid out of an appropriation made by the assembly. Now,
hereafter, the members of the council were to be appointed by the
governor on a royal writ of _mandamus_, their salaries were to be paid
by the Crown, and they could be removed from office at the king's
pleasure. The governor was empowered to appoint all judges and officers
of courts, and all such officers were to be paid by the king and to hold
office during his pleasure. The governor and his dependent council could
appoint sheriffs and remove them without assigning any reason, and these
dependent sheriffs were to have the sole right of returning juries. But,
worse than all, the town-meeting system of local self-government was
ruthlessly swept away. Town meetings could indeed be held twice a year
for the election of town officers, but no other business could be
transacted in them. The effect of all these changes would, of course, be
to concentrate all power in the hands of the governor, leaving no check
whatever upon his arbitrary will. It would, in short, transform the
commonwealth of Massachusetts into an absolute despotism, such as no
Englishman had ever lived under in any age. And this tremendous act was
to go into operation on the first day of the following June.
[Illustration: VIRTUAL REPRESENTATION. _1775._
April 1 1775 Price 6.^{d}
1. One String Jack. Deliver your Property.
2. Began Just so in France } Accomplices
3. Te Deum }
4. I Give you that man's money for my use
5. I will not be Robbed
6. I shall be wounded with you
7. I am Blinded
8. The French Roman Cathlick Town of Quebeck
9. The English Protestant Town of Boston
The king's friends were fond of asserting that the Americans were
"virtually represented" in Parliament, through their British
friends in that body. On the back of the copy of this broadside,
"Virtual Representation," in the possession of the Massachusetts
Historical Society, is the following explanation, in the
handwriting of the time:--
"A full explanation of the within print.--No. 1 intends the K--g of
G. B., to whom the House of Commons (4) gives the Americans' money
for the use of that very H. of C., and which he is endeavouring to
take away with the power of cannon. No. 2, by a Frenchman signifies
the tyranny that is intended for America. No. 3, the figure of a
Roman Catholic priest with his crucifix and gibbet, assisting
George in enforcing his tyrannical system of civil and religious
government. Nos. 5 and 6 are honest American yeomen, who oppose an
oaken staff to G----'s cannon, and determine they will not be
robbed. No. 7 is poor Britannia blindfolded, falling into the
bottomless pit which her infamous rulers have prepared for the
Americans. Nos. 8, 9 represent Boston in flames and Quebec
triumphant, to show the probable consequence of submission to the
present wicked ministerial system, that popery and tyranny will
triumph over true religion, virtue, and liberty."]
[Sidenote: The shooting of citizens]
By the third act--a pet measure of George III., to which Lord North
assented with great reluctance--it was provided that if any magistrate,
soldier, or revenue officer in Massachusetts should be indicted for
murder, he should be tried, not in Massachusetts, but in Great Britain.
This measure--though doubtless unintentionally--served to encourage the
soldiery in shooting down peaceful citizens, and it led by a natural
sequence to the bloodshed on Lexington green. It was defended on the
ground that in case of any chance affray between soldiers and citizens,
it would not be possible for the soldiers to obtain a fair trial in
Massachusetts. Less than four years had elapsed since Preston's men had
been so readily acquitted of murder after the shooting in King Street,
but such facts were of no avail now. The momentous bill passed in the
House of Commons by a vote of more than four to one, in spite of Colonel
Barré's ominous warnings.
By the fourth act all legal obstacles to the quartering of troops in
Boston or any other town in Massachusetts were swept away.
[Sidenote: The Quebec Act]
By the fifth act, known as the Quebec Act, the free exercise of the
Catholic religion was sanctioned throughout Canada,--a very judicious
measure of religious toleration, which concerned the other colonies but
little, however it might in some cases offend their prejudices. But this
act went on to extend the boundaries of Canada southward to the Ohio
river, in defiance of the territorial claims of Massachusetts,
Connecticut, New York, and Virginia. This extensive region, the part of
North America which was next to be colonized by men of English race, was
to be governed by a viceroy, with despotic powers; and such people as
should come to live there were to have neither popular meetings, nor
_habeas corpus_, nor freedom of the press. "This," said Lord Thurlow,
"is the only sort of constitution fit for a colony,"--and all the
American colonies, he significantly added, had better be reduced to this
condition as soon as possible.
[Sidenote: Gage sent to Boston]
When all these acts had been passed, in April, 1774, General Gage was
commissioned to supersede Hutchinson temporarily as governor of
Massachusetts, and was sent over with as little delay as possible,
together with the four regiments which were to scare the people into
submission. On the first day of June, he was to close the port of Boston
and begin starving the town into good behaviour; he was to arrest the
leading patriots and send them to England for trial; and he was
expressly authorized to use his own discretion as to allowing the
soldiers to fire upon the people. All these measures for enslaving
peaceful and law-abiding Englishmen the king of England now
contemplated, as he himself declared, "with supreme satisfaction."
In recounting such measures as these, the historian is tempted to pause
for a moment, and ask whether it could really have been an _English_
government that planned and decreed such things. From the autocratic
mouth of an Artaxerxes or an Abderrahman one would naturally expect such
edicts to issue. From the misguided cabinets of Spain and France, in
evil times, measures in spirit like these had been known to proceed. But
our dear mother-country had for ages stood before the world as the
staunch defender of personal liberty and of local self-government; and
through the mighty strength which this spirit of freedom, and nothing
else, had given her, she had won the high privilege of spreading her
noble and beneficent political ideas over the best part of the habitable
globe. Yet in the five acts of this political tragedy of 1774 we find
England arrayed in hostility to every principle of public justice which
Englishmen had from time immemorial held sacred. Upon the great
continent which she had so lately won from the French champions of
despotism, we see her vainly seeking to establish a tyrannical _régime_
no better than that which but yesterday it had been her glory to
overthrow. Such was the strange, the humiliating, the self-contradictory
attitude into which England had at length been brought by the selfish
Tory policy of George III.!
But this policy was no less futile than it was unworthy of the noble,
freedom-loving English people. For after that fated 1st of June, the
sovereign authority of Great Britain, whether exerted through king or
through Parliament, was never more to be recognized by the men of
Massachusetts.
FOOTNOTES:
[2] In his account of the American Revolution, Mr. Lecky inclines to
the Tory side, but he is eminently fair and candid.
CHAPTER III
THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS
[Portrait: Tho.' Gage]
[Illustration: FOX AND BURKE DENOUNCING LORD NORTH
(_A contemporary caricature_)]
[Sidenote: Belief that the Americans would not fight]
The unfortunate measures of April, 1774, were not carried through
Parliament without earnest opposition. Lord Rockingham and his friends
entered a protest on the journal of the House of Lords, on the grounds
that the people of Massachusetts had not been heard in their own
defence, and that the lives and liberties of the citizens were put
absolutely into the hands of the governor and council, who were thus
invested with greater powers than it had ever been thought wise to
entrust to the king and his privy council in Great Britain. They
concluded, therefore, that the acts were unconstitutional. The Duke of
Richmond could not restrain his burning indignation. "I wish," said he
in the House of Lords,--"I wish from the bottom of my heart that the
Americans may resist, and get the better of the forces sent against
them." But that the Americans really would resist, very few people in
England believed. The conduct of the ministry was based throughout upon
the absurd idea that the Americans could be frightened into submission.
General Gage, as we have seen, thought that four regiments would be
enough to settle the whole business. Lord Sandwich said that the
Americans were a set of undisciplined cowards, who would take to their
heels at the first sound of a cannon. Even Hutchinson, who went over to
England about this time, and who ought to have known of what stuff the
men of Massachusetts were made, assured the king that they could hardly
be expected to resist a regular army. Such blunders, however, need not
surprise us when we recollect how, just before the war of secession, the
people of the southern and of the northern states made similar mistakes
with regard to each other. In 1860, it was commonly said by Southern
people that Northern people would submit to anything rather than fight;
and in support of this opinion, it was sometimes asked, "If the Northern
people are not arrant cowards, why do they never have duels?" On the
other hand, it was commonly said at the North that the Southern people,
however bravely they might bluster, would never enter upon a war of
secession, because it was really much more for their interest to remain
in the Federal Union than to secede from it,--an argument which lost
sight of one of the commonest facts in human life, that under the
influence of strong passion men are unable to take just views of what
concerns their own interests. Such examples show how hard it often is
for one group of men to understand another group, even when they are all
of the same blood and speech, and think alike about most matters that do
not touch the particular subject in dispute. Nothing could have been
surer, either in 1860, or in 1774, than that the one party to the
quarrel was as bold and brave as the other.
[Sidenote: Belief that Massachusetts would not be supported by the other
colonies]
Another fatal error under which the ministry laboured was the belief
that Massachusetts would not be supported by the other colonies. Their
mistake was not unlike that which ruined the plans of Napoleon III.,
when he declared war upon Prussia in 1870. There was no denying the fact
of strong jealousies among the American colonies in 1774, as there was
no denying the fact of strong jealousies between the northern and
southern German states in 1870. But the circumstances under which
Napoleon III. made war on Prussia happened to be such as to enlist all
the German states in the common cause with her. And so it was with the
war of George III. against Massachusetts. As soon as the charter of that
colony was annulled, all the other colonies felt that their liberties
were in jeopardy; and thence, as Fox truly said, "all were taught to
consider the town of Boston as suffering in the common cause."
[Sidenote: News of the Port Bill]
News of the Boston Port Bill was received in America on the 10th of May.
On the 12th the committees of several Massachusetts towns held a
convention at Faneuil Hall, and adopted a circular letter, prepared by
Samuel Adams, to be sent to all the other colonies, asking for their
sympathy and coöperation. The response was prompt and emphatic. In the
course of the summer, conventions were held in nearly all the colonies,
declaring that Boston should be regarded as "suffering in the common
cause." The obnoxious acts of Parliament were printed on paper with deep
black borders, and in some towns were publicly burned by the common
hangman. Droves of cattle and flocks of sheep, cartloads of wheat and
maize, kitchen vegetables and fruit, barrels of sugar, quintals of dried
fish, provisions of every sort, were sent overland as free gifts to the
people of the devoted city, even the distant rice-swamps of South
Carolina contributing their share. The over-cautious Franklin had
written from London, suggesting that perhaps it might be best, after
all, for Massachusetts to indemnify the East India Company; but Gadsden,
with a sounder sense of the political position, sent word, "Don't pay
for an ounce of the damned tea." Throughout the greater part of the
country the 1st of June was kept as a day of fasting and prayer; bells
were muffled and tolled in the principal churches; ships in the harbours
put their flags at half-mast. Marblehead, which was appointed to
supersede Boston as port of entry, immediately invited the merchants of
Boston to use its wharfs and warehouses free of charge in shipping and
unshipping their goods. A policy of absolute non-importation was
advocated by many of the colonies, though Pennsylvania, under the
influence of Dickinson, still vainly cherishing hopes of reconciliation,
hung back, and advised that the tea should be paid for. As usual, the
warmest sympathy with New England came from Virginia. "If need be," said
Washington, "I will raise one thousand men, subsist them at my own
expense, and march myself at their head for the relief of Boston."
[Portrait: John Hancock]
[Sidenote: Samuel Adams at Salem]
To insure concerted action on the part of the whole country, something
more was required than these general expressions and acts of sympathy.
The proposal for a Continental Congress came first from the Sons of
Liberty in New York; it was immediately taken up by the members of the
Virginia House of Burgesses, sitting in convention at the Raleigh
tavern, after the governor had dissolved them as a legislature; and
Massachusetts was invited to appoint the time and place for the meeting
of the Congress. On the 7th of June the Massachusetts assembly was
convened at Salem by General Gage, in conformity with the provisions of
the Port Bill. Samuel Adams always preferred to use the ordinary means
of transacting public business so long as they were of avail, and he
naturally wished to have the act appointing a Continental Congress
passed by the assembly. But this was not easy to bring about, for upon
the first hint that any such business was to come up the governor would
be sure to dissolve the assembly. In such case it would be necessary for
the committees of correspondence throughout Massachusetts to hold a
convention for the purpose of appointing the time and place for the
Congress and of electing delegates to attend it. But Adams preferred to
have these matters decided in regular legislative session, and he
carried his point. Having talked privately with several of the members,
at last on the 17th of June--a day which a twelvemonth hence was to
become so famous--the favourable moment came. Having had the door
locked, he introduced his resolves, appointing five delegates to confer
with duly appointed delegates from the other colonies, in a Continental
Congress at Philadelphia on the 1st of September next. Some of the
members, astonished and frightened, sought to pass out; and as the
doorkeeper seemed uneasy at assuming so much responsibility, Samuel
Adams relieved him of it by taking the key from the door and putting it
into his own pocket, whereupon the business of the assembly went on.
Soon one of the Tory members pretended to be very sick, and being
allowed to go out, made all haste to Governor Gage, who instantly drew
up his writ dissolving the assembly, and sent his secretary with it.
When the secretary got there, he found the door locked, and as nobody
would let him in or pay any attention to him, he was obliged to content
himself with reading the writ, in a loud voice, to the crowd which had
assembled on the stairs. The assembly meanwhile passed the resolves by
117 to 12, elected Samuel and John Adams, Thomas Cushing, and Robert
Treat Paine as delegates, assessed the towns in the commonwealth for the
necessary expenses, passed measures for the relief of Boston, and
adjourned _sine die_. All the other colonies except Georgia, in the
course of the summer, accepted the invitation, and chose delegates,
either through their assemblies or through special conventions. Georgia
sent no delegates, but promised to adopt any course of action that
should be determined upon.
[Sidenote: Massachusetts nullifies the Regulating Act]
Before the time appointed for the Congress, Massachusetts had set the
Regulating Act at defiance. On the 16th of August, when the court
assembled at Great Barrington, a vast multitude of farmers surrounded
the court house and forbade the judges to transact any business. Two or
three of the councillors newly appointed on the king's writ of
_mandamus_ yielded in advance to public opinion, and refused to take
their places. Those who accepted were forced to resign. At Worcester
2,000 men assembled on the common, and compelled Timothy Paine to make
his resignation in writing. The councillor appointed from Bridgewater
was a deacon; when he read the psalm the congregation refused to sing.
In Plymouth one of the most honoured citizens, George Watson, accepted a
place on the council; as he took his seat in church on the following
Sunday, the people got up and began to walk out of the house. Overcome
with shame, for a moment his venerable gray head sank upon the pew
before him; then he rose up and vowed that he would resign. In Boston
the justices and barri
Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/41266